Your update on Canada’s HRCs coming to you three times a week:
– The CHRT says it does not have the power to rescind the retirement policy – but it does have the power to severely punish Air Canada whenever it applies their policy. Huh?
– The complainants, after undergoing retraining, will jump the queue to operate the equipment that they are “entitled to”.
– The specious legal reasoning that I call the “McDonald’s Argument” strikes again – if the respondent is a massive company then huge payouts in litigation are justified solely because the respondent won’t even notice that the money is gone. Look in section 164:
Further, in limiting retroactive relief, Hyslop requires that fairness to the litigants be considered. In my opinion, the balance in terms of fairness, favors the complainants. The complainants are two in number. There is no evidence that their reinstatement at the seniority numbers they claim would have any negative effect on Air Canada’s operations.
Not to mention the amusing statement that “fairness favors the complainants.”
Second: The unintended (hopefully) consequence of outlawing drug and alcohol testing: “Give us your drunk, your intoxicated, and your addicted! We need them to run a mine!”
There’s been some confusion about whether anyone who drinks or uses drugs should think of applying for jobs at Hope Bay.
But pre-job drug and alcohol testing is not part of the Newmont hiring process, Hanks said.
And it’s “not the plan” to introduce any drug or alcohol testing at Newmont’s operations in Canada, he said.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s policy on alcohol and drug testing says pre-employment drug or alcohol testing, random drug testing, and random alcohol testing of employees who are in safety-sensitive positions are not acceptable.