Preview Extract
This Document Contains Chapters 1 to 3 CHAPTER 1 An Introduction to Recruitment and Selection SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. How can HR professionals demonstrate that they add value to a company’s bottom line? Answer: Numerous measures can be assessed to determine the impact of effective human resources management practices at the organizational level. The authors shared some of the research, leading to the following conclusions: • Recruitment and selection can lead to an organization’s success or failure. • Differences in skills among job candidates translate into performance differences on the job. • Hiring the right people with the right skills leads to positive economic outcomes for an organization. • Effective recruitment and selection contribute to the competitive advantage of an organization. • Best practices in recruitment and selection reduce employee turnover and increase productivity. • Recruitment and selection contribute to profits. • Productivity and profitability are affected by recruitment and selection. • Employee trust is strengthened through effective recruitment and selection practices. • The knowledge, skills, and abilities of an organization’s current and future employees are improved. • Best practices in recruitment and selection increase employee motivation and retention. 2. What are possible consequences of using poor or outdated recruitment and selection practices? Answer: A company using poor or outdated recruitment and selection practices sets itself up for reliance on hunches, gut feelings, or unproven procedures. The use of these practices can have serious negative financial consequences for an organization, and the HR department may be unable to defend its recruitment and selection practices. 3. What should be the strategic objectives of any recruitment and selection plan? Answer: There are two basic principles that underlie the Human Resource System presented in Figure 1.1, Example of a Human Resources System. First, HRM must carefully coordinate its activities with the other organizational units and people if the larger system is to function properly, and, second, HRM must think strategically in systems terms and have the welfare of the whole organization in mind. HR plans need to be aligned with overall organizational strategies and statements or they may be irrelevant to senior managers. Effective recruitment and selection plans should lead to hiring the right people, who will work collectively and effectively toward organizational goals. 4. Discuss the impact that current socio-economic conditions are having on recruitment and selection practices. The current socio-economic conditions are affecting global competition; the rate at which information technology is advancing; work force demographics; unionized work environments; organizations’ type, size, and position in the marketplace; increases in government regulations; and societal pressures for conformity to ethical, environmental, and human rights standards. 5. What are ethics and how do they relate to recruitment and selection? Answer: Ethics are the means by which we determine right and wrong. The term ethics is used to refer to the standards of appropriate conduct or behaviour for members of a profession—that is, what those members may or may not do. Ethics is a difficult subject because it deals with the large grey area between those behaviours that society punishes as illegal and those that everyone readily agrees are noble and upright. A careful consideration of ethics is important because HRM requires the balancing of the rights and interests of management with those of workers, as well as the rights and interests of the HR professional with those of the larger society. EXERCISES 1. Visit the Statistics Canada website to determine the current socio-economic and demographic composition of the Canadian work force. Identify how these factors may have an impact on HR recruitment and selection. Illustrate with examples. Answer: To get the composition numbers, go to: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm As Canadian demographics change, so do Canadian work force statistics. For example, as immigration to Canada increases, so do the number of immigrant applicants to the total Canadian work force. This may require that organizations adjust their training programs to accommodate a multicultural perspective. Further, the age of the Canadian work force is increasing. This, combined with a decline in mandated “retirement ages” in all provinces, means that workplaces and their HR policies may need to be redesigned to accommodate the various needs of older persons as required by law (student answers will vary). 1. Age Distribution: Canada has a diverse age demographic, with a significant proportion of both younger and older workers. HR departments need to consider age diversity in their recruitment strategies to ensure they attract talent from different age groups. For example, they may need to adapt their communication channels and messaging to effectively reach younger candidates through social media platforms while also considering the preferences and needs of older candidates who may prefer traditional job boards or in-person networking events. 2. Ethnic Diversity: Canada is known for its cultural diversity, with a large proportion of the population belonging to various ethnic groups. HR recruitment efforts should aim to promote diversity and inclusion by actively seeking candidates from different ethnic backgrounds. This may involve implementing diversity initiatives, partnering with community organizations, and ensuring job postings are accessible to candidates from diverse backgrounds. For instance, a company might participate in career fairs targeted at specific ethnic communities to attract a diverse pool of candidates. 3. Educational Attainment: The Canadian workforce includes individuals with varying levels of educational attainment, from high school graduates to postgraduate degree holders. HR departments must tailor their recruitment and selection processes to accommodate candidates with different educational backgrounds. For example, they may offer training and development programs to support the career advancement of employees with less formal education while also providing opportunities for continuous learning and skill development for those with higher educational qualifications. 4. Income Disparities: Despite Canada's relatively high standard of living, income disparities exist across different regions and industries. HR professionals need to be mindful of these income disparities when determining compensation packages and benefits to attract and retain talent. For instance, companies operating in high-cost cities like Toronto or Vancouver may need to offer higher salaries or additional perks to remain competitive in attracting skilled workers compared to those in smaller cities or rural areas where the cost of living is lower. By understanding the socio-economic and demographic composition of the Canadian workforce, HR departments can develop more targeted recruitment and selection strategies that effectively address the diverse needs and preferences of potential candidates while promoting inclusivity and equality in the workplace. 2. Think of a job you have held and write two brief profiles of that job. The first profile is to be that of a 95th-percentile job performer—that is, persons you have worked with who would be better than 95 out of 100 of their coworkers. What were those people like? What skills and abilities did they have? Then write a second profile of 5th-percentile job performers—people who were only as good as the bottom 5 percent of their coworkers. Compare the profiles and discuss how use of recruitment and selection might be helpful in choosing the 95th-percentile rather than the 5th-percentile performer. How much difference would it make to have the 95th-percentile rather than the 5th-percentile performer on the job? If you were the employer, would these differences be of sufficient value for you to invest the necessary money into recruitment and selection in order to get the 95th-percentile performer? Answer: 1. 95th-Percentile Performer Profile (men’s clothing salesperson): Top performers possessed excellent skills in communication, especially persuasion (e.g., convincing the client to buy a tie to go with their sports coat purchase). They had high cognitive abilities in terms of being able to do “mental math” for price totals, commission estimates, etc. They possessed a strong knowledge of stock items (colours, fabrics, fit, etc.). They consistently displayed courteous, helpful, and friendly behaviours toward clients and other staff. 2. 5th-Percentile Performer Profile (men’s clothing salesperson): Low performers possessed poor communications skills (e.g., rarely made suggestions for “add-on” purchases, such as socks or ties). They were unable to keep track of sales figures and had poor knowledge of stock. They were aloof and even discourteous with clients, and were often rude with other staff. Behaviourally, there are big differences between the highest and lowest performers. These differences often result in a high rate of goal achievement for top performers and a low rate for low performers, which impacts organizational performance and, in turn, decisions about promotions and terminations at the organizational level. Simply stated, top performers are rewarded more than low performers because they contribute more to the achievement of organizational goals. Most organizations seek to orient their recruitment processes toward selecting high-performing candidates, which is advisable; however, the decision to select for 95th-percentile performers compared with 90th-percentile performers, or whatever level, is one that the by management preference. Research shows that the ROI in HR investments (e.g., selection, training, compensation, etc.) is positive and contributes to organizational growth. 3. As a class or in small groups, discuss the three scenarios raised in the ethics section of this chapter. Decide what the HR professional should do in each instance, and provide an ethical justification for your decision based on the CCHRA Code of Ethics. Answer: The four principles of the CCHRA Code of Ethics are as follows: Principle P1: Members have a duty to discharge all of their Professional responsibilities honourably, competently, and with integrity. Principle P2: Members have a duty to protect and promote the Profession and to cooperate with the Association. Principle P3: Members have a duty to act in the best interest of their clients and employers. Principle P4: Members must at all times act in a manner that advances the principles of health and safety, human rights, equity, dignity, and overall well-being in the workplace. Situation 1. In this case, as a management consultant, your loyalties would technically lie with the employer as your client. However, as a member of the HR profession, you should act ethically and try to represent as many viewpoints as possible. In this case, the management’s requests could be perceived as unethical because they were designed to deny workers their right to organized labour. As such, in this case, many HR professionals would likely not accept payment or comply with management’s requests because they are unethical. Situation 2. If the test has been shown to screen out minority applicants at higher rates than the white majority, then its use would be considered by many as unethical, even though it predicts top performers. HR professionals should make every effort to use tests that do not discriminate based upon culture, race, gender, and other protected grounds under Canadian employment law. Although such tests are not themselves illegal, their use is unethical according to P4. Research shows that increasing the diversity of employees is often associated with high levels of organizational performance. Situation 3. Yes, you should be concerned that the use of the honesty test might be screening out honest employees. Only those tests with the highest levels of validity and reliability should be used. Valid and reliable integrity tests have been shown to be predictive of such negative employee behaviours as withdrawal and theft. Their use is legal in Canada, although they are frequently challenged by labour groups as rights invasive and as poor predictors of work behaviours. 4. Write a brief summary of your preferred career track in HRM. What professional associations would you join and what activities would you engage in? Where do recruitment and selection fit in the mix of activities that you have planned for yourself? Answer: A common career track planned by an HR student in a business program is as follows: 1) graduate from university with a business degree concentrating in HR; 2) start work in a mid- to large-size organization in an HR department as a “recruiter” or “advisor”; 3) become an HR manager; 4) become a director of HR; 5) achieve the VP HR position. However, this track, though still common for business students, is changing as increasing numbers of younger people strive to start their own businesses and/or become entrepreneurs. Further, in Canada HR professionals are increasingly becoming accredited through CPHR Canada; research shows this may be beneficial to them in terms of salary and career growth compared with being a non-accredited HR professional. Accreditation entails preparing for and writing a knowledge test, among other things. Go to: https://cphr.ca/ In pursuit of my career goals, I would join professional associations such as the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources (CPHR) in Canada. These associations provide valuable networking opportunities, access to industry resources and best practices, and opportunities for professional development through workshops, conferences, and certification programs. In terms of activities, I would engage in the following: 1. Continuous Learning: Keeping abreast of the latest trends, best practices, and legal developments in HRM through ongoing professional development opportunities, webinars, seminars, and industry publications. 2. Networking: Building a strong network of HR professionals, industry experts, and thought leaders through active participation in professional associations, industry events, and online forums. 3. Mentorship: Seeking mentorship from experienced HR leaders to gain insights, guidance, and career advice, while also paying it forward by mentoring junior HR professionals or students entering the field. 4. Community Involvement: Contributing to the HR community and giving back through volunteer work, pro bono consulting, or participating in initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. 5. Certification: Pursuing professional certifications such as the SHRM Certified Professional (SHRM-CP) or Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP) and the Chartered Professional in Human Resources (CPHR) designation to enhance my credibility and expertise in the field. Recruitment and selection are integral components of my planned activities as an HR professional. They fit into the mix by allowing me to: 1. Develop Strategic Recruitment Plans: Designing and implementing recruitment strategies aligned with organizational goals and workforce planning needs to attract top talent. 2. Employ Employer Branding Strategies: Leveraging employer branding initiatives to enhance the organization's reputation as an employer of choice and attract high-caliber candidates. 3. Utilize Selection Tools and Techniques: Implementing effective selection processes, including behavioral interviews, assessment centers, and psychometric assessments, to identify candidates who are the best fit for the organization's culture and job requirements. 4. Continuous Improvement: Continuously evaluating and refining recruitment and selection processes based on feedback, metrics, and industry best practices to optimize hiring outcomes and enhance candidate experiences. In summary, my preferred career track in HRM involves continuous learning, networking, mentorship, community involvement, and professional certification. Recruitment and selection are key components of my planned activities, allowing me to strategically attract, select, and onboard top talent to drive organizational success and foster a positive workplace culture. CASE STUDY Recruitment and Selection at Google Questions: The intent of this exercise is not to have you develop detailed answers but to begin thinking about the many factors that affect recruitment and selection. We appreciate that the case does not contain detailed information but in our opinion that information is not needed to meet our primary objective. We will review in detail many of the components of Google’s recruitment and selection procedures later in this text. For now, we would like you to discuss the following points. Case Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Is Google’s elaborate selection system justified? What are appropriate criteria for assessing its effectiveness? Answer: It is clear from its recruitment and selection process that Google values the talent management process. The company is ranked by Forbes magazine as one of the best places in the world to work, and it offers excellent employee benefits and perks. To determine whether Google’s staffing system is justified, we must, from a human resources management perspective, evaluate the strategy’s outcomes. For example, once it has implemented its staffing strategy, Google could evaluate the effectiveness of its staffing strategy using Step 5 of the “Elements of a Recruitment and Selection Action Plan,” as seen in Recruitment and Selection Notebook 1.1. By determining what went right or wrong, reviewing the outcomes of the recruitment and selection processes, and reviewing the performance of the people it hired, Google could evaluate, shape, and change future iterations of its staffing action plan to best meet the talent management needs of the organization in the future. 2. Google receives over 3 000 000 applications for 7000 positions. Is this an effective approach? What is the cost, particularly the human cost, associated with reviewing all of these applications? How do you reduce the number of applicants to a reasonable number that can be run through the selection system? Answer: Google’s selection ratio, or the number of applications to number of positions (discussed more in Chapter 7), can be determined by dividing the number of positions (7000) by the number of applicants generated (3 000 000). The result for Google is .002, which is a very low selection ratio. Selection ratios close to zero could indicate that the recruitment process was successful in generating a large applicant pool. Although Google's recruitment strategy was successful, the cost to the organization (in both time and money) to review the applications will be relatively high in terms of selecting the most qualified candidates. Some ways to reduce these costs might be to use HRIS systems to electronically screen résumés, statistically weight the value of some of the tests (e.g., work samples and motor skills tests), coordinate HR activities with other organizational units to highlight the importance of some of the required skills, and think in systems terms (see Figure 1.1, Example of a Human Resources System). 3. Provide examples of how technology might be used to facilitate and improve the recruitment and selection used by Google. Answer: There are a number of ways that modern technology can improve the recruitment and selection processes at Google. For example, software is available to digitally screen résumés by looking for keywords. Job posting and résumé-matching services can be designed and utilized online. As discussed more in Chapter 6, these and other tools can be used to improve the set of recruitment and selection best practices at Google. Organizations using “e-recruiting” techniques often report having access to larger applicant pools, lower recruiting costs, lower printing costs, and greater access and use of online “dashboard” reports for immediate tracking of results. 4. What criteria should Google use in selecting “team players”? Answer: The criteria for selecting team players could potentially include personality testing and work samples. Personality testing can identify individual differences that are either supportive of teamwork (e.g., agreeableness) or not supportive of it (e.g., low emotional stability). Work samples can identify can provide “live” samples of individual and group problem solving. Both are tests currently offered by Toyota, so using these to determine teamwork skills would not add additional costs to the overall recruitment and selection strategy. 5. Does “peer-based hiring” lead to better employees? Answer: It likely depends on the organization and its recruitment and selection practices, as well as the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs) of the peers making the hiring decisions. In the case, it is noted that Google operates much like a university in the knowledge industry when it comes to staffing its positions. In universities, hiring decisions are made by committees of faculty members, and this is considered more a bottom-up staffing process than a top-down one mandated by senior managers. The advantage of this process is that it uses subject matter experts (SMEs), in this case peers who are very familiar with the job, to make staffing decisions. These SMEs should be familiar with the job in question so that the right person can be hired. However, the hiring process in universities is considered by some to have faults, such as being highly susceptible to organizational politics. Further, if the SMEs do not possess the requisite KSAOs for the specific position being filled, then they may hire sub-optimal candidates. References Cited Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41(2), 149-174. CHAPTER 2 Foundations of Recruitment and Selection I: Reliability and Validity SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Discuss why it is better to base a selection system on science than on a “gut feeling.” Science produces information that is based on accepting as true only objective information that can withstand continued attempts to cast doubt on its accuracy. The accuracy of scientific statements is examined empirically through methods that can be observed, critiqued, and used by others, unlike gut feelings. Scientific information is dynamic and constantly evolving. 2. Can an invalid selection test be reliable? Can an unreliable selection test be valid? Answer: Yes, an invalid test can be reliable. For example, repeated results of a personality test are expected to be reliable; however, they are not a valid measure of cognitive ability. In terms of an unreliable test being valid, reliability of a measure places an upper limit on validity. Mathematically, the size of a validity coefficient cannot exceed the reliability of the measures used to obtain the data. Validity coefficients obtained from perfectly reliable measures of the predictor and criterion will be higher than those obtained with less-than-perfect measures. The decrease in magnitude of the validity coefficient associated with measurement error of the predictor, the criterion, or both is called attenuation. 3. When should you use content, construct, or criterion-related validation strategies? Answer: Validity is a unitary concept. Content, construct, and criterion-related validity are different but interrelated strategies commonly used to assess the accuracy of inferences based on measurements or tests used in the workplace. Sometimes these different strategies are mistakenly viewed as representing different types of validity. To overcome this misinterpretation, the older terms of construct validity, content validity, and criterion-related validity are no longer used in the measurement literature, although they are still sometimes used in assessing selection systems. 4. Does an organization have an obligation to make the enterprise as profitable as possible on behalf of its owners, or does it have an obligation to meet the objectives of society by providing equal employment opportunities for members of different population groups? Answer: There are no easy answers to this question. One resolution is to compare the fairness of the test in question with the fairness of an alternative that might be used in place of the test. The question you're asking touches on a fundamental debate in business ethics: whether a company's primary responsibility is to maximize profits for its shareholders or to serve broader societal interests. This is often referred to as the shareholder vs. stakeholder debate. 1. Shareholder Primacy: This view holds that a company's primary obligation is to maximize returns for its shareholders. According to this perspective, the role of a business is to generate profits, and decisions should be made with the goal of increasing shareholder wealth. Advocates argue that by focusing on profitability, businesses contribute to economic growth, innovation, and job creation, benefiting society as a whole. 2. Stakeholder Theory: In contrast, stakeholder theory posits that businesses have a broader responsibility to consider the interests of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and society at large, alongside shareholders. Proponents argue that prioritizing the needs of various stakeholders leads to more sustainable and ethical business practices, which ultimately benefits the company in the long term. This perspective emphasizes factors such as corporate social responsibility, environmental sustainability, and ethical decision-making. The reality is that most businesses operate within a complex ecosystem where they must balance the interests of various stakeholders while also striving for profitability. While maximizing profits can contribute to economic growth and prosperity, it's essential for companies to do so ethically and responsibly, considering the impact of their actions on employees, communities, and the environment. Moreover, many argue that businesses can achieve long-term success by aligning their objectives with societal interests, including promoting diversity and equal employment opportunities. By fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace, companies can enhance innovation, attract top talent, and better serve the needs of their diverse customer base. Ultimately, the debate between shareholder primacy and stakeholder theory reflects broader discussions about the purpose of business in society and the responsibilities of corporate entities. While profitability is important for the sustainability of a business, it's increasingly recognized that companies have a broader role to play in promoting social welfare and contributing to a more equitable and sustainable future. 5. What is your perception of fairness Answer: The concept of fairness in measurement refers to the value judgments that people make about the decisions or outcomes that are based on measurements. An unbiased measure or test may still be viewed as being unfair either by society as a whole or by different groups within it. Issues of fairness cannot be determined statistically or empirically. Fairness involves perceptions. Fairness has no single meaning. There are three meanings of fairness that are relevant in selection: equitable treatment in the testing process; lack of bias; and fairness in selection and prediction. 6. Do individuals making staffing decisions have an ethical responsibility to know about measurement issues? Why or why not? Answer: Yes, it is important from business, ethical, and legal standpoints to have tests that are scientifically sound. It is also important to have procedures that are perceived as fair. From an ethical view, the perceived fairness of the testing procedures may negatively affect the unsuccessful candidates. EXERCISES 1. A marketing company is evaluating a new employment test that measures advertising aptitude of potential employees. You have used the new measure on a trial basis over the past year while you have continued to make selections using your established procedures. You have developed the following database, which includes information on gender, a score from the first administration of the test given during the selection process before the applicant was hired (Test 1), a score from a second administration of the test given at the end of the first year on the job (Test 2), and a performance score assigned by the supervisor at the end of the employee’s first year of employment (Performance). You have been asked to evaluate the reliability, validity, and any gender bias of the new test. (Note: This exercise requires you to calculate correlation coefficients. If you do not know how to do that, your instructor will provide you with the coefficients.) a. What is the reliability of the new test? b. What is the predictive validity of the new test? c. What is the concurrent validity of the job? d. Is the test biased toward either males or females? e. Would you recommend that the company adopt the new test as part of its hiring procedures? Answer: a. Test–retest: 0.55 (correlation between T1 and T2). b. 0.67 (correlation between T1 and Performance). c. 0.64 (correlation between T2 and Performance). d. 0.16 (males = 1; females = 2, correlated with Performance). This suggests a slight positive bias toward females, but likely not a substantial one. e. Although the tests demonstrate good validity coefficients, their reliability is low, meaning the tests likely only have limited applicability. You may wish to recommend the adoption of a new test. 2. Form a small group. Choose a specific job held by one of the people in your group. After discussing the job, choose one characteristic that you think is crucial to performing that job. How would you measure both the characteristic and job performance? Use Figures 2.1 and 2.5 to help you specify the conceptual and measurement levels. How would you establish the validity of your characteristic as a predictor of job performance? Answer: Job: Salesperson at men’s clothing store. Characteristic: Agreeableness (measured by a self-report survey such as the NEO-PI-R). Performance: As rated by the customer in a survey instrument (1 = low agreeableness, 5 = high agreeableness) or with organizational sales figures. • To establish the predictive validity of the personality characteristic of agreeableness as an important component of performance, you will have to measure the personality of the candidates before they start the job, and then correlate it with sales performance later. 3. Contact two organizations and identify the type of selection procedure that they use. You may be able to do this on the web or by calling their HR department. Use the criteria in Table 2.1 to determine whether each organization’s selection system is analytical or intuitive. Determine the validity of the selection procedures in use by each organization; that is, has the company conducted validation studies and, if so, what was the outcome? Collect any validation reports that the organizations might have produced and bring the reports back to class for review and discussion. Answer: The big question for students to ask, based on Table 2.1, is “Does your organization use any type of analytical measurement of performance and its predictors?” Note that even if the answer is “yes,” organizations may still not be using science-based selection practices. Their use of science-based selection practices can only be determined by finding out the validity and reliability of the tests that are currently being used. Let's say you choose Organization A, a large tech company, and Organization B, a retail chain, to investigate their selection procedures. 1. Organization A (Tech Company): ● Selection Procedure: Organization A uses a multi-step process involving online assessments, technical interviews, and behavioral interviews to evaluate candidates. ● Analytical or Intuitive?: This process leans more towards analytical. Each step involves specific criteria and standardized assessments to evaluate technical skills, problem-solving abilities, and cultural fit. ● Validity of Selection Procedure: Organization A has conducted validation studies to ensure the effectiveness of their selection process. They have published reports showcasing the predictive validity of their assessments in identifying top-performing employees. These reports indicate a strong correlation between assessment scores and job performance metrics, validating their selection procedures. 2. Organization B (Retail Chain): ● Selection Procedure: Organization B primarily relies on in-person interviews, reference checks, and situational judgment tests during their hiring process. ● Analytical or Intuitive?: This process tends to be more intuitive. While structured interviews and situational judgment tests provide some degree of analytical assessment, much of the evaluation relies on subjective judgments made by interviewers. ● Validity of Selection Procedure: Organization B may not have conducted formal validation studies on their selection procedures. Their hiring process might be based more on historical success rates and industry standards rather than scientifically validated assessments. Without formal validation studies, the effectiveness and validity of their selection procedures might be questionable. In a real-world scenario, you would need to contact the HR departments of these organizations to gather specific information on their selection procedures and any validation studies conducted. Additionally, obtaining validation reports would require permission from the organizations involved. CASE STUDY Emotional Intelligence or Cognitive Ability? Case Questions and Suggested Answers: 1. What do you think? Should the hiring managers prefer EI over cognitive ability in predicting job performance? Why? Answer: No, hiring managers should not value EI over cognitive ability when it comes to predicting job performance. The results of validity generalization studies show that IQ is a better predictor of performance across most jobs compared with EI. Current measures of EI may be too broad to fully capture the content domain of the construct, which is still not very clear, even after decades of study. Scales can be improved via scale-validation strategies at both the construct and the measurement level (see Figure 2.5). 2. If you planned to use EI as part of your selection system, discuss the steps that you would take to ensure that you were able to make reliable and accurate inferences about job performance in your work situation. That is, what would you have to do to show that your measure was reliable and valid? Answer: There are a number of steps to take to ensure the reliability and validity of our chosen measure of EI. As an HR manager, you should start by checking the existing reliability and validity data of your measure in the existing literature (these indices are sometimes easily obtained by conducting a literature review on the topic/construct at hand). In the absence of such data, or if the data are unclear, you should ensure that factors impacting the potential reliability, including chance, lack of standardization, and temporary characteristics, are minimized at test time. In terms of ensuring validity, you may take strategies outlined in Figure 2.5 and, for small organizations, Recruitment and Selection Notebook 2.2. To avoid range restriction, you should look at your validity coefficients to ensure that scores from subgroups are similar to those from the overall sample. To avoid measurement error, you should ensure that the test is reliable over at least two points of data collection. To avoid sampling error, you should ensure that the tests are taken by the appropriate samples (e.g., applicants and job incumbents) in as large a population as possible (estimates from small samples will likely be quite variable, so corrections may need to be applied). You should also take steps to ensure that your test is perceived to be fair and unbiased by your employees, as described in Recruitment and Selection Notebook 2.3, because adverse reactions to tests can negatively impact, or attenuate, validity scores. 3. EI tests are prone to applicant faking. What can you do to limit faking on an EI test? Would these procedures lower the reliability and validity of the tests? Answer: Current research suggests several ways to try to reduce faking in applicant testing. For example, there are statistical methods that can be used to try to detect and correct “faked” items; however, these corrections have been shown to possibly lower the validity of the tests. Participants can also be instructed to answer as honestly as possible because their data will have important selection and performance implications for the organization. It is worth noting that some researchers question whether faking on these tests is that much of a problem at all. They say that faked answers can be interpreted as participants “correctly” responding to social desirability cues by proving to recruiters that they know what the organization expects for demonstrating good performance. 4. What are the legal considerations of using EI tests with poor reliability and validity? What are the business costs? Answer: From a legal perspective, the perception of unfairness may lead unsuccessful applicants to pursue discrimination charges against the prospective employer in various legal arenas, including courts and human rights tribunals. Recruitment and selection tests should also not have adverse impact on minority groups. The business costs of using tests with poor reliability and validity are possibly hiring the people with the wrong KSAOs for the organization. This reduces the usefulness of the tests and potentially leads to decreases in organizational productivity levels. Further, applicant reactions to selection procedures may affect applicants’ decision to join an organization and the degree to which they trust the organization and its behaviour once they become an employee. CHAPTER 3 Foundations of Recruitment and Selection II: Legal Issues SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Would the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibit an employer from putting in place a selection system that favoured women over men in the hiring process? Could such discrimination ever be justified under the Charter? Answer: As part of recruitment and selection, no statement may be made in advertising a job that would prohibit or restrict members of a protected group from seeking that job. During the selection process itself, application forms and interviews are potential sources of direct discrimination. As a result, some human rights commissions have published guidelines for questions asked by employers on employment application forms and at employment interviews. Direct discrimination is much less frequent in Canadian workplaces than it once was. Direct discrimination, however, does exist to some extent in selection processes and usually occurs in occupations in which gender-based stereotyping persists. 2. What are the prohibited grounds of employment discrimination in your province or territory’s jurisdiction? Answer: Refer to Table 3.1, Prohibited Grounds of Employment Discrimination in Canadian Jurisdictions. The prohibited grounds of employment discrimination vary depending on the jurisdiction, but generally include the following: 1. Race: Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or color is prohibited in most jurisdictions. This includes unfair treatment or harassment based on a person's race or ethnic origin. 2. Sex: Discrimination based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation is prohibited. This includes unequal treatment, harassment, or bias against individuals because of their gender or sexual orientation. 3. Age: Discrimination based on age, including both younger and older individuals, is prohibited. This includes age-related bias in hiring, promotion, termination, or other employment decisions. 4. Disability: Discrimination based on disability or perceived disability is prohibited. Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities to ensure equal employment opportunities. 5. Marital Status: Discrimination based on marital status or family status is prohibited. This includes unfair treatment or bias against individuals who are married, single, divorced, or have children. 6. Religion: Discrimination based on religion or creed is prohibited. Employers must accommodate employees' religious beliefs and practices, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. 7. National Origin: Discrimination based on national origin or ancestry is prohibited. This includes bias against individuals because of their country of origin or ethnic background. 8. Gender Identity and Expression: Discrimination based on gender identity or expression is prohibited. This includes bias against transgender individuals or those who do not conform to traditional gender norms. 9. Pregnancy: Discrimination based on pregnancy or childbirth is prohibited. Employers must provide accommodations and protect the rights of pregnant employees in the workplace. 10. Genetic Characteristics: Discrimination based on genetic characteristics or predisposition to certain diseases or conditions is prohibited in some jurisdictions. It's important to consult the specific laws and regulations in your province or territory to understand the prohibited grounds of employment discrimination and the legal protections available to employees. Additionally, many jurisdictions also prohibit discrimination based on other factors such as language, political beliefs, or social status. 3. On what grounds could a Canadian employer justify the adverse impact of a selection procedure, test, or other measure? Answer: Adverse impact (also called adverse effect) occurs when the selection rate for a protected group is lower than that for the relevant comparison group. The existence of adverse impact in a particular selection situation is based on statistical evidence showing that proportionately fewer of the protected groups are selected using a selection device (such as an employment test or interview) or that fewer members of the protected group pass through the selection system as a whole. The four-fifths rule (the selection rate for the protected group is less than four-fifths that of the comparison group) determines adverse impact. Adverse effect discrimination refers to a situation in which an employer, in good faith, adopts a policy or practice that has an unintended, negative impact on members of a protected group. This is also referred to as indirect discrimination. Adverse effect discrimination can occur in employee referral practices and other recruitment methods that unintentionally screen out members of protected groups. Indirect discrimination also often occurs in employment testing. Adverse discrimination and indirect discrimination cannot be legally justified. There is only one ground on which an employer could legally justify adverse impact. It is called bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). BFOR is a procedure used to defend a discriminatory employment practice or policy on the grounds that the policy or practice was adopted in an honest and good-faith belief that it was reasonably necessary to assure the efficient and economical performances of the job without endangering employees or the general public. 4. What does it mean to accommodate someone to the point of undue hardship? Answer: Accommodation refers to the duty of an employer to put in place modifications to discriminatory employment practices or procedures to meet the needs of members of a protected group being affected by the employment practice or procedure. As part of a BFOR defence, an employer must demonstrate that such accommodation is impossible to achieve without incurring undue hardship in terms of the organization’s expense or operations. 5. When can an apparently discriminatory selection practice be justified on the grounds of “sufficient risk”? Answer: Factors that may support a claim of sufficient risk include the nature of the employment (e.g., teacher versus airline pilot in the case of visual impairment); the likelihood of employee failure, stated in empirical, rather than speculative, terms; whether risk of employee failure is restricted to health and safety considerations; and the seriousness of the harm arising from employee failure. 6. Why is basing hiring practices on a “gut feeling” risky business? Practitioners are expected to use procedures and practices that not only do not harm but also actually provide benefits to the client. The three questions a practitioner must answer are as follows: a. Do the procedures I am using result in direct or indirect discrimination? b. If a selection procedure I am using results in direct or indirect discrimination, can I establish that it is a BFOR? c. Is the selection procedure a valid predictor of job performance? Answer: Basing hiring practices solely on a "gut feeling" can be risky for several reasons: 1. Subjectivity and Bias: Relying on intuition or gut feelings can introduce unconscious biases and subjectivity into the hiring process. Without objective criteria or standardized procedures, hiring decisions may be influenced by factors such as personal preferences, stereotypes, or implicit biases, leading to unfair treatment of candidates. 2. Inconsistency: Gut feelings are inherently inconsistent and can vary widely among different individuals. Without a standardized approach to evaluating candidates, hiring decisions may lack reliability and consistency, making it difficult to assess candidates fairly and objectively. 3. Legal Risks: Basing hiring decisions on gut feelings can increase the risk of discrimination and potential legal challenges. If a candidate believes they were unfairly discriminated against during the hiring process, they may file a complaint or lawsuit alleging discrimination based on prohibited grounds such as race, gender, or age. Employers may struggle to defend against such claims if they cannot provide evidence of objective, job-related criteria used in the selection process. 4. Lack of Predictive Validity: Gut feelings may not be reliable predictors of future job performance. Without using validated selection procedures and assessment tools, employers may overlook qualified candidates or hire individuals who are not well-suited for the job, resulting in poor performance, turnover, and decreased productivity. To address these risks, practitioners should adhere to the following principles: a. Avoid Discrimination: Practitioners must ensure that the selection procedures they use do not result in direct or indirect discrimination against protected groups. This involves identifying and eliminating any biases or barriers that may disadvantage certain candidates based on their characteristics. b. Establish Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR): If a selection procedure results in discrimination, practitioners must be able to establish that it is a BFOR — that is, it is necessary for the performance of the job and cannot be reasonably accommodated without causing undue hardship. This requires a thorough analysis of the job requirements and the specific skills and qualifications needed to perform the job effectively. c. Use Valid Selection Procedures: Practitioners should use validated selection procedures that have been demonstrated to reliably predict job performance. This may include structured interviews, cognitive ability tests, personality assessments, and job simulations that have been validated for their ability to accurately assess candidates' qualifications and potential for success in the job. By adhering to these principles and using evidence-based selection practices, practitioners can minimize the risks associated with gut-based hiring decisions and ensure that hiring practices provide benefits to both the employer and the candidates. 7. An employee in your province/territory requests a leave for medical purposes. You wish to verify this request with the employee’s physician. What information may you request? Answer: When verifying a medical leave request with an employee's physician, you should adhere to privacy laws and ethical considerations. Here's the information you may request: 1. Verification of Medical Condition: You can request confirmation that the employee has a medical condition that necessitates a leave of absence. This could include the nature of the condition and its impact on the employee's ability to work. 2. Duration of Leave: Ask for the expected duration of the leave, including start and end dates if possible. This helps in planning for the employee's absence and arranging necessary accommodations if applicable. 3. Functional Limitations or Restrictions: Inquire about any specific limitations or restrictions the employee may have due to their medical condition. This could include physical restrictions, cognitive limitations, or any other factors relevant to their ability to perform their job duties. 4. Treatment Plan: Request information about the recommended treatment plan for the employee's medical condition. This could include medication, therapy, or other interventions that may impact the employee's ability to work or require accommodations. 5. Follow-up or Progress Updates: If relevant, ask if the physician can provide updates on the employee's progress or any changes to their medical status throughout the leave period. 6. Authorization: Ensure that you have the employee's written authorization to contact their physician and obtain this information. This helps protect the employee's privacy rights and ensures compliance with privacy laws such as HIPAA in the United States or PIPEDA in Canada. It's important to maintain confidentiality and only request information that is necessary for verifying the medical leave request and facilitating appropriate accommodations or support for the employee's return to work. Avoid asking for unnecessary or overly intrusive details about the employee's medical condition. EXERCISES 1. We started this chapter with a real-life case where a manager and an HR professional disagree on whom to hire, with the HR professional arguing that the manager’s reasons for not hiring a female applicant would constitute a human rights violation and providing the manager with the relevant section of their province’s or territory’s human rights act. Recruitment and Selection Notebook 3.7 lists provincial and territorial human rights agencies. Download, or view online, a copy of your province or territory’s human rights act. (Note: The Nunavut government’s Human Resources page provides policies in relation to a number of HR issues, http://www.nhrt.ca/splash.html.) a. In the context of your provincial or territorial legislation, discuss whether the HR professional was correct in arguing that not hiring the female applicant would constitute a violation of your human rights act. If so, what is the basis of the alleged violation? b. Review the cases and annual reports available on your provincial or territorial human rights agency’s website to locate a case that may be similar to the one described at the beginning of this chapter. What was the ruling in that case? Would the ruling in that case be applicable to the situation described in our example? c. Would the manager ever be justified in not hiring the female applicant? If so, what would those circumstances be? Answer: a. Although student answers may vary, their answer must state that it against human rights legislation in all Canadian jurisdictions to make a hiring decision based upon the sex/gender of the applicant. The basis of the violation would be on sex/gender. b. 1. Locating the Human Rights Act: You can start by searching for your province or territory's official government website. Most government websites have a section dedicated to laws and regulations where you can find the Human Rights Act or related legislation. Alternatively, you can search for the act using a search engine, specifying your province or territory. 2. Researching Cases and Reports: Once you've found the human rights agency's website, look for sections such as "Cases" or "Decisions" where you might find summaries or details of past cases. Annual reports often contain summaries of significant cases or trends in human rights enforcement. 3. Finding Similar Cases: Look for cases involving employment discrimination based on gender or other protected characteristics. Pay attention to the facts of the cases, the arguments presented, and the rulings made by the human rights tribunal or commission. 4. Analyzing the Ruling: If you find a case similar to the one described in the chapter, examine the ruling to see how the tribunal or commission interpreted and applied the relevant human rights legislation. Consider whether the reasons provided by the manager for not hiring the female applicant would constitute a violation of the human rights act in your jurisdiction based on the ruling in the similar case. c. It would not be justifiable to hire on the basis of gender in this case. However, if the candidate might not able to fulfil her work requirements owing to her personal life issues, then that will be a future performance problem for her and for the organization. Although it would not be appropriate to ask the candidate if she plans to have more children, it would be fine to ask her if she could foresee her life situation getting in the way of her work situation (i.e., not being able to travel for work when required due to family circumstances). Other than that, only information about bona fide occupational requirements (BFORs) should be the basis for hiring decisions. a. Discussing Potential Human Rights Violation Context: The disagreement centers around whether not hiring a female applicant based on the manager's reasons constitutes a human rights violation. Steps: 1. Access Human Rights Act: Find and download/view the human rights act specific to your province or territory. 2. Identify Relevant Sections: Look for sections pertaining to employment discrimination, particularly on the basis of gender. Example (Ontario Human Rights Code): ● Section 5 (1) states: "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, or disability." ● Section 23 (1) discusses the prohibition of discrimination in job advertisements and applications. Analysis: ● If the manager's reasons for not hiring the female applicant are based on her gender, this would constitute discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. ● The HR professional's argument aligns with the protection against gender-based discrimination provided by the human rights act. b. Review Similar Cases Steps: 1. Visit Human Rights Agency Website: Access the relevant website for your province or territory’s human rights agency. 2. Locate Cases and Annual Reports: Search for case decisions or annual reports that document employment discrimination cases, especially those related to gender. Example (Ontario Human Rights Commission): ● Case Example: A case might involve a woman not being hired due to her gender and successfully claiming discrimination. ● Ruling: Typically, rulings in such cases would require the employer to provide remedies such as compensation for lost wages and changes in hiring practices. Application to Example: ● If the found case had a ruling that the employer discriminated based on gender, similar reasoning and legal principles would apply to the manager’s situation in our example, likely resulting in a ruling against the manager. c. Justification for Not Hiring the Female Applicant Potential Justifications: ● Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR): The manager could justify not hiring if there is a BFOR that is essential to the job and that cannot be accommodated without undue hardship. ● Non-Discriminatory Reason: The manager must provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring the female applicant, such as lack of required qualifications, experience, or poor performance during the selection process. Example: ● If the job requires heavy physical labor and the applicant does not meet the physical requirements necessary to perform the job safely and effectively, and no reasonable accommodation can be made, the manager might have a justified reason. ● It is crucial that the manager's decision is well-documented, based on objective criteria, and consistent with the requirements of the role. Conclusion By following these steps, we ensure a thorough and legally sound analysis of whether the HR professional's concerns about a potential human rights violation are valid. Additionally, reviewing similar cases helps to understand precedents and apply them to the current situation. Lastly, examining potential justifications for not hiring helps to ensure decisions are fair, objective, and in compliance with human rights legislation. 2. In the British Columbia (Public Service Employees Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU case, a lower appeals court had suggested that accommodating women by permitting them to meet a lower aerobic standard than men would constitute “reverse discrimination.” The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed and stated that “the essence of equality is to be treated according to one’s own merit, capabilities and circumstances. True equality requires that differences be accommodated. … A different aerobic standard capable of identifying women who could perform the job safely and efficiently therefore does not necessarily imply discrimination against men. “Reverse discrimination” would result only if, for example, an aerobic standard representing a minimum threshold for all forest firefighters was held to be inapplicable to men simply because they were men.” What are your views on reverse discrimination? Do you agree with the views expressed by the appeals court or the Supreme Court? Why or why not? Have you ever observed or been subjected to reverse discrimination? If so, what was the situation? Answer: They should focus on the legal definition of reverse discrimination from the Supreme Court. Importantly, students should know that differences should be accommodated where possible. Reverse discrimination, also known as positive discrimination or affirmative action, refers to the practice of favoring individuals belonging to groups that have been historically disadvantaged or discriminated against, often at the expense of individuals from dominant or majority groups. In the case of British Columbia (Public Service Employees Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling emphasizes the essence of equality as treating individuals according to their own merit, capabilities, and circumstances. The court acknowledges that true equality may require accommodating differences to ensure fairness and inclusivity. Therefore, accommodating women with a lower aerobic standard in the context of forest firefighting does not necessarily constitute discrimination against men. Instead, it reflects a recognition of the diverse capabilities and circumstances of individuals and seeks to create equal opportunities for all. Personally, I agree with the views expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Equality does not mean treating everyone exactly the same regardless of their circumstances. Rather, it involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and inequalities to ensure fair treatment and opportunity for all individuals. Affirmative action measures, when implemented thoughtfully and fairly, can help level the playing field and promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. While I have not personally observed or experienced reverse discrimination, I acknowledge that instances of it may occur in various contexts. It's essential to distinguish between genuine efforts to promote equality and inclusivity and situations where individuals are unfairly disadvantaged due to their membership in a majority group. Addressing discrimination, whether it be against historically marginalized groups or against individuals in the majority, requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities of power dynamics and systemic inequalities. 3. There is considerable evidence showing that smokers are less productive than nonsmokers. Costs to organizations, besides those related to medical care, health, and life insurance, include absenteeism and loss of on-the-job time. Estimates place time loss per day due to smoking at 35 minutes a day, or 18.2 lost days per year per employee who smokes. In addition, smokers are absent, on average, three more days per year than other employees. Estimates place the cost of smoking to an employer at around $4500 per smoker per year. These data suggest that it is in an employer’s best interests to hire only nonsmokers or to fire smokers who cannot overcome their addiction. Would such policies, of hiring only nonsmokers and firing smokers, be acceptable under human rights legislation in your province or territory? Are smokers a “protected” group under human rights legislation? How would you defend these policies to an investigator from a human rights commission? Answer: For adults, smoking tobacco is still a legal activity in Canada, even though it has been shown to be bad for the health of smokers and those around them. Smoking is currently not listed under any federal or provincial legislation as a disability in Canada; however, because it has been proven to be physically addictive, it could be argued that it is a disability because of the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking for long periods of time. For this reason alone, organizations are advised to proceed with caution when stating that only non-smokers will be hired into new positions. Click here for more information: https://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2014/03/18/can_a_company_refuse_to_hire_a_smoker.html 4. You may recall hearing about females being fired from U.S. television news anchor positions because they were too old. Clearly, this practice would be contrary to all human rights codes in Canada. However, one area of discrimination that is less clear is “lookism,” in which a person is chosen for a job on the basis of his or her looks rather than his or her other qualifications. Individuals, particularly females who are overweight, tend to receive fewer job offers than others, even in cases where their appearance has no possible bearing on their work performance or where they are not involved in dealing with clients or customers. Can an employer in Canada, or in your jurisdiction, choose not to hire someone on the basis of their looks or for being overweight? Do job applicants so denied have protection under your province or territory’s human rights provisions? Answer: It is always best to hire only on job-related factors, BFORs. Although it is reasonable for organizations to maintain acceptable standards for the personal appearance of their employees while at work, it is usually not defendable to hire them based only on “looks.” Although there is evidence that “good-looking” people tend to be offered jobs at higher rates than “less good-looking” people, there is no evidence that they perform better – or any differently at all – than other employees. Students may also wish to investigate their jurisdictional human rights legislation to see if they contain any consideration of weight being considered a disability or a prohibited ground in their local workplaces. In Canada, as in many jurisdictions, discrimination based on appearance or weight is generally prohibited under human rights legislation. In most provinces and territories, including Ontario, where I'm most familiar, human rights codes protect individuals from discrimination in employment on various grounds, including race, gender, age, disability, and other protected characteristics. Regarding appearance-based discrimination: 1. Legal Protections: Human rights legislation in Canada typically prohibits discrimination in employment based on characteristics unrelated to job performance, such as appearance or weight. Discrimination based on appearance can constitute a form of discrimination under grounds such as "physical disability" or "ancestry," depending on the specific circumstances. 2. Job Applicant Protections: Job applicants who believe they have been denied employment opportunities due to their appearance or weight may file a complaint with the relevant human rights commission or tribunal in their province or territory. These bodies are responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination and enforcing human rights laws. 3. Employer Obligations: Employers have a legal obligation to provide equal employment opportunities to all individuals, regardless of their appearance or weight. They are prohibited from making hiring decisions based on stereotypes or prejudices related to appearance. 4. Exceptions: There may be limited exceptions where appearance or weight is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) for a particular job. However, employers must demonstrate that the requirement is necessary for the performance of the job and cannot be accommodated without undue hardship. In summary, while there may be instances where appearance or weight is relevant to a job (e.g., modeling, acting), employers in Canada are generally prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on these factors in employment decisions. Job applicants who believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of appearance or weight have recourse to human rights protections and may file complaints for investigation and resolution. 5. In the Wards Cove Packing v. Antonio decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that where an employment practice led to adverse impact, any alternative that led to less or no adverse impact must also be as effective as the practice it was replacing in meeting the organization’s legitimate business purposes. The court’s ruling made it more difficult to establish an adverse impact case. In the Meiorin decision, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that a policy or practice is itself discriminatory if it treats some individuals differently from others on the basis of a prohibited ground and that the size of the affected group was irrelevant. It also stated that an organization must accommodate individual employees to the point of imposing undue hardship upon the employer, unless it was impossible to do so. Discuss these two approaches to addressing selection practices that lead to adverse impact. Which approach do you support? Why? Answer: The two approaches take different perspectives when it comes to reducing adverse impact in the workplace. The U.S. approach focuses on replacing faulty policies, while the Canadian approach focuses on the accommodation of the affected members of the protected group. Student answers will vary depending on their opinions, especially when a discussion of undue hardship is introduced. This is a class discussion that usually gets lively! The approaches taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wards Cove Packing v. Antonio decision and the Canadian Supreme Court in the Meiorin decision represent two different perspectives on addressing selection practices that lead to adverse impact. 1. Wards Cove Packing v. Antonio (U.S. Approach): ● In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an employment practice results in adverse impact, any alternative practice must be as effective as the original practice in meeting the organization's legitimate business purposes. ● This approach places a heavy burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate that an alternative practice not only reduces adverse impact but also maintains the same level of effectiveness in achieving business goals. ● Critics argue that this approach makes it more challenging for individuals to establish claims of discrimination and places undue emphasis on business interests over equality and fairness in the workplace. 2. Meiorin (Canadian Approach): ● In contrast, the Canadian Supreme Court's decision in Meiorin focused on whether a policy or practice discriminates against individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground, regardless of the size of the affected group. ● The court emphasized the need for employers to accommodate individual employees to the point of undue hardship, unless accommodation is impossible. ● This approach prioritizes the elimination of discriminatory practices and places the onus on employers to make reasonable accommodations to ensure equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their characteristics or circumstances. Which Approach to Support: ● Personally, I support the Canadian approach exemplified by the Meiorin decision. This approach prioritizes the elimination of discriminatory practices and places a strong emphasis on accommodating individual differences to ensure equality and fairness in the workplace. ● By requiring employers to accommodate individual needs to the point of undue hardship, the Canadian approach promotes inclusivity and recognizes the importance of treating individuals as unique and diverse beings. ● Furthermore, the emphasis on eliminating discriminatory practices regardless of the size of the affected group aligns with the principles of equality and human rights. In summary, while both approaches aim to address adverse impact in selection practices, the Canadian approach exemplified by the Meiorin decision prioritizes equality, fairness, and individual accommodation, which I believe are essential for fostering inclusive and equitable workplaces. CASE STUDY Victim of Discrimination Questions: 1. Should Smith have received a job offer? Why or why not? (In answering this and the following questions, base your arguments on the court cases presented in this chapter.) Answer: Ms. Smith should likely have been offered the job. This assertion can be justified with information from the court cases described in Chapter 3. For example, in Recruitment and Selection Today 3.3, The Ontario Human Rights Commission and Bruce Dunlop and Harold E. Hall and Vincent Gray v. The Borough of Etobicoke discusses the importance of supporting the existence of BFORs with concrete evidence. Although it states in the case that management argued that the testing standards were reasonably necessary for efficient performance, no evidence is presented to support this claim. Further, it is not clear that management accommodated Ms. Smith per the Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta decision, which requires organizations to accommodate individual employees to the point of undue hardship. 2. Was Smith the victim of discrimination because of her disability? Answer: It is reasonable to conclude that Ms. Smith was the victim of discrimination. As a person with a disability, Ms. Smith is in a protected group according to Table 3.1, Prohibited Grounds of Employment Discrimination in Canadian Jurisdictions. Although her employer likely established its testing requirements in good faith, the tests resulted in an unintended negative impact on Ms. Smith. In the British Columbia (Public Sector Employee Relations Comm.) v. BCGSEU case outlined in Recruitment and Selection Today 3.3, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that discrimination applied in cases where reasonable accommodation is available. Although her employer provided her with an interpreter, the service did not meet Ms. Smith’s needs relating to her disability and, as a result, she should have likely have been offered equivalent tests that would accommodate her individual disability-related needs. As such, this case likely represents a case of adverse effect discrimination as described in the O’Malley v. Simpsons Sears case. 3. Did she receive appropriate accommodation? Answer: Ms. Smith did not receive appropriate accommodation by her employer. As mentioned above, in the Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta case, the Supreme Court ruled that employers must accommodate employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. Because the skills tests had an adverse impact on Ms. Smith, her employer was obligated to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship even if she was the only candidate with a disability applying for the job. Although an interpreter was provided, Ms. Smith felt that the service was subpar and impacted her ability to complete the skills tests. Further, there is no evidence from the case that the employer suffered anything near undue hardship by providing an interpreter service. 4. Are the employer’s standards defensible as a BFOR? Answer: The employer claims that three standards were required BFORs for the transcription job: typing; following instructions; and transcribing. Although these may well be BFORs, nothing was provided in the case to show that the employers had measured and established their importance, statistical or otherwise. This violates the Meiorin decision, as described in Recruitment and Selection Today 3.7. This decision states that policies that discriminate based on prohibited grounds are “questionable” and that the size of the affected group is irrelevant. The decision also placed a high onus on Canadian organizations to, in good faith, enact nondiscriminatory recruitment and selection policies and procedures. 5. Based on the material presented in this chapter, do you think the human rights commission will support her claim of discrimination? Answer: Yes, it is reasonable for us to believe that the human rights commission would support Ms. Smith’s claim of discrimination. Its decision would likely be based upon two main considerations, namely, BFORs and accommodation. In terms of BFORs, despite the fact that they appear to have face validity, it is not clear that the tests were developed and/or established in accordance with the Meiorin decision. Further, the tests may not meet either the Andrews v. Treasury Board and Department of Transport or the Green v. Public Service Commission Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions as described in Recruitment and Selection Today 3.5. In terms of accommodating Ms. Smith’s disability, it is not clear that reasonable alternatives to the testing procedures were offered her to the point that would violate sufficient risk for the employer, which is held as standard in undue hardship cases. Suggestions for initiating such a search can be found in Recruitment and Selection Notebook 3.4 and are guided by the British Columbia (Public Sector Employee Relations Comm.) v. BCGSEU Supreme Court decision. 6. If you were the employer’s legal counsel, how would you defend the employer at a human rights tribunal that is called to hear Smith’s complaint? What would you advise your client to do with respect to the charge? Answer: A legal defence for the employer would likely prove difficult, though not insurmountable. As the employer’s legal counsel, we could suggest mounting a defence on the grounds that BFORs were considered prior to testing and provide any available evidence to support this claim. Also, with reference to the Alberta Dairy Pool decision, the employer might suggest that it only hires people with required BFORs, such as typing skills, because they directly relate to performance. The employer could also claim that the BFORs/tests were selected in good faith and, per the Meiorin decision, they had reasonable alternatives to the tests that were offered and accepted by Ms. Smith. Solution Manual for Recruitment and Selection in Canada Victor M. Catano, Rick D. Hackett, Willi H. Wiesner 9780176764661, 9780176570316, 9780176504373
