The Human Rights system in Ontario works to remedy the discrimination that continues to marginalize vulnerable groups in employment. Minimizing the importance of human rights in the workplace and failing to correct discriminatory policies, rules and practices can have serious consequences. The Ontario Human Rights Code is government policy aimed at protecting people based on 17 grounds. There is specificity to the grounds identified because real examples of cases and complaints still remain an unfortunate reality in the modern workplace. The case Waseeb v. Imperial Oil Limited, as described in articles from HR Reporter and the Financial Times, illustrates increasing government intervention and policy enforcement aimed at combatting discrimination in the workplace. The scope of human rights codes in Canada has been evolving for decades, so why does it seem businesses are not keeping up?
In the case Waseeb v. Imperial Oil Limited the discrimination present in Imperial Oil’s recruitment and selection processes was found to have violated Muhammad Waseeb’s human rights and directly discriminated against him on the protected ground of citizenship. Further, Imperial Oil’s assertion that Waseeb’s failure to be truthful is just cause to rescind the employment offer was found to be without merit because his behaviour was necessary to avoid discrimination. The Human Rights Tribunal first made its decision in favour of Waseeb in 2018. At that time the Tribunal didn’t enforce remedial action. The parties agreed to engage in mediation to resolve the case. In 2019, after mediation was unsuccessful, the case resumed at the Tribunal. Imperial Oil was ordered to pay $120,000.00.
Waseeb v. Imperial Oil Limited is one example among many of the Tribunal’s intolerance for discrimination and Human Rights violations. Jon Pinkus writes: “In 2013, the tribunal awarded a supervisor $420,000, almost 10 years of back pay, against a school board that discriminated against her for her disability. In 2015, two temporary foreign workers who were severely mistreated and sexually harassed were awarded $200,000 in damages. In 2018, a retail worker was awarded $200,000 in damages for sexual harassment and solicitation by her employer.” Pinkus concludes the article stating, “Discrimination has become a very costly mistake in Ontario.” But were Imperial Oil’s actions a mistake? Large awards following lengthy trials suggest intentional refusal to change rather than an error in process.
Imperial Oil was very sure of what it was doing, requiring confirmation of permanent Canadian work status many times throughout the recruitment and selection process. Further, it put forward the argument of permanent Canadian working status as a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) in support of its policy (Rudner and Taylor) and, finally, it maintained its discriminatory position a year after the Tribunal decision. Imperial Oil made no mistake in defending policy and actions that were discriminatory: the stated intention of its actions was to disqualify people who aren’t permanently eligible to work in Canada (Tribunal Decision). It can be inconvenient to review HR policies, rules and practices, but businesses are legally required to remove bias and discrimination in the workplace. Further, poor attention to Human Rights can be a competitive disadvantage. What other talent has been passed over because of antiquated expectations of the workforce, and at what cost? Does Imperial Oil consider this form of discrimination a BFOR because Canadian citizens and permanent residents never leave their jobs? It would behove any business to explore how removing discriminatory barriers can be a part of their talent strategy rather than resting complacent in policies and actions of the past. An effective review includes exploring beyond what is inconvenient to develop fair, inclusive policies, rules and practices intended to respect people’s Human Rights. It would be helpful to understand why a rich company like Imperial Oil didn’t try harder to develop a talent strategy that didn’t require directly discriminating against potential employees eligible to work on temporary work permits. In fact, Imperial Oil recognized the limitations in their discrimination and arbitrarily waived its own rules when it suited them.
In conclusion, the Human Rights system in Ontario, including the Human Rights Code and legal remedy for violations, continues to require businesses to pay attention to Human Rights and to remove discrimination in the workplace. Businesses can be slow to react, defensive that cost and strategy are sacrificed when policies, practices and rules must be changed. Harsh penalties have been handed down to businesses that have demonstrated disregard for Human Rights. Any approach that minimizes the importance of Human Rights in the workplace is bad for business.
References
Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2013. “Guide to Your Rights and Responsibilities Under the Human Rights Code”.
Weinburg, Dr. Bradly. Queen’s University EMPR 240 W20 Module 6 Video Podcasts.
Rudner, Stuart and Taylor, Britany. “Requirement that employees be eligible to work in Canada on permanent basis constitutes direct discrimination: Tribunal”. Canadian HR Reporter. September 3, 2018. https://www.hrreporter.com/opinion/canadian-hr-law/requirement-that-employees-be-eligible-to-work-in-canada-on-permanent-basis-constitutes-direct-discrimination-tribunal/297698
Rudner, Stuart. “Case Update: Imperial Oil”. Canadian HR Reporter. October 23, 2019. https://www.hrreporter.com/opinion/canadian-hr-law/case-update-imperial-oil/322450
Pinkus, Jon. “Ontario human rights tribunal orders employer to pay $120,000 in damages to worker it didn’t even hire”. Financial Post. October 9, 2019. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ontario-human-rights-tribunal-orders-employer-to-pay-120000-in-damages-to-worker-it-didnt-even-hire
Waseeb v. Imperial Oil Human Rights Tribunal Decision https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2018/2018hrto957/2018hrto957.html?resultIndex=1
Sarah Northrup 
Hi Sarah!
I really enjoyed reading your weblogs post. It was very well written, insightful and very knowledgable. I find it bizarre to still hear about such discriminating situation demonstrated by businesses in the news, articles, etc. I completely agree with you, I believe failing to follow proper steps, rules and policies of human rights is very damaging with many consequences. I believe it creates a harmful relationship between employees and employers, as the lack of respect and care is not seen.
Due to the face that most companies are so driven and motivated by income and wealth, that they were perfect the human rights aspects of things. Essentially, since it is so costly, it surprises me that companies are very careless when it comes to human rights. I also agree and am curious with your statement about why larger companies don’t try to develop better standards in the workplace.
This connects heavily to the my article chosen for round 1 weblogs, as Amazon is such a large company but the lack of care and concern for their overall work environment and condition is so poor. It surprises me that such large companies would display such behaviour. Do you believe this is done on purpose or companies are just careless?
I would love to hear what you have to say!
Great post,
Hannah
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Hannah. It seems to me that the decision makers in these companies are usually focused on objectives that don’t prioritize social or human policy. When privilege and circumstance haven’t made human rights an issue in decision makers’ lives, careful attention to discrimination in policy, rules and practices doesn’t seem to happen. I think most companies are well intentioned on the surface, but are very comfortable to continue problematic practices because they won’t / don’t appreciate the impact it has on people. For example, Imperial Oil had been engaged in this practice since 2004 and the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibited this form of discrimination during that entire time. The research shows that they very purposefully and knowingly discriminated against applicants based on the permanency of their work permit for the entry level Engineer role. I expect that because Imperial Oil is an employer of choice offering a lucrative compensation package, they don’t have trouble attracting applicants that don’t carry the extra burden of having to go through the immigration system and who may have a higher rate of retention. This decision is based only on the organization’s needs and without regard to the needs of the community. Capitalist notions of market and profitability don’t usually drive commitment to humanist ideals of avoiding and remedying discrimination as the first step. Organizations that accept and appreciate their role as impactful social citizens do a lot to be examples of how profitability and humanity should share space at the top of the priority list. They invest energy in doing the right thing AND making a profit.
LikeLike
Hi Sarah!
Great post! You provide a clear and insightful view of the case Waseeb v. Imperial Oil Limited by highlighting the intolerance for discrimination in workplaces as outlined by the Ontario Human Rights Code. As you mentioned, Imperial Oil’s response to this case exemplifies the slow reaction and lack of attention that many businesses have concerning the Human Rights Code. In fact, this is only one of many cases in Canada that illustrates the ongoing discrimination prevalent in workplaces. As you stated, the case resulted in the tribunal ordering Imperial Oil to pay $120,000 and despite this, the company is still resistant the Human Rights Code. Having considered this, why do you think Imperial Oil (and so many other businesses) have been resistant? Do you think there is an underlying issue? And finally, what policies do you think businesses could implement to ensure they are complying with the Human Rights Codes?
Thanks! I really enjoyed reading your post!
Meghan
LikeLike
Hi Meghan,
Thanks for your comment. I think that, as in most things, if the businesses don’t see a suitable profitability factor to an activity, it isn’t something that becomes a priority. Big companies, like Imperial, have the money needed to settle complaints against their actions and don’t seem to be impacted by any negative sentiment from the public. Regarding your point about policy, Forbes published another great article this month in which they analyzed the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark that is assessed by the reputable organization World Benchmarking Alliance. It was evident from the findings that “human rights aren’t really that important”. The author goes on to describe that most companies that have policies in place, but still fail in their actions when it comes to human rights due diligence. Having the policy isn’t going far enough and, in my opinion, until businesses see the value, the way most people who are affected by actions in violation of their rights do, not much will change.
See: “Human Rights Really Aren’t All That Important: Just Ask 200 Leading Companies” by Bob Eccles for Forbes. March 9, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobeccles/2020/03/09/human-rights-really-arent-all-that-important-just-ask-200-leading-companies/#2b62a9be6e51
LikeLike
Hi Sarah,
Your blogpost is very effective in relaying the facts of the case as well as providing your analysis of Waseeb versus Imperial Oil case. I found your post/this case very interesting for several reasons. Firstly, up until a few years ago I was a permanent resident in Canada, had been for over 30 years, and in all those years never came across an employment position that I was unable to apply for based on my lack of citizenship (I was a permanent resident) in Canada. It would never have occurred to me prior to my formal education in employment law that my citizenship status, or lack there of, despite being legally entitled to work in Canada, would be proposed by any organization as a factor in employment. Secondly, I find it particularly worrisome that a company with the financial resources of Imperial, capable of enlisting the most qualified of employees and legal entities, stood firm on their illegal discriminatory practice instead of adhering to the letter of the law and taking corrective actions. Its also disappointing to read that the parties were incapable of coming to a fair compensation agreement and instead Imperial had to be ordered to pay Waseeb a sum appropriate (in their opinion).
Sarah, in light of everything that you have shared regarding this case, do you believe that Imperial’s lack of adherence to the Human Rights Code and the publicity that this case has received will affect qualified applicant’s willingness to apply for jobs at their company? If you were employed by Imperial to review their HR practices, what would your first act of business be?
Terrific work on your blogpost and the research findings that you provided. This is a very interesting case that I had not come across in the media and certainly one that I will remember.
Geraldine
LikeLike
Hi Geraldine, thanks so much for your comment and thoughtful question! Unfortunately, I don’t think that the bad press will hurt them. Imperial Oil is the third largest oil company in Canada and the compensation and benefits package is very lucrative. I expect the attractiveness of the company an employer is the reason why Waseeb put up with their discrimination in the first place. The tribunal understands this and will hand down increasingly larger penalties if there are continued violations. If I were employed there, my first action would be to analyze the recruitment and retention data to understand why these policies have been put in place and then work on incorporating human rights due diligence while meeting the business needs.
Sarah
LikeLike