The Importance of Ensuring Employment Equity - Essay Example

Canada is the world's true melting pot. While the United s has historically claimed that for itself, the racial tensions and violence which fill the country's history pages and persist until this very day, indicate otherwise. Races co-exist in the United States but they have not melded into one another. In Canada the story is very different. It is not only the world's most racially and ethnically diverse countries but it is one of the very few which have accommodated racial diversity through the adoption of two languages. Added to that, and as Mahtani (2002, p. 3) points out, Canada was the first country to adopt an official government policy on diversity. Its multicultural policy, which entered into legislature over thirty years ago, was "Canada's official legislative response to ethnic plurality for a multicultural society (Mahatani, 2002, p. 3). This does not mean, however, that there are no racial and ethnic tensions in Canada but only that the nation is comparatively more tolerant and accommodating of diversity than are many others. If Canada is to maintain relative ethnic and racial harmony it must diffuse the poisoned environment phenomenon which pervaded in the case of Clive Stevens and Robert Symister versus Lynx Industries. In 2005, two black Jamaicans were dismissed from Lynx Industries, allegedly for race-based reasons. The case was brought before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been subjected to racist treatment by Lynx Industries and its employees. The alleged racist treatment encompassed all of racial slurs, race motivated harassment and racist graffiti on the bathroom walls. The defendants denied all allegations but admitted to the graffiti incident. Their legal representative, however, cautioned that it had been a single, isolated incident. The Tribunal was unconvinced and found that the plaintiffs were not credible. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed. Even though the complaint was dismissed, the case summarized in the preceding paragraph highlights the phenomenon of poisoned environment. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a poisoned environment refers to a workplace whose atmosphere has been tainted by racism ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, para 5). Interestingly, the Commission contends that "unlike harassment which requires repeated behaviour, a poisoned environment can be created by a single incident, if serious or substantial enough" ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, para 5). The creation of a poisoned environment is contrary to the Commission's Code. Importantly, employers are held responsible for either the prevention of the creation of poisoned environment or for taking immediate action against those responsible for it ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, paras 5-6). An environment which has been tainted by racism, even if it has assumed the form of a single incident, is considered poisoned because racial tolerance has been undermined, even violated. Indeed, poisoned environments may very well become intolerable for racial minorities, thereby forcing them to leave. While it is important to acknowledge the Tribunal's findings, the fact of the matter is that Lynx Industries did admit to the presence of racist graffiti on the bathroom wall. Certainly, it did caution that it was a single incident and there was no reoccurrence. The fact of the matter is, however, that it did occur and the Commission considers such occurrences a breach of its policies ("Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environment," 2008, paras 1-2). Within the context of the stated, the Commission's findings appear contradictory to its own guidelines. Indeed, even if one assumes that the defendants were truthful in claiming that the plaintiffs were not dismissed for racial reasons but for their on-the-job performance, it could very well be that the environment had been poisoned to the extent where Stevens and Symister could not perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. Therefore, even when supposing that the plaintoffs exaggerated their claim and did not provide convincing testimony, the fact is that the defendants admitted to the graffiti incident. Within this particular context, the Commission's findings are counter-productive. The Commission could have dismissed the complaint but, even while doing so, could and should have issued the defendants a warning regarding the imperatives of avoiding the onset of a poisoned environment. Employers' responsibilities with respect to the avoidance of poisoned environments cannot be taken lightly. Canadian federal legislature emphasizes that employers are responsible for ensuring employment equity and adopts a strong stance against workplace racial discrimination, including the denial of employment opportunities and career advancements for racial reasons. The Federal Employment Equity Act, which passed into legislature in 1986, makes it contingent upon all employers to remove all barriers to the employment of ethnic and racial minorities and to provide for racial and ethnic equity in the workplace ("Federal Employment Equity Act - An Overview," 2008, para. 1). Employers are required to regularly survey and monitor their employees and workplace environment to ensure that this legislative provision is adhered to. In incidents of proven violation, employers are forced to pay a fine (para 3). This means that Canadian legislature adopts an uncompromising stance towards racial discrimination in the workplace and, in so doing, attempts to ensure that workplaces remain free of the taint of racism. In other words, both the legislature and the Ontario Human Rights Commission have taken the necessary policy and legislative action against the poisoned environment phenomenon. Added to the foregoing, the Ontario Human Rights Code clearly explicates the duty of employers to provide their employees reasonable accommodation for the purposes of avoiding undue hardship. Employers have a duty to ensure that employee morale does not suffer as a direct outcome of the workplace environment (Mental Health Works, paras 9-10). The assumption here is that if employees are subjected to undue hardship within their work environment, employee morale will suffer. Under these circumstances, employees can hardly be expected to execute their workplace responsibilities, either to the best of their abilities or as required by their employees. In direct relation to Stevens and Symister, one can surmise that, irrespective of the court findings, the defendant, Lynx Industries, did not fulfil the duty of reasonable accommodation and protection against undue hardship. The outcome was that the plaintiffs felt discriminated against and rejected by their workplace environment. As the targets of racism, it is apparent that the plaintiffs' morale suffered, with the result being their inability to perform their work duties as required. Therefore, while they may have been terminated because they were not fulfilling their workplace responsibilities, the fact remains that the environment in question was poisoned and, as such, negatively impacted upon their morale, preventing them from executing their job responsibilities as required. From a personal viewpoint, Canada's multicultural character makes the avoidance and prevention of poisoned environments an absolute imperative. The nation, more than any other in the world, is a nation of immigrants and, both traditionally and historically, a melting pot. Canada's multicultural composition is protected and supported by a multicultural federal policy which seeks to ensure the continuation of racial harmony in the country. National legislature attempts to ensure the protection of racial harmony through various anti-discriminatory policies. Amongst these are policies and laws which, as noted in the essay, prevent and de-legitimize workplace discrimination. The reasons why they do so is because equality is not just a human right but it is one of the most fundamental of the human rights. As directly pertains to the protection of this right in the workplace, suffice to say that discriminatory employment practices have the potential to deny people the ability to earn a livelihood. In other words, it denies them the right to be independent and self-supporting, to provide for their families and ensure the well-being of their children. Indeed, the importance of employment equity and the avoidance of racial harassment and the tainting of the workplace environment with poisonous racial slurs, cannot be overstated. Given the importance of ensuring employment equity and in consideration of the fundamental human rights which are at stake here, the Commission's dismissal of the case of Stevens and Symister is counterproductive. As earlier stated, even if the plaintiffs had exaggerated their claim, the workplace environment had been poisoned by the graffiti in question. The graffiti was an expression of racial harassment and was a testament to racism in Lynx Industries. This incident does not just evidence the probability of there having been a poisoned environment but leads one to suspect that the environment may have prevented Stevens and Symister from performing their jobs as required. Their dismissal may have been rationalized by their poor work performance but their poor performance may have been an outcome of the racism to which they were subjected. When looked at from this perspective, it appears that the Commission should have adopted a stronger stance. From a subjective perspective, the findings would have been more constructive and consistent with Canada's multicultural policy, its employment equity legislature and the Commission's own position against poisoned environments, had the case been dismissed alongside a warning against workplace racism in Lynx Industries Ltd. Works Cited "Canada's Employment Equity Act." Media Awareness Network. 2008. http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/employment_equity/employ_equity_act.cfm Mahtani, Minelle. "Interrogating the Hyphen-nation: Canadian Multicultural Policy and Mired Race " Identities." CERIS working Paper no. 20. 2002. Toronto: Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement. Mental Health Works. "Rights and Responsibilities." Mental Health Works Canada. 2007. http://www.mentalhealthworks.ca/employers/faq/question7.asp "Racial Harassment and Poisoned Environments." Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2008. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/factsheets/Harassmentandpoisonedenvoronmentspage=Harassmentandpoisonedenvoronments.html#Heading16 Read More