Introduction
The advancement of every economy is highly dependent on its workforce. The quality of the workforce is a major determinant of a country’s progress in the utilization of the available resources and those created by the workforce. Working areas are thus important because they are the basis of workforce utilization and interaction. The administration of workforce to utilize the available resources for the full realization of economic gains has various challenges among which workforce discrimination is a key problem. Workforce discrimination can be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, family status, convocations, sex, marital status, age, and color. Workforce discrimination is a vice that lowers labor productivity and lowers workers morale. The workers’ plight on discrimination matters is safeguarded by the Canada Labor Code, which is the fundamental employment legislation governing the federally regulated industries (Elliott & Saxe, 1992). This paper looks at discrimination of Canadian workforce based on age.
Canadian Law and Workforce Discrimination
The Canada Labor Code governs the labor and industrial relations that include joint negotiating, work-related health and wellbeing, working hours, the least possible salaries, holiday privileges, authorized absenteeism, terminations, severance, and unjust dismissal (Alon-Shenker, 2012). This code synonymous to the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2006, which provides minimum employment standards in Ontario (Piktialis, 2007). The Canadian Human Rights Act, which is similar to the Ontario’s Human Rights Code further protects employees not only from the above conditions, but also from discrimination based on tribe, national or ethnic origin, color, religious affiliation, age, gender, sexual alignment, marital standing, family status, and infirmity (Alon-Shenker, 2012). This act has established a hearing referred to as Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Ontario has a similar tribunal, which is charged with carrying out duties such as reinstating employees who have been wrongly terminated as well as awarding modest financial compensation for injury to feelings, self-respect and dignity.
These laws are set to protect employees from unfair treatment from their employers. The discrimination of employees by age can be daunting specifically for older workers above 65 years who are the main focus of this paper. In 1982, Canada Quebec province abolished the mandatory retirement age. The abolishment of retirement age was later adopted by other provinces including Ontario (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2009). The adoption of this law gave employees a chance to work even past 65 years without being obliged to stop working for their employers. The end of the mandatory retirement on 12th December, 2006 in Ontario relieved employees from forced retirement due to age.
The legislation, however, does not restrict the employer from terminating an older employee. What is required of employers is to avoid imposing contractual terms or policies requiring old employees to leave (Elliott & Saxe, 1992). The employment of an employee whose age is above a certain limit and is unable to perform his or her duties satisfactorily can be terminated with notice or pay (Kwasniewski, 2010). Discrimination in the provision of benefits to workers above the age of 65 is still allowed. Areas where such discrimination exist include health insurance and dental benefits. However, senior workers are still eligible for government benefits like the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan (Alon-Shenker, 2012). When employees sustain work-related wounds at the age of 63 years, they are given settlements for a maximum of twenty-four months. The employer’s duty to re-employ and accommodate injured workers ceases at the age of 65 (Alon-Shenker, 2012). When collective bargaining agreements are not enforceable, employers are allowed to offer retirements packages before the retirement age as an incentive (Piktialis, 2007).
Exceptions in Canada where it is Permissible to Restrict Working Based on Age
There are certain occupations that support mandatory retirement age before attaining the age of 65 years. These occupations are highly sensitive and require high standards of safety. They include jobs such airline pilots, police officers, and firefighters. Other positions that require high levels of safety include truck drivers who need to have good vision during the day and night to avoid accidents. The sensitivity of a job cannot be traded with the age because any flaws that could arise could cause massive losses and damages. The termination of such employees, however, needs to be carried out with dignity. The employees need to be prepared in advance. Employers should also ensure that the employees’ retirement dues are availed to them promptly. Jobs that need a lot of physical effort are unfit for the aged due to the level of strain involved. Therefore, as one ages, he or she needs to move away from such jobs. The adoption of flexi-time and part-time or working at home via the internet has also revolutionized the capability of an older worker to work even at an older age (Perry, 2010).
Case Law
As mentioned earlier, certain occupations such as firemen, seamen, police and pilots are age-sensitive and highly sensitive to safety. This section looks at the case of Vilven and Kelly versus Air Canada in 2007. Pilots wanted their age of retirement to be extended. Normally, pilots are required to retire at the age of 60. The tribunal ruled that 60 was “normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions” according to S. 15(1) (c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Partnership for Public Service, 2011). The examination of other international carriers set age for retirement also revealed that the policy was not discriminatory and did not violate S.15 (1) (c) of the charter.
Another case is an incident involving Mr. Reiss, a 60-year-old man who previously worked as a lawyer. Mr. Reiss was interested in taking up the position of an official writer for CCH Canadian Limited and submitted his application when the position was advertised. However, he was not among the shortlisted candidates because his application was kept aside. Upon making inquiries, the human resource manager informed him that the reason he was not considered for the job was because the firm preferred younger candidates because they had less experience and did not expect to be paid high salaries. The law court maintained that the HR’s remark implied a typecast conjecture that a mature person requires a higher remuneration. It awarded Mr. Reiss $5,000 for injury of dignity, feelings, and self-respect (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2009).
From the above cases, it is evident that discrimination of employees by age is illegal, and employees have to be compensated if they suffer any damage.
Implications for HR Professionals that Arise out Of an Older Workforce
Despite their advancement in knowledge and skills because of possession of a lot of work experience, the older workforce has various demands and needs. The challenges of having the older workforce arise as they become older because their bodies tend to weaken. The major challenges of an aging population include reduced mobility, vision problems, health-related complications, and the reduced ability to learn technical skills (Kathleen & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2005). The challenge of training older workforce is a major concern for employers. Older workforce demands are less than a younger workforce in terms of job enrichment. However, the shortcomings that come from their rigidity outweigh their benefits. The reduced ability to adapt to new tasks is a key concern due to the dynamics of the work environment. Human resource professionals engage the workforce in training and development as well as remuneration in terms of output compensation schemes that may lead to older workers getting less pay, which is against the stipulated law of equal remuneration for same jobs (Elliott & Saxe, 1992).
Recommendations for the Employer/HR to Account for the Changes to the Environment
The human resource department in every organization is very crucial to the recruitment and training of competent staff. In changing environments where laws governing the manner in which employees are managed is constantly changing, the employer needs to adjust to adhere to these laws. Senior employees should be promoted according to merit and performance to ensure that performance and the quality of services are not compromised. The high remuneration awarded to the top and senior employees should be in line with their output. The HR can ensure that there is fairness in payments by ensuring that remuneration is attached to the performance of an individual, for example, paying commissions according to the volume of sales. The regulations requiring the payment of injured employees in their 60s even in their absence causes companies to incur unnecessary expenses. Therefore, older workers in risky occupations should be shifted to less risky areas. It is also advisable to provide early retirement options to these workers. However, the age of employers is not very crucial to their output because their ability to offer satisfactory services that meet the required standards is determined by the capabilities of their employees.
The implications of the changes in the age of retirement on the human resource payroll are also significant. The pension plan payments and the amounts to be given on retirement for individuals retiring at an older age are high due to the high number of years worked. Advancing age comes with numerous health complications. Therefore, the medical insurance of an employee who is hired at an older age tends to be high thereby increasing the cost of having such an employee. Termination of an employee without an agreement brings about lawsuits that compel the employer to make payments to the employee, which is a loss to the employer. Therefore, human resource managers need to find ways of encouraging older employees to retire voluntarily.
Conclusion
Age discrimination at work is a thing of the past in Ontario because it is prohibited by the law. However, workers above the age of 65 are challenged to choose occupations that will not cause physical strain. The existence of many Acts that protect the plight of workers also leaves the employers in a dilemma when it comes to hiring employees. It becomes tricky when employers need to hire young workers and older workers also compete for the same jobs and have similar qualifications. An older workforce has the ability to agitate for its rights to equal consideration in employment opportunities where no age limits have been set. The establishment of the Ontario Law in 2006 regarding the retirement age of workers is a major breakthrough for workers because it allows them to participate actively in formal employment at an advanced age.
References
Alon-Shenker, P. (2012). The duty to accommodate senior workers: Its nature, scope and limitations. Queen’s Law Journal, 38(1), 165-208.
Elliott, C. & Saxe, S. (1992). Pay equity handbook. Canada: Law Book Inc.
Kathleen, C. & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2005). Accommodating older workers needs for flexible work options. Ivey Business Journal, 69(6), 1.
Kwasniewski, B. W. (2010). The end of mandatory retirement: Legal implications for employers. Charity Law Bulletin No. 229. Web.
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2009). Policy on discrimination against older people because of age. Web.
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2015). Ageism and age discrimination (fact sheet). Web.
Partnership for Public Service. (2011). Fed experience pilot program. Web.
Perry, L. (2010). The aging workforce: Using ergonomics to improve workplace design. Professional Safety, 55(4), 1-7.
Piktialis, D. (2007). Adaptations to an aging workforce: Innovative responses by the corporate sector. Generations, 31(1), 76.