Service Employee Relations

Meiorin CaseNEW TEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONBritish Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Comm.) v. B.C.G.E.U. (1999), 35 C.H.R.R. D/257 (S.C.C.)The Supreme Court of Canada holds that the Government of British Columbia’s aerobic standard used to test the fitness of forest firefighters discriminates on the basis of sex, and further that the Government failed to show that the discriminatory standard is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (“BFOR”).This case arose as a grievance before a labour arbitrator. Tawney Meiorin was employed for three years as a member of the Initial Attack Forest Firefighting crew. Although she did her work well, she lost her job when the Government adopted a new series of fitness tests for forest firefighters. She passed three of the tests but failed a fourth one, a 2.5 km run designed to assess whether she met the Government’s aerobic standards, by taking 49.4 seconds longer than required.The arbitrator found that the aerobic standard constituted adverse effect discrimination based on sex because men as a group have a higher aerobic capacity than women, and consequently are more able to meet the standard. The average man, with training, could meet the standard. The average woman, with training, could not meet the standard. Consequently, the same standard applied to both sexes excluded more women than men.The arbitrator also concluded that the Government did not show that it had accommodated Ms. Meiorin to the point of undue hardship. The arbitrator ordered that Ms. Meiorin be reinstated and compensated for lost wages and benefits. This arbitral ruling was overturned by the British Columbia Court of AppealIn the view of the Supreme Court of Canada the narrow issue is whether the Government improperly dismissed Ms. Meiorin from her job as a forest firefighter. The broader issue is whether the aerobic standard unfairly excludes women from forest firefighting jobs.The aerobic standard was developed for the Government by University of Victoria researchers. The Court finds that two aspects of the researchers’ methodology are problematic in this case. First, it was primarily descriptive, based on measuring average performance levels, and converting this data into minimum performance standards. Therefore, it did not demonstrate that these performance standards were in fact necessary to the safe and efficient performance of the job. Second, it did not seem to distinguish between male and female test subjects. The record did not show whether women and men require the same minimum level of aerobic capacity to perform this job safely and efficiently.The Court holds that the Court of Appeal mistakenly read the arbitrator’s reasons as finding that the aerobic standard was necessary to the safe and efficient performance of work. The arbitrator found, on the contrary, that despite her failure to meet the standard Ms. Meiorin did not pose a serious safety risk to herself, her colleagues, or the general public. The arbitrator did not find that meeting the aerobic standard was necessary to safe and efficient job performance.The Court agrees with the arbitrator that on the conventional legal approach to applying human rights legislation a case of adverse effect discrimination was made out and the Government failed to show that it had accommodated to the point of undue hardship.However, the Court decides that the conventional analysis should be revisited. The conventional analysis has distinguished between direct discrimination and adverse effect discrimination, defining direct discrimination as that which is open or overt, discriminatory on its face, and adverse effect discrimination as that which results from the discriminatory effects of seemingly neutral practices. The defence to direct discrimination has been to show that the rule is a bona fide occupational requirement. Absent such a showing, the rule would be struck down. The defence to adverse effect discrimination has been to show that a complainant could not be accommodated without undue hardship. This bifurcated approach has caused some confusion on the part of tribunals and courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada takes this occasion to articulate a new “unified” approach which avoids the distinction between direct and adverse effect discrimination.Under the unified approach there is a three-step test for determining whether a discriminatory standard is a BFOR. The employer must establish:1. the standard was adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to job performance;2. the particular standard was adopted in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate work-related purpose;3. the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This includes a requirement to demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate without undue hardship.Applying the unified approach to this case, the Court holds that Ms. Meiorin discharged the burden of establishing that, prima facie, the standard discriminates against women, and the Government has not shown that the standard is reasonably necessary. The Government did not show that it would experience undue hardship if a different standard were used.The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeal that accommodating women by permitting them to meet a different aerobic standard necessarily discriminates against men. The Court also finds that individual testing, without more, does not negate discrimination.The appeal is allowed, and the order of the arbitrator is restored, with costs to the appellant in this Court and the Court below.For more information on Service Employee Relations check on:

DNP Role Presentation

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Service Employee Relations
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay


Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Choose Us

Quality Papers

At Acme Writers, we always aim at 100% customer satisfaction. As such, we never compromise o the quality of our homework services. Our homework helpers ensure that they craft each paper carefully to match the requirements of the instruction form.

Professional Academic Writers

With Acme Writers, every student is guaranteed high-quality, professionally written papers. We ensure that we hire individuals with high academic qualifications who can maintain our quality policy. These writers undergo further training to sharpen their writing skills, making them more competent in writing academic papers.

Affordable Prices

Our company maintains a fair pricing system for all academic writing services to ensure affordability. Our pricing system generates quotations based on the properties of individual papers.

On-Time delivery

Acme Writers guarantees all students of swift delivery of papers. We understand that time is an essential factor in the academic world. Therefore, we ensure that we deliver the paper on or before the agreed date to give students ample time for reviewing.

100% Originality

Acme Writers maintains a zero-plagiarism policy in all papers. As such, Acme Writers professional academic writers ensure that they use the students’ instructions to deliver plagiarism-free papers. We are very keen on avoiding any chance of similarities with previous papers.

Customer Support 24/7

Our customer support works around the clock to provide students with assistance or guidance at any time of the day. Students can always communicate with us through our live chat system or our email and receive instant responses. Feel free to contact us via the Chat window or support email: support@Acme Writers.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Samples

Our writers complete papers strictly according to your instructions and needs, no matter what university, college, or high school you study in.

All samples
Analysis (any type)
Argumentative essays
Dissertation/Dissertation chapter
Analysis (any type)
Advantages and disadvantages of lowering the voting age to thirteen
Undergrad. (yrs 1-2)
Political science
View this sample
Argumentative essays
Is euthanasia ethical or not?
Undergrad. (yrs 3-4)
View this sample
Dissertation/Dissertation chapter
Videoconferencing as a teaching tool
Undergrad. (yrs 3-4)
View this sample

Our Homework Writing Services

Acme Writers holds a reputation for being a platform that provides high-quality homework writing services. All you need to do is provide us with all the necessary requirements of the paper and wait for quality results.


Essay Writing Services

At Acme Writers, we have highly qualified academic gurus who will offer great assistance towards completing your essays. Our homework writing service providers are well-versed with all the aspects of developing high-quality and relevant essays.


Admission and Business Papers

With Acme Writers, we will help you secure a position at your desired institution. Our essay writing services include the crafting of admissions papers. We will still help you climb your career ladder by helping you write the official papers that will help you secure a job. We will guide you on how to write an outstanding portfolio or resume.


Editing and Proofreading

Acme Writers has a professional editorial team that will help you organize your paper, paraphrase it, and eliminate any possible mistakes. Also, we will help you check on plagiarism to ensure that your final paper posses quality and originality.


Technical papers

Acme Writers harbors professional academic writers from diverse academic disciplines. As such, we can develop homework writing services in all academic areas. The simplicity or complexity of the paper does not affect the quality of homework writing services.