Reference no: EM133354890

Assignment:

Case Study - Meirion vs BC Government

Legal Environment Case study: Tawney

This case is known as British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU and is frequently referred to as "Meiorin" or the "B.C. Firefighter Case." Even though the case was originally dealt with as a grievance, it is still a "human rights" case as many provinces have labour legislation giving arbitrators the responsibility of applying human rights laws in relevant cases. Ultimately, this case was decided at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Tawney worked as a forest firefighter for the Province of British Columbia and was a member of the Initial Attack Forest Firefighting crew for a small area in the forests of BC. The crew's job was to attack and suppress forest fires while they were small and could be easily contained. Her supervisors found her work satisfactory and had no reason to question her continuing ability to do the work safely and effectively.

After she had been successfully doing this job for three years, the government adopted a new series of fitness tests for forest firefighters. The tests were developed in response to a Coroner's Inquest Report that recommended that only physically fit employees be assigned as front-line forest firefighters for safety reasons. The tests required that forest firefighters weigh less than 200 lbs. (with their equipment) and finish a run, an upright rowing exercise, and a pump carrying/hose dragging exercise within stipulated times.

The running test was designed to test the forest firefighters' aerobic fitness. Subjects were required to run 2.5 kilometres in 11 minutes. After four attempts, Tawney failed to meet the aerobic standard, running the distance in 11 minutes and 49.4 seconds instead of the required 11 minutes. As a result, she was laid off.

Stating that the test unfairly discriminated against women, Tawney's union brought a grievance on her behalf.

Group discussion questions:

1. Reliability and Validity:

Are these tests a fair way of measuring a firefighter's ability to do the job? Specifically:

i. Were the tests reliable? Why or why not?

ii. Were the tests valid? Why or why not?

2. Human Rights/Discrimination/Equity:

a. What do you think about having different standards for men and women?

b. If Tawney was passed (in other words, not laid off), even though her running time was below what was required, is she being given preferential treatment over men?

3. The Final Decision:

You are the arbitrator that is deciding the grievance. The employer says their decision is correct as Tawney could not pass their assessments. The union says the tests unfairly discriminate against women.

As the arbitrator, do you agree with the employer or the union? Why?