The case of British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU is a case that demonstrates both, inequity and inequality. Several factors in reaching the decision have to be assessed in order to identify inequity and inequality. The first factor was stated in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU (1999) that “First, the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job.” (para. 5). This principle deals with equality as everyone should be judged according to the same standards. If the imposed standards are not connected to the performance of the job, then they are discriminating against whoever does not pass these standards
…show more content…
BCGSEU (1999) that in this specific case “There was no credible evidence showing that the prescribed aerobic capacity was necessary for either men or women to perform the work of a forest firefighter satisfactorily.” (para. 12). As there was no credible evidence to prove that prescribed aerobic capacity was necessary, it follows that the employer was discriminating against whoever did not pass the test. In addition, it was stated in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU (1999) that “Evidence accepted by the arbitrator demonstrated that, owing to physiological differences, most women have lower aerobic capacity than most men. Even with training, most women cannot increase their aerobic capacity to the level required by the aerobic standard, although training can allow most men to meet it. “(para. 13). As most of the women are naturally physiologically weaker than men and cannot raise their aerobic capacity to the required levels even with training, it follows that the imposed standards discriminate against women and therefore promote inequality as they do not facilitate the ability of every individual to …show more content…
BCGSEU (1999) that “... the studies failed to distinguish the female test subjects from the male test subjects, who constituted the majority of the sample groups.” (para. 8). Failure to distinguish between male and female subjects could be seen as a case for both inequity and inequality. Inequality could be observed in the unequal sample representation of test subjects used in the study, while inequity is shown where males and females are not provided with different treatments according to their needs despite being naturally physiologically different. Further inequity in the case of British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU (1999) could observed in the requirements of the tests “The Tests required that the forest firefighters weigh less than 200 lbs. (with their equipment) and complete a shuttle run, an upright rowing exercise, and a pump carrying/hose dragging exercise within stipulated times.” (para. 5).” The requirement of weighing less than 200 lbs. with the equipment promotes inequity as different people have different body structures from birth and putting a limit on weight serves injustice based on the circumstances out of people’s control. Overall, introduction of the aerobic test promotes both inequality and inequity as it was not proven that the test is necessary for successfully performing the
BCGSEU (1999) that in this specific case “There was no credible evidence showing that the prescribed aerobic capacity was necessary for either men or women to perform the work of a forest firefighter satisfactorily.” (para. 12). As there was no credible evidence to prove that prescribed aerobic capacity was necessary, it follows that the employer was discriminating against whoever did not pass the test. In addition, it was stated in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU (1999) that “Evidence accepted by the arbitrator demonstrated that, owing to physiological differences, most women have lower aerobic capacity than most men. Even with training, most women cannot increase their aerobic capacity to the level required by the aerobic standard, although training can allow most men to meet it. “(para. 13). As most of the women are naturally physiologically weaker than men and cannot raise their aerobic capacity to the required levels even with training, it follows that the imposed standards discriminate against women and therefore promote inequality as they do not facilitate the ability of every individual to …show more content…
BCGSEU (1999) that “... the studies failed to distinguish the female test subjects from the male test subjects, who constituted the majority of the sample groups.” (para. 8). Failure to distinguish between male and female subjects could be seen as a case for both inequity and inequality. Inequality could be observed in the unequal sample representation of test subjects used in the study, while inequity is shown where males and females are not provided with different treatments according to their needs despite being naturally physiologically different. Further inequity in the case of British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU (1999) could observed in the requirements of the tests “The Tests required that the forest firefighters weigh less than 200 lbs. (with their equipment) and complete a shuttle run, an upright rowing exercise, and a pump carrying/hose dragging exercise within stipulated times.” (para. 5).” The requirement of weighing less than 200 lbs. with the equipment promotes inequity as different people have different body structures from birth and putting a limit on weight serves injustice based on the circumstances out of people’s control. Overall, introduction of the aerobic test promotes both inequality and inequity as it was not proven that the test is necessary for successfully performing the