Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER APRIL 2019 INSIGHT 27 Does your alma mater matter? With the U.S. college scandal, many are questioning the need to attend an elite school e university where I completed my ini- tial undergraduate education, the Uni- versity of Aberdeen in Scotland, ranked 158th in the world this year, according to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Considering there are thousands of universities worldwide, that's a pretty good score, although it isn't exactly on the level of Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard. e highest-ranked Canadian institution, the University of To- ronto, came in at number 21, ac- cording to the rankings, which is fantastic. But how much does your alma mater actually matter? Only one piece of the puzzle All else being equal, the university or college you graduated from can make a diff erence, but that's only one piece of the puzzle, along with many other factors taken into consideration by a prospective or current employer with regard to selection or promotion. Factors such as: choice of major, concentration or minor, grades, program of study, work experi- ence, specifi c skills, competen- cies, professional qualifi cations, job title, industry background, specifi c accomplishments, work projects, additional education, performance, potential, technical, communication and interperson- al skills and attitude often count for more than the university. While there are some excep- tions, such as the fi eld of aca- demia, the prestige of the post- secondary institution you gradu- ated from may matter little. In fact, if you graduated from a lower-ranked but more relevant and practical program, you could have an edge over those at more prestigious universities. It also depends what you were able to do with the education you received. Did you have good marks, and did you actually learn anything (either in terms of spe- cifi c or transferrable skills)? How did your program relate to your choice of career? I am a fi rm believer in the con- cept of value-add, and I believe some of the best academic insti- tutions and programs are the ones that off er transformative learning experiences that really challenge learners and boost their knowl- edge and skills. While some would argue it's purely about the piece of paper and a means to securing a better career, education should also be about learning and growing as an indi- vidual and contributor to society. I also think it's important to remember that many academic institutions cover the same mate- rial and use the same textbooks, and sometimes world-renowned experts at prestigious institutions aren't always the best teachers. ere's also the issue of class sizes and the level of personal attention given to students by faculty. Because of that, education is often what you make of it, and the most prestigious education isn't always the best. Academic standards and the U.S. college admissions scandal According to some studies, the percentage of really successful people who attended Ivy League schools is actually quite low. Other studies have shown that simply applying to an elite school is a predictor of success. is con- fi rms it is ability, aptitude, confi - dence and ambition that matter more than the actual degree or school where it was obtained. at is something participants in the alleged U.S. college admis- sions scam should have consid- ered. Trying to buy your child's way into an elite university by securing an unfair advantage through non-existent athletic and extracurricular activities or faked test scores sends the message she isn't capable of competing on a level playing fi eld. It also takes away a spot from a more deserving applicant, nega- tively impacts the brand of the institution, calls into question the abilities of those who graduated from the university and cheapens the process for all concerned. Cheating and unfair advantages tend to reinforce privilege and he- gemony in such cases. One good thing that came out of the scandal is many people are starting to question the necessity of attending an elite school and all the stress, hard work and fi nan- cial hardship that entails. More people are beginning to see that the quality of the student matters more than the institution. Standards at Canadian universities and colleges I personally don't believe stan- dards are all that diff erent among Canadian universities. e way our system works, the lowest- ranked university isn't going to be all that diff erent from the highest in terms of quality. I am also a fi rm believer in the community college system. e practicality, shorter duration and lower cost of college make it an attractive option. Because of that, I hold a school like Ryerson Uni- versity in Toronto in high regard because it combines the practical- ity of college with the academics of a university. In most cases, once you've been in the workforce for a signifi cant period of time, your academic institution isn't going to matter that much, and neither are grades all that important. Your choice of major may be a factor in deter- mining if you get an interview, but even an irrelevant major can be overcome with relevant experi- ence and additional coursework. Brian Kreissl is the Toronto-based product development manage for omson Reuters Legal Canada's HR, OHS, payroll and records retention products and solutions. He can be reached at brian.kreissl@tr.com. The university or college you graduated from is only one piece of the puzzle taken into consideration by employers. Brian Kreissl TOUGHEST HR QUESTION Failure to disclose prescription drug use Duty to accommodate hinges on several factors, including circumstances Question: Does an employer have to accommodate an employee using medical marijuana or another prescription drug if the employee has lied to the employer about using them? Answer: An employer has a le- gitimate interest in ensuring that an employee discloses a pre- scription where there is a risk of impairment. Whether or not an employer has fulfi lled its duty to accom- modate will turn on a number of factors, including whether the employee works in a safety-sen- sitive position, whether the em- ployer has a drug policy — and what it requires — as well as the circumstances surrounding the employee's dishonesty. Medical usage e fact that the dismissed em- ployee did not disclose his pre- scription was not a significant issue in Airport Terminal Services Canadian Co. and Unifor, Local 2002 (Sehgal), Re. According to the arbitrator — who ordered reinstatement — once the employer was aware of the worker's description, it had both a procedural and substantive duty to attempt to accommodate. The employee worked in a safety-sensitive position as a ramp agent and had tested positive for marijuana after he was involved in a minor workplace accident. It was not until the day of the incident that he disclosed that he had been using medically pre- scribed marijuana for the previ- ous three years. According to the arbitrator in Airport Terminal Services, hu- man rights legislation required the employer to undertake an analysis into the worker's restrictions and limitations. However, because the zero-tolerance policy only contemplated accommodation for drug addiction disorders, it did not meet the employer's duty to accommodate an employee au- thorized to use medical marijuana to treat a health disability. e arbitrator also found that the post-incident testing policy was unreasonable because it was drafted to mandate testing after every incident, including those that were not serious. Reasonable policy The court took a different ap- proach in International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1620 v. Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Em- ployers' Association Inc. and Va- lard Construction LP. A reviewing court upheld the arbitrator's conclusion that the worker's failure to disclose his medical marijuana prescription was a discipline-worthy off ence. At issue in that case was also a zero-tolerance policy. However, unlike the drug pol- icy in Airport Terminal Services, it did permit accommodation of medical marijuana prescription usage. e reviewing judge in Lower Churchill agreed that the zero- tolerance drug policy was rea- sonable and rationally connected to the legitimate requirements of the safety-sensitive workplace. Th e p o l i c y i n L o w e r Churchill also specifically re- quired disclosure, which was nec- essary in order for the employer to properly assess the type of ac- commodation that was needed and the potential impact that the accommodation could have on the workplace. Specifi city matters Even if a worker deliberately con- ceals his prescribed medical mari- juana use, an employer still needs to consider duty to accommodate. is is not to say that an em- ployer cannot treat non-disclo- sure as a discipline-worthy of- fence. However, the policy at issue must expressly say that failure to disclose prescribed use of a poten- tially impairing medication could result in discipline. In order to avoid the same pit- falls as in Airport Terminal Ser- vices, an employer will want to ensure its policy does not exclude a duty to accommodate disabili- ties requiring prescribed medical marijuana. An employer will also want to ensure it has educated work- ers on the mandatory disclosure requirement. With respect to the duty to ac- commodate, the employer will need to objectively assess the re- quested accommodation against the nature of the employee's du- ties and workplace environment. As in Airport Terminal Ser- vices, once the employer is aware of the need for accommodation it will need to understand the worker's restrictions and limita- tions, the daily and scheduled consumption of marijuana, the strain or strength of the mari- juana, the safety-sensitive nature of the workplace and the em- ployer's obligation to ensure the safety of all workers in the work environment. is can be a challenging and time-consuming endeavour, but as the arbitrator in Airport Ter- minal Services reminded, it is a necessary one. For more information, see: • Airport Terminal Services Cana- dian Co. and Unifor, Local 2002 (Sehgal), Re, 2018 CarswellNat 991 (Can. Arb.). • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1620 v. Lower Churchill Trans- mission Construction Employ- ers' Association Inc. and Valard Construction LP, 2016 NLTD (G) 192 (N.L. T.D.). Leah Schatz is a partner at MLT Aikins in Saskatoon. She can be reached at (306) 975-7144 or lschatz@ mltaikins.com. Question: Does an employer have to accommodate an employee using medical marijuana or another prescription drug if the employee has lied to the employer Leah Schatz TOUGHEST HR QUESTION An employer will want to ensure it has educated its workers on the mandatory disclosure requirement.

• Cover