Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER December 12, 2016 INSIGHT 23 CPHR represents HR for majority of Canada Designation adheres to previously celebrated aspects of one vision, framework and voice At a time when the triple-designation ap- proach of Ontario's Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) has caused confusion for the HR profession in Canada, we want to ensure there is no confusion about this: HRPA does not speak for the majority of Canada — that role belongs to CPHR Canada, formerly known as the Canadian Council of Human Resources As- sociations (CCHRA). This confusion is indicative of what is happening to the HR profession in Canada, as we see a large division starting to ap- pear. Case in point: Due in part to Ontario's recent denigration of the CHRP, and in part because of continued market confusion, the rest of Canada has changed its premier designation from CHRP to CPHR — Chartered Profes- sional in Human Resources. Unfortunately, while HRPA was very much a founding fi gure in establishing our national des- ignation and association years ago, that support changed when it unilaterally decided to leave the national association a couple of years ago; that distance was fur- thered by its decision to begin the lowering of the CHRP — and the established framework it rep- resented — by placing it at the junior entry level of its exclusive three-tier system of HR designa- tions… in Ontario. All of this occurred despite ob- jections from the rest of Canada, and a formal request that it not make the CHRP the lowest of the three designations. "In Ontario" is the important part to bear in mind, and it is why we are reaching out to members and stakeholders to remind them — the CHRP designation as we knew it is no longer relevant out- side of Ontario. Moreover, its new "easy-access" entry status does not speak to a fraction of the designation's essen- tial strengths or to the framework supporting the eff orts of current designation-holders. As a result, whatever stan- dard emerges from Ontario, or is promoted by its principals, it can speak only for Ontario, and remains fl awed in a fundamental principle — after all, how can you promote a multinational standard when you have fragmented your own standard three times over, to the cost and dismay of human re- sources professionals across your own country? ISO issues In regard to the recent Canadian HR Reporter article, "Multina- tional ISO standard for HR com- petencies pushed by HRPA," the authority for such an initiative lies outside the hands of the Ontario- only HR body. Moreover, this unilateral ISO (International Organization for Standardization) initiative has been opposed at the national level (CPHR Canada), as well as by HR bodies from the United States, United Kingdom, Aus- tralia, and the World Federation of People Management Associa- tions (WFPMA) representing 93 member countries and nearly 700,000 HR practitioners. Let- ters to the ISO have already been written by the U.S., Australia, and the WFPMA denouncing this initiative and recommending it be scrapped. Accordingly, for HRPA to sug- gest this is an exciting initiative to have as a foundation for en- hancing the profession around the world, and that the Standards Council of Canada and the ISO endorsed it, doesn't tell the full story. us, we are delivering a simple message on a global level — don't be fooled. e CPHR designation should be the only designation to represent Canada — and this holds true well beyond participa- tion in the ISO. CPHR Canada is also the only Canadian delegate representa- tive to both the North American Human Resource Management Association (NAHRMA) and WFPMA. HR has become increasingly global and CPHR Canada is at the forefront in building partnerships internationally. On the national level, we have our work cut out for us, but that work is greatly alleviated by the fact that the CPHR designation adheres to all previously celebrat- ed aspects of the CHRP — name- ly, one vision, one framework and one voice. It has taken decades, and the work of thousands of profession- als, to reach this point, and of that we can be justifi ably proud as Ca- nadian HR professionals. I speak from personal experi- ence when I say that what has happened in Ontario has caused harm to the human resources profession. When I was CEO of CGA Canada, I was involved in bringing together the three ac- counting bodies into one (CPA), and I can attest that this diver- gence in designations, at a time when convergence is the norm, only harms the profession rather than bolsters it. Before HRPA moved in this direction, I off ered my sugges- tion and recommendation to stay the course for the betterment of the profession and membership as a whole, but HRPA chose not to. For now, we live with the dichotomy. CPHR Canada will always wel- come the Ontario association back to the national association, if it is willing to respect every other province and territory's commitment to one vision, one framework and one voice. However, in the meantime, those looking for a global stan- dard in human resources excel- lence need look no further than the CPHR designation. Anthony Ariganello is the Vancouver- based president and CEO of the Hu- man Resources Management Associa- tion (HRMA) and CPHR Canada. Waiting for medical documentation of absences How long is too long when employees don't respond to employer requests? Question: If an employer knows an employ- ee's absence is due to a medical condition, but the employee doesn't respond to re- quests to provide medical documentation supporting the absence or return date, how long must the employer wait? Answer: e short answer is — it depends. Generally speaking, there is no bright-line rule setting out how long an employer must wait to re- ceive medical information before issuing discipline for an unsub- stantiated absence. e analysis is contextual. For example, in a unionized work environment, a collective agreement may mandate the length of time an employer must wait before issuing discipline, as well as the types of discipline the employer can issue. Federally regulated employ- ers should be aware the Canada Labour Code places restrictions on discipline when an employee is absent from work due to work- related or non-work-related ill- ness or injury. One thing is clear: e road to termination on the basis of an unsubstantiated absence can be a long one. In Calgary Co-operative Assn. v. U.C.C.E., an employee was dismissed for failing to pro- vide medical documentation to substantiate an ongoing absence. The arbitrator determined the employer had just cause to issue some form of discipline on the ba- sis of the following factors: • e absence extended beyond the date supported by medical documentation. • Multiple requests were made for additional information. •A clear warning was issued that failure to provide updated infor- mation would result in discipline. •No reason, medical or otherwise, precluded the provision of the information or a return to work. In determining the penalty of discharge was appropriate, the arbitrator found the employee's discipline-free years of service and legitimate illness were out- weighed by aggravating factors; in particular, the deliberate with- holding of medical information by the employee and the union. An employer should also en- sure it can establish disability is not a factor in the decision to discipline, and the employer has not breached its duty to accom- modate. In Baber v. York Region District School Board, the em- ployee, absent from work due to illness, alleged that in terminat- ing her employment, the school board discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disability-related needs. e employee had been absent for months and, despite multiple requests and a warning that fail- ure to participate could result in termination, failed to provide adequate medical information to substantiate her absence or sup- port accommodation. e Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found the duty to accom- modate did not permit the em- ployee to refuse the employer's le- gitimate requests for information, nor did it require the employer to tolerate an ongoing unsubstanti- ated absence. e application was dismissed. To help employers navigate these often murky waters, con- sider these best practices: •Make multiple written requests for medical information. is is key to demonstrating the em- ployer is appropriately managing absenteeism and the accommo- dation process. •Try to confi rm the employee's re- ceipt of the request for informa- tion. If a request is being made via email, request a read receipt and keep records. •Specify a deadline for delivery of the requested information, but ensure the time period is reasonable. •Clearly communicate the type of medical information required. For example, indicate that a note from a physician stating the em- ployee is "unfi t for work" but providing no further informa- tion is insuffi cient. Be sure not to request a diagnosis, as this is not permissible to ask. •Provide the employee with a let- ter for his physician containing specifi c questions with regard to medical restrictions, the possi- bility of modifi ed duties, and the expected return-to-work date. If possible, enclose the employee's job description. Providing an overview of an employee's daily responsibilities may assist the physician to determine medical restrictions and evaluate the po- tential for return to work. •In each request for medical infor- mation, ensure the employee is advised he has a legal obligation to participate in the accommoda- tion process. If an employee fails to respond, ensure followup re- quests make clear that failure to provide information could result in discipline up to and including termination. is is particularly important as decision-makers will typically inquire whether the employee knew he would be disciplined for failing to provide the medical information. For more information see: •Calgary Co-operative Assn. v. U.C.C.E., 2012 CarswellAlta 941 (Alta. Arb.). •Baber v. York Region District School Board, 2011 HRTO 213 (Ont. Human Rights Trib.). Natasha Zervoudakis is a lawyer at Sherrard Kuzz, a management-side employment and labour law fi rm in Toronto. She can be reached at (416) 603-0700 (main), (416) 420-0738 (24 hours) or by visiting www.sherrard- kuzz.com. At a time when the triple-designation ap- proach of Ontario's Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) has caused confusion for the HR profession in Canada, we want to ensure there is no confusion about this: HRPA does not speak for the majority of Canada — Anthony Ariganello GUEST COMMENTARY HR has become increasingly global and CPHR Canada is at the forefront in building partnerships internationally. If an employer knows an employ- ee's absence is due to a medical condition, but the employee doesn't respond to re- quests to provide medical documentation supporting the absence or return date, Natasha Zervoudakis TOUGHEST HR QUESTION Specify a reasonable deadline for delivery of the requested information.

• Cover