Sub
Traducere !
Sorry, nu
am avut inca timp ca sa traduc in romana.
Human Rights Harassment and
Discrimination in Employment
Contents:
By way of background, in accordance with article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 2(2) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, I was enrolled as a student at Seneca College in a Special Program entitled "Training for Immigrant Professionals" (TIPs), sponsored by the Human Resources Development Canada. In order to be eligible for this program, I had to pass rigorous English and math tests, and my civil and professional documents had been verified (immigration papers, passport, diploma, welfare cheque, etc. (exhibit Seneca College's Eligibility Requirements). Moreover, the scope of the program was for employment in order to help me move from social assistance to work (exhibit Employment Placement Explanation Kit).
As part of that program, on May 31, 1995 I signed a Placement Agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy to work as a Systems Support Officer from May 29, 1995 to June 30, 1995, as a volunteer. My activity was secretly and strictly monitored and, at the completion of this placement, I received a successful assessment from my supervisor recorded on a Placement Monitoring Form. This form shows very clearly that I received a very good assessment, and I was monitored for "Specific Skills" as "Job Skills", "Quality of work", "Productivity", etc. and even for "Work Habits" as "Grooming", "Manner", "Attendance", "Punctuality" etc. In addition, regarding "Assessment of Placement", my supervisor checked the box "Has sufficient skills to be employed presently". However, regarding "Employer's Intention" with respect to employment, my supervisor checked the box "Too soon to assess". That was because my placement was initially scheduled for 12 weeks and it was reduced to 5 weeks due to government spending cuts.
My supervisor initially knew that my placement was scheduled for 12 weeks, and it was very clearly mentioned in his "memorandum" sent by e-mail to the "Special Employment Programs", Human Resources Branch of the Ministry. It was stated that "Mr. Moraru has been funded under the Training for Immigrant Professionals Program through Seneca College for a period of twelve weeks". Consequently, because my placement was reduced to five weeks, the Ministry extended it with 8 weeks in order to have enough time for a correct assessment with regard to employment. That extension was based on a "MEMORANDUM" which had attached a "Request for Approval to Fill a Position", and it was submitted by the director of the branch to the Assistant Deputy Minister. The memorandum had also attached an "Employment Status" form which has a space reserved for my signature that is blank (please see the blank marked in yellow). My supervisor did not give me to sign this form, and I did not know about the existence of this document until I requested some documents from the Ministry's office after I was released. Instead, he gave me to sign a different document, as I mentioned it in the next paragraph.
When I came back on July 10, 1995, I went to my supervisor's office and he gave me to sign the "Placement Monitoring Form". After I signed that form, I told my supervisor how a co-worker and his friends harassed me during my placement and how he tried to get rid of me. My supervisor replied that "I have problems with him, too", and he told me to bring next day my Social Insurance Number card (SIN) and my date of birth certificate. The next day in the morning, on July 11, 1995, I gave him my SIN and the date of birth certificate, and then my supervisor gave me to sign an "AGREEMENT" form for a classified position of Systems Support Officer. He also told me to write on that form the date of the previous day, July 10, 1995. While I signed that agreement, I was screening the form and I saw my name, SIN, date of birth, and the position of System Support Officer, which were written by a computer printer on reserved blank spaces of the form. The form had the size of approximately half of a normal page and it was titled "AGREEMENT". This paragraph explains why the "Employment Status" form of 8 weeks period does not have my signature. I proved that I signed that agreement by an audiotape on which is recorded a telephone conversation with my supervisor. He told me that he will get a copy of that agreement from the Human Resources department, but they were not willing to release that document. Top Page
Facts
of Harassment and Discrimination
After I was employed on July 10, 1995, the Ontario Conservative Progressive Party took power, the Ontario government was changed and a new Deputy Minister appointed at the Ministry of Environment. In accordance with article 2(2) of the International Conventions mentioned above, the Training for Immigrant Professionals was a Special Program designed by the Canadian federal government and the previous Ontario NDP government that had as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and freedoms. I was also on social assistance at that time and that Special Program was designed to help me move from social assistance to work. In spite of that, the newly appointed Deputy Minister refused to validate the agreement that I signed. Her decision was influenced by a group of employees (supporters of the new government) who considered that the Ministry was not a proper place for me as an immigrant (non-Canadian citizen and Romanian citizen) to work for. They harassed me in the workplace, and a co-worker lost his temper (after seeing my resume) and told me quite frankly: "it is not your fault that you came here, but you have to leave". At that moment he gave me a piece of paper with the name of an immigration agency, "Riverdale Women Immigrant Centre", telling me to go there if I needed a job. He was also trying to determine me to be absent from the work placement in order to not receive a good assessment. In addition, he and his friends treated me like an intruder, Romanian virus, and Romanian emigrant in their workplace, and they offended, insulted, and humiliated me in order to put me down and get rid of me. He bothered me many times with such comments and actions during the entire period that I was working at the Ministry, although I told him that I did not like such comments and actions. I felt humiliated and I interpreted this kind of action like this: What are you (an immigrant) doing here at the Ministry? You have to leave because you are an immigrant; you have to go to an immigration agency if you want a job; your place is not here at the Ministry because you are not Canadian citizen but a Romanian one. It does not matter if the comments and actions were intentional or not. It matters what I felt at that time, and this is very clear human right harassment in employment. Article 9, Infringement prohibited, of the Ontario Human Rights Code states very clearly that "No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part" (Freedom from Discrimination).
At the end of my placement, the Deputy Minister sent me a letter to "thank me for the effort and dedication I have shown during my employment". She also mentioned that "my efforts have helped the Ministry to meet its summer objectives and helped them to protect and enhance one of the province's most valuable assets". It was like a good-bye letter that was transmitted by e-mail to my supervisor as well (please see "cc: Gary Martin" at the bottom of the letter). In spite of the fact that the scope of my placement was for employment and I fulfilled my work in a competent and efficient manner proving to be a great asset for the Ministry (exhibit MEMORANDUM and supervisor's recommendation letter), I was released on September 1, 1995 and another person was hired during the last week of my placement (I can describe how and in what conditions that person was hired - the person who harassed me was implicated in). Moreover, the Ministry had four positions available at that time, and all those positions were fully staffed during or after my placement. Instead of keeping me on that position, they directed me again to an immigration agency, "Costi Agency", in order to ask for help in getting a job because I was a Canadian immigrant at that time (I provided an audiotape as evidence). In other words, the new high-ranking officials decided that the Ministry was not a proper place for me as a Canadian immigrant (non Canadian citizen but a Romanian one) to work for. This is very clear discrimination in employment against the prohibited grounds of race, ethnic origin, national origin, place of origin, and citizenship.
An immigration agency is involved in its activity with immigrants, and an immigrant is related to the word "ethnic". According to the "Gage Canadian Dictionary", ethnic, as adjective, means "of or having to do with immigrants who are not native speakers of English or French". As noun, it means "an immigrant who is not a native speaker of English or French; a person of foreign birth or descent". As the Ontario Human Rights Code, prohibits discriminations on the grounds of ethnic origin, place of origin, and citizenship, it is obvious that I was discriminated against since I was an immigrant (non Canadian citizen) and Romanian citizen at that time and the Ministry staff had knowledge about my status in this regard. Also, these grounds were invoked against me by my co-worker and his friends who harassed and humiliated me during my placement.
In addition, the Ontario Human Rights Code as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect the grounds of "receipt of public assistance", and "age". Consequently, since I was 50 years old on public assistance and the Ministry's staff had knowledge about my age and welfare status (I have documents), I also was discriminated on the grounds of receipt of public assistance and age.
All of this happened while the Ontario NDP government's "Employment Equity Act" - a law designated to help disadvantaged or marginalized people, like myself, find jobs - was still valid. A few months later, the Harris government abrogated even the "Employment Equity Act" together with the "Employment Equity Commission". But the most conclusive evidence regarding the racist policy of the Ontario Conservative Government is the Ombudsman's Message 1999 Annual Report. The chapters "Addressing Historic Disadvantages" and "A Feeling of Betrayal" are very clear evidence that the actual Ontario government does not comply with the Charter of the United Nations including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Notice: Although the grounds of ethnic
origin, receipt of public assistance and age are not explicitly
protected by the International Conventions on Human Rights, these grounds are protected by
the Ontario Human Rights Code as well as by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Therefore, if we refer to the International Conventions, these
grounds must be considered as protected through article
5(2) of
the International Covenant on Civil and
Political rights.
Top Page
During the human rights investigation, I was expecting to receive new documents from the Ministry, and I asked in writing the human rights investigator to allow me some time to gather all documents as in fact the investigator previously asked me for. I also had applied for legal aid during that time, and I was expected to receive it in order to get some legal advice. However, the investigator decided to close the investigation without any justified reasons informing me in writing that "we have been unable to resolve this complaint through normal procedures of investigation and conciliation", and made a Case Analysis Report in favour of the respondent.
A few months after the Human Rights Commission's decision, I received from the Ministry a copy of a final "Employment Status Form". On that form, it is mentioned that my temporary contract was effectively terminated on the "Effective Date" of "September 5, 1995", it was submitted on "September 12/95" and processed by the "Special Employment Programs, Human Resources Branch", on "September 15, 1995". On section No. 2, "Purpose of Submission" it was selected the box "Termination".
The big question is why my contract was effectively terminated on September 5, 1995 since that temporary contract had the final date on September 1st, 1995 (July 10 to September 1, 1995). The correct answer is that my supervisor had the intention to really hire me as in fact he did on July 11, 1995, but he could not maintain his decision because he needed the approval of high-level officials. He mentioned, however, in his recommendation letter that "Mr. Moraru is a very competent person and I would not hesitate in recommending him for employment". So, after he previously selected the box "Too soon to assess" on the Placement Monitoring Form after five weeks of work, his final assessment at the end of my placement about employment with regard to "Employer's intention" was "not hesitate in recommending me for employment". When I left the office, he told me that "maybe I will call you back".
On section No. 2 "Purpose of Submission" of that form, there are other boxes as, for example, "Appointment", "Classified Promotion", "Unclassified", "Reclassification", which could be selected as well instead of "Termination". If I take into consideration the "Request for Approval to Fill a Position Form", my understanding is that my supervisor needed the approval of the Deputy Minister in order to fill such a position for which I signed that agreement on July 11, 1995. For example, the space reserved for Deputy Minister's signature is blank on the Request for Approval to Fill a Position for the temporary contract, and it was enough to be approved only by the signature of Assistant Deputy Minister. This is not the case for a classified or reclassification position, and it is very clear that the Deputy Minister had to approve such a position and sign an appropriate form for that position. This was the real reason for which the Deputy Minister sent me a letter at the end of my placement. That letter was also transmitted by e-mail to my supervisor as well (cc: Gary Martin), and it sounded to me like a good-bye letter. In spite of the fact that I informed the Deputy Minister by a letter about "some aspects of how new immigrants are treated" and about "grave violations of human rights", she was not willing to take any concrete action and practically ignored my letter. However, I indirectly felt the answer of her inaction after the Conservative Government implemented the idea of the "Common Sense Revolution" which was aimed against immigrants and welfare recipients, poor people in general, for the only benefit of the rich. I was among the first immigrants who felt the impact of the Harris' "Common Sense Revolution" which destroyed my career, my family life, and the future of my daughter.
Therefore, taken into consideration that:
There is no doubt that I was harassed and discriminated in employment on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, receipt of social assistance, and age. All these grounds are protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code, but the Ontario Human Rights Commission mishandled and covered up my case and, consequently, made a very flawed, unfair, incorrect, and unjust decision based on an investigation which was not "resolved through normal procedures of investigation and conciliation" and not in accordance with Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics.
My above statements are entirely sustained by the Ombudsman's 1999 Annual Report, chapters "Addressing Historic Disadvantages", "A Feeling Of Betrayal", and "Re-Visioning Public Service", as follows:
Now, you can judge
yourself if I was or not harassed and discriminated in employment
and who discriminated me. The Ontario
Human Rights Commission, a government agency which was moved under
the administration of the Ministry of Citizenship by Harris
government in order to comply with and protect its "Common Sense
Revolution"
ideas and discriminatory policy, decided that there was "insufficient
evidence to indicate that the complainant was subjected to
unequal treatment or harassed in employment because of race,
colour or place of origin" (exhibit Human
Rights Commission's decision).
You can notice that
the Commission's decision mentioned the grounds of race and color, which I never claimed, but did
not mention the grounds of ethnic origin, citizenship, age and receipt of public
assistance
which I claimed. For more details, please
see Human Rights
Commission's Investigation.
Top Page
I would be very grateful to you if you would support my human rights harassment and discrimination cause and contact the Ombudsman of Ontario in order to investigate the Human Rights Commission's decision. As you could notice from the Human Rights Investigation, section Commission's decision, I complained to the Ombudsman office by a letter since August 5, 1999. However, the Ombudsman decided to not investigate at that time using section 17(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act which allows for the exercise of the Ombudsman's discretion to refuse to investigate a complaint further, where under the law or existing administrative practice it appears to be an adequate remedy for the complainant, whether or not the complainant has availed himself or herself of it.
Which law or administrative practice the Ombudsman has considered to be an adequate remedy of my complaint, I do not know yet. What I do know, however, is that instead of resolving my case, they (government officials) were trying to force me to work for free 17 hours per week at workfare community placements in exchange for my social assistance ($236.00 at that time). This kind of compulsory or forced labour is a violation of article 8, section 3.(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour". In addition, this kind of compulsory or forced labour is also a violation of article 1(1) of the same International Covenant: "All people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". For more details, please see a letter addressed to the Minister of Community and Social Services.
Please, therefore, contact the Ombudsman in order to investigate the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision. In accordance with the Ombudsman Act, section 14.(3), the Ombudsman has paramount powers. "The powers conferred on the Ombudsman by this Act may be exercised despite any provision in any Act to the effect that any such decision, recommendation, act or omission is final, or that no appeal lies in respect thereof, or that no proceeding or decision of the person or organization whose decision, recommendation, act or omission it is shall be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question".
The Ontario Ombudsman can be contacted at the following address:
Justice must be served! Thank you very much for your help and support.
Discrimination in employment
5. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or handicap. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 5 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (5). Top Page
5. (2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or handicap. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 5 (2); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (6).
Special programs
14. (1) A right under Part I (Freedom From Discrimination) is not infringed by the implementation of a special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I. Top Page
15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
Top Page
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reasons and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
1. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Top Page
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Top Page
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Top Page
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Top Page
Article 1
1. All people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The state Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. Top Page
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional process and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Top Page
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; Top Page
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Top Page
Article 5
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 50
The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions. Top Page
Article 1
In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. Top Page
Article 2
1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:
(a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;
(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;
(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division. Top Page
2. States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. Top Page
Article 5
In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;
(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:
(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration; Top Page
Article 6
States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State Institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination. Top Page
Article 9
1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for consideration by the Committee, a report on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which they have adopted and which give effect to the provisions of this Convention:
(a) within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State concerned; and
(b) thereafter every two years and whenever the Committee so requests. The Committee may request further information from the States Parties. Top Page
Important Notice:
Although Canada is a State Party to this Convention, it did not make a declaration under article 14(1) of this Convention in order to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and to consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction.
Article 14
1. A State Party may any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in this Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.
If we take into consideration the racial discrimination policy implemented by Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution, you can realize why Canada is still among the best countries in the world.