PS I am sorry you spell your name wrong!!!!!!!!!!

As approximately 12% of Canadians have a criminal record, 88% of the time our clients receive a clear criminal record check and are able to move forward with their applicant. Applicants with a criminal record must then visit their local police station to be fingerprinted and request a copy of their police record, this process can take 120 days.

The resulting security risks of criminals altering their background checks, prior to presenting it to the prospective employer or volunteer organization, are extremely worrisome. Prior to the changes this was a process that we were able to complete securely, in its entirety in less than eight hours.

To seek a solution to this issue, meetings are being held in Ottawa with the RCMP, police vendors, third party providers and end users of third party screening during the third week of January 2010. Our goal is to reach a solution that will allow a return to full disclosure of criminal record information.

The government has considerable influence in seeking a solution to this issue and allowing experienced firms like Hire Performance to work with local police departments who access CPIC on their behalf. But we need to communicate quickly and in strong terms the critical importance of the services provided by the background screening industry in Canada.

If this is an issue that has caused serious delays in your hiring process, then please help us call attention to the importance of a return to full disclosure of criminal record information by contacting any of the individuals below and describe to them your frustrations with the recent changes.

1. Contact the Public Safety Minister, the Honourable Peter Van Loan by all four methods below to ensure immediate attention is raised.
2. Contact your local Member of Parliament.
3. Contact the Commissioner of the RCMP.
4. Contact the Prime Minister and Members of Cabinet.

What I can tell you, is that if she is happily performing in her current role and is comfortable in continuing to build her experience, that the extra qualifications will not hurt her case if she waited to apply in the future. Becuase, the designation does also come with an higher annual membership too and a reward for achieving it. (bit of sarcasm there)

While I have a lot of respect for the HRPA, I am personally a little critical when it has come to the wavering of requirements for the designation(s) over the past 10 years – from the tiered exams plus experience, to the NKE & NPPA, to CHRM, CHRP and SHRP, the requirement for the BA, etc, etc, etc. It seems to be a moving target, and it is probably about time they tried to settle down a bit. I know I am oversimplifying the scope of efforts to try and standard the designation nationally – but, in the end, it has created a lot of confusion and uncertainty.

I would suggest your wife get a hold of the registrar directly and describe her situation and get and answer. If she does it verbally, I would suggest that she have them follow up with her in writing with what they recommend as her course of action (but, you would already recognize the importance of written documentation in your profession).

Best of luck to your wife in her continued pursuit of her designation!

Geoff.

I lot of the comments demonstrate a fair bit of understandable ignorance. I mean, you can forgive people for not understanding the nature of ‘undue hardship’…for not realizing that, even if a probationary period exists, it doesn’t give the employer immunity to the Human Rights Code…even for not realizing that the Tribunal is not the same as the Commission (an error which one of your quoted commenters exemplifies)…

…but I find the notion that a pregnant woman is *blameworthy* for choosing not to disclose her pregnancy during the recruitment process to be insensitive and absurd. One can certainly understand the employer’s position in light of the heavy burdens placed upon it by the ESA and the Code, but still I had thought that our society had finally come to recognize the importance of respect for human rights, such that the employer’s actions would be recognized and accepted as patently immoral.

I would also note a Tribunal decision from a few months back, Qureshi, involving a Muslim who required an hour off on Friday afternoons to attend mosque. The employer argued that his earlier omission of this need for accommodation indicated a poor moral character, and that therefore they were justified in refusing to employ him. (The shocker in that case is that one of the employer’s HR associates told him something to the effect that God would be very understanding that he had to work.)

Had Ms. Maciel disclosed her pregnancy at first instance, she would not likely have been hired. Had Mr. Qureshi disclosed his accommodation need at first instance, his application would not have been processed. Both of these refusals by the employers would have been completely illegal, but the only effect of the early disclosure would be that it would become next-to-impossible to prove illegal discrimination.

In light of this, it baffles me that anyone can look at these individuals and say that their omissions make them bad people.

But worse, I’ve been hearing a surprising number of issues like this lately, with workplaces failing to recognize that, where pregnancy is concerned, you need to tread softly.

A formal offer letter can be an incredibly useful tool for defining the terms and conditions of employment, and can potentially affect the rights of the parties right through past the end of the employment relationship.

A termination clause, for example, is important but often underrated. When could be a better time to think about the end of the relationship, than right at its inception? (In all seriousness, I get that nobody really wants to think about termination upon recruitment, but there really is no better time to do so.) Done right, a good termination clause in the letter of offer can save a lot of time and money at the end of employment relationship, should termination become necessary for whatever unfortunate reason, and make litigation far less likely.

Disclaimer: This comment does not include legal advice, but only general legal information. It should not be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. Anyone with a legal issue or potential legal issue should consult a lawyer.

You actually raise a good point in reference to CA’s. While I do believe
standardization is important for the CHRP, if you look at financial designations, there are actually different governing bodiest that oversee CGA, CMA and CA designations. Each designation with its own merits and skill sets associated to it.

If you recall back in the day, I believe that the HRPAO officially used the CHRM and the CHRP to signify varying stages of completion on the certification process. Perhaps the solution would be to have more than one recognized level of certification where the CHRP is the top tier indicating proficiencies in knowledge AND experience, while there is one or two levels below (perhaps a CHRM) that might indicate technical competence, but without the experiential component.

I agree that is still needs work, and that flip flopping around frequently with little warning is not good for the profession or for the individuals pursuing their designations. As someone who hires and has hired HR professionals, the CHRP designation has never been a must have for me. I’ve never looked away from solid candidates who have not had it. But, when assessing more experienced candidated who are equal on all other terms, it can be a differentiator.

As far as “relocating” to another province to write an exam, I know that each of the provincial associations has stringent rules on out of province exam writers. They would not let someone just write, and if somebody wants to use a fake address (or one of a relative in another province) to become an association member in that province, and pay the memebership fees for a year to write the exam, not to mention travel and acomodation expenses, then I guess that is a judgement call on his/her part. That does, however raise ethical issues – and I can tell you that I would rather hire a solid person with experience and no CHRP than one who has displayed questionable professional ethics by skirting around or findling loopholes in the certification process just to achieve the designation earlier in his/her career. Maybe not grounds for dismissal if disclosed or discovered after the fact during employment, but definitely would make me consider character.