In 1997 I worked at MOLSON about 49 weeks of the year, and given that I was entitled to a couple of weeks vacation and may have taken a couple of days off sick, it is clear that in every practical sense I was in fact a full time employee.
Since that year until the present time (June 2003) I have remained, in every practical sense, continuously and regularly a full time employee.
And during this period of 6 1/2 years it is clear that I have been occupying what would have been a vacancy had I or someone else not been filling that position.
This is self evident from the fact that had a vacancy, that is to say a need for a person to fill a position on a regular basis, not existed then it is obvious that I would not have been required to work here on what has in fact been a regular full time basis for the past 6 1/2 years.
Yet despite the fact that I have been continuously employed on a regular full time basis with MOLSON for the past 6 1/2 years, the company refuses to recognize me as a regular full time employee. And against all the facts of reality, continues to designate me as a "Seasonal" worker.
Just why MOLSON has chosen to discriminate against me (and several others) in this manner I do not know. But I do know that it clearly is discrimination, for in several instances the company has seen fit to declare vacancies for certain individuals that have far less seniority to myself and has thus elevated these persons to "regular" status with all of the benefits that that entails, and in most of these cases after mere months of employment.
I on the other hand after six and one half years of dedicated full time service to this "equal opportunity" employer, am left out in the cold and bereft of the many benefits that normally accrue to full time employees in North America. If I get sick for a few days, I am penalized with loss of pay. If I get seriously ill, I have no long term disability; my family consequently also lacks a measure of security.
The Molson Policy
Here are some brief extracts from the MOLSON policy manual (P-20) “Human Rights in the Workplace". Bold emphasis is mine.
To ensure provision of a work environment where the individual rights of employees are respected while recognizing and acknowledging individual differences and the reasonable accommodation of differing needs and expectations in order to achieve an equitable employment system.
The Company’s employment policy recognizes the dignity and worth of every employee so as to provide equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. Its purpose is the creation of a climate amongst employees of understanding and mutual respect so that each employee is able to contribute fully to the development and prosperity of both the Company and other employees.
Prohibited grounds of discrimination include but are not limited to race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, gender, sexual orientation, or age.
Employees will not unjustly use their authority, position or access to information with its implicit power to undermine, intimidate, threaten, blackmail, or coerce another employee, or favour one employee to the disadvantage of others in: the distribution of work assignments; training opportunities; promotional opportunities; performance evaluation; provision of references; and conditions of employment.
The nature of my grievance is twofold.
The company’s refusal to elevate me to benefit status is both unjust and contrary to the company’s own stated goal of achieving an equitable employment system.
The company’s refusal to elevate me to benefit status is unjust and discriminatory.
To declare a vacancy and thus elevate me to benefit status.
To provide compensation in accordance with MOLSON POLICY #P-20 ‘Human Rights in the Workplace’, Section 5.3 Consequences, paragraph four…The Company will make a reasonable effort to remedy any loss or inequity suffered as a result of discrimination or harassment.
16 June 2003
Back to Home Page.
Back to The Million Dollar Heist.