I received a refusal on the 5th of June, and I was devastated to say the least. I worked as a Team Lead at a large, publicly-traded Canadian clothing company - with stores all over Canada and headquarters in Montreal. Also note, I did not receive a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) at all.
I had used the NOC 62010, confident of having chosen the right NOC - especially as, at my organization, the Team Lead is part of the management team, and has authority above a Key Holder in terms of the corporate ladder. (To be clear, we have key holders too - but they're not part of the management team). I even received benefits such as Insurance and Bonuses - that usually only full-time, management-level employees receive at most retail businesses. I am mentioning this because NOC 62010's official description on the internet states 'Key Holder' as an illustrative example of a job title.
The officer's decision notes state and I quote - "Upon review of the employment letter provided for the position with X company, I note that the majority of the duties are described using terms such as “assist”, “partner with”, and “communicate feedback to the store manager and assistant store manager”. The duties suggest that the PA’s role was primarily supportive in nature rather than independently responsible for supervising and coordinating activities of employees. The evidence suggests that the PA performed the actions described in the lead statements and main duties of the declared NOC largely in collaboration with or in the absence of, store manager and assistant store manager. However, NOC 62010 would reasonably require evidence of independent supervisory responsibilities such as assigning and scheduling work, supervising staff, monitoring performance etc.
As the duties described primarily limited to assisting management and do not sufficiently demonstrate the performance of supervisory functions consistent with NOC 62010, I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the PA performed the main duties of the declared NOC on a regular and consistent basis throughout the declared period of employment.
Accordingly, the work experience with X is rejected."
And my proof of work experience letter (employment letter) mentioned the following as 'daily responsibilities':
Customer Experience
I had never heard of such a refusal prior to my own case - and it makes no logical sense. The Officer could have even called up the HR services department at my company, or my store. They would have gotten the necessary verification. I can find a million other ways as well to prove I performed supervisory work on a regular basis - if they're trying to question the exact number of hours that I was the store leader (or SFL as they say in my organization) I'm assuming they haven't applied common sense and have been living under a rock. Most people residing in Canada have worked retail at some point in time in their lives, and know that it is not possible for one person to supervise all the time. Every store runs at least 10-12 hours on weekdays, and shifts can only be a maximum of 8 hours a day - consequently, managers rotate and are assigned 'slots/segments' with sales targets particular to their segments.
But besides all of this and the logical argument I'm trying to make - the material question is whether I have any grounds for a judicial review? The problem is that in a judicial review (from what I have read and from what I understand), there has to have either been an error in assessment on behalf of the Officer; or, I need to establish a breach of Procedural Fairness.
Any and all help is really, really appreciated
I had used the NOC 62010, confident of having chosen the right NOC - especially as, at my organization, the Team Lead is part of the management team, and has authority above a Key Holder in terms of the corporate ladder. (To be clear, we have key holders too - but they're not part of the management team). I even received benefits such as Insurance and Bonuses - that usually only full-time, management-level employees receive at most retail businesses. I am mentioning this because NOC 62010's official description on the internet states 'Key Holder' as an illustrative example of a job title.
The officer's decision notes state and I quote - "Upon review of the employment letter provided for the position with X company, I note that the majority of the duties are described using terms such as “assist”, “partner with”, and “communicate feedback to the store manager and assistant store manager”. The duties suggest that the PA’s role was primarily supportive in nature rather than independently responsible for supervising and coordinating activities of employees. The evidence suggests that the PA performed the actions described in the lead statements and main duties of the declared NOC largely in collaboration with or in the absence of, store manager and assistant store manager. However, NOC 62010 would reasonably require evidence of independent supervisory responsibilities such as assigning and scheduling work, supervising staff, monitoring performance etc.
As the duties described primarily limited to assisting management and do not sufficiently demonstrate the performance of supervisory functions consistent with NOC 62010, I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the PA performed the main duties of the declared NOC on a regular and consistent basis throughout the declared period of employment.
Accordingly, the work experience with X is rejected."
And my proof of work experience letter (employment letter) mentioned the following as 'daily responsibilities':
Customer Experience
- Lead and model the customer service standards
- Display knowledge of product and store/company strategies
- Provide leadership or assistance with visual set-ups/changes, signage placement and visual presentation standards
- Assist in resolving customer service matters in the absence of SM and ASM
- Partners with SM and ASM to execute action plans that drive the business
- Maintain or modify daily schedules while meeting allowable hours targets in the absence of the SM and ASM (makes timely adjustments for the day based on Store Force schedule practices and business knowledge, ensures appropriate sales floor coverage and maintains a selling focus, complies with company related scheduling policies and procedures)
- Perform opening and closing duties in the absence of the SM and ASM
- Perform merchandise flow duties for sales floor and backroom as directed
- Ensures adherence to all company policies and procedures, loss prevention and health and safety standards in the absence of the SM and ASM
- Perform POS transactions and execute management functions in the absence of SM and ASM
- Ensure team consistently demonstrates customer service standards (via SFL role)
- Assists store management in the networking of potential hires
- Assist store management in conducting new associate onboarding
- Communicate individual and team performance feedback to SM
- Motivates and recognizes team performance
I had never heard of such a refusal prior to my own case - and it makes no logical sense. The Officer could have even called up the HR services department at my company, or my store. They would have gotten the necessary verification. I can find a million other ways as well to prove I performed supervisory work on a regular basis - if they're trying to question the exact number of hours that I was the store leader (or SFL as they say in my organization) I'm assuming they haven't applied common sense and have been living under a rock. Most people residing in Canada have worked retail at some point in time in their lives, and know that it is not possible for one person to supervise all the time. Every store runs at least 10-12 hours on weekdays, and shifts can only be a maximum of 8 hours a day - consequently, managers rotate and are assigned 'slots/segments' with sales targets particular to their segments.
But besides all of this and the logical argument I'm trying to make - the material question is whether I have any grounds for a judicial review? The problem is that in a judicial review (from what I have read and from what I understand), there has to have either been an error in assessment on behalf of the Officer; or, I need to establish a breach of Procedural Fairness.
Any and all help is really, really appreciated