Procedural Fairness : The Case Concerning Dalton Mcguinty And The 2010 Minimum Wage Increase
1336 Words6 Pages
There is a clear lack of procedural fairness present in respect to the case concerning Dalton McGuinty and the 2010 minimum wage increase. Procedural fairness is to, “ensure that administrative decisions are made using a fair and open procedure . . . with an opportunity for those affected to put forward their views and evidence fully and have them considered by the decision-maker” (Baker v. Canada). The closed door meeting between McGuinty and business leaders, in regards to the minimum wage increase, was anything but fair and open. It not only deviated from the common administrator decision making procedures, but it also failed to allow those affected to put forward their views (Baker v. Canada). Since we live in a democracy where…show more content… Canada). As shown by McGuinty’s secret meeting, this process lacks all the things mentioned above; therefore, I believe that McGuinty chose the wrong process to make this decision. The right process would have involved those that would be affected by this decision. Instead they were purposely kept in the dark, which eliminated the possibility of free speech.
The second factor is whether an appeal procedure exists within the laws governing this scenario (minimum wage). Though I looked, I was unable to find evidence either proved or disproved that an appeal procedure was present in the law governing this situation. When a final decision cannot be appealed, there is a greater need for procedural fairness. This mean that there is a greater need for both parties to have the fullest opportunity to speak and provide evidence, (module 4). This seems very fair, but shouldn’t the courts always give ample opportunities to both parties? Regardless of if an appeal procedure exists, every case should be treated as if the decision is final; this way every decision is made using the upmost care. For hypothetical purposes, if McGuinty’s decision to cancel the remaining wage increase was not appealable; there was an even greater procedural fairness requirement, that he failed to act on. To act as procedurally fair as was expected of McGuinty, in-person interviews or possibly a trial