FIRINGS BAFFLE WORKERS

When Michael Grant got a call out of the blue asking if he wanted to
work at the StarTek call centre in Kingston, he was hesitant.

The company had a reputation for constant change in its
pressure-filled workplaces. When he did accept the job, the former
street kid found it rewarding.

"As it turned out, I really excelled at it. It was a great
environment," said Grant. "I came from a rough place. I ran away from
home when I was 13. I was a street kid for four years. What (this job)
did for me is it gave me more self-confidence. It made me realize,
'hey, I can actually go somewhere here.' "

Last week, Grant's 3 1 /2-year stint at StarTek came to an abrupt end.
The technical support worker was called into a meeting with management
and swiftly dismissed.

Despite his solid work record, Grant was let go because of a
nine-year-old minor drug offence -- an incident he declared at his
initial job interview.

Grant was one of a dozen StarTek employees dismissed from the
company's Futures Gate location last week, apparently for the same
reason -- unpardoned criminal convictions.

Similar reports are coming out of the United States. An Ohio
newspaper, the Mansfield News Journal,reported this week that 23
workers had been fired from the StarTek call centre "reportedly
because of their criminal histories."

StarTek employs about 1,700 people at its two Kingston sites. The
second office is located on Hwy. 15 in the city's east-end business
park. But a company spokeswoman said no one there was terminated.

"Approximately 12 people have been affected. These terminations were
done as a result of a change in StarTek policy and changing business
conditions," wrote Mary Beth Loesch, senior vice-president business
development at the company's head office in Denver, Colo.

Two other former StarTek employees contacted by theWhig-Standard said
they, too, had been let go for past crimes.

Last Wednesday at 1:30 p. m., David Ellison was in an job interview
for a technical support trainer position.

Ellison said his 10-minute presentation on how to peel an orange "was
probably the best interview I had in my life. Two hours later, I just
got out of this interview and they fired me."

Ellison was told he was being let go because of a 14-year-old
conviction. In 1995, when he was 19, Ellison got caught with half a
gram of marijuana in his pocket and fined $300. Two years before that,
he'd been charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to sell.

Like Grant, he also declared his brushes with the law at his job
interview.

"I was completely honest. It's nothing I was ashamed of. It happened
years ago," said Ellison.

"It was illegal. I got caught. But again I disclosed this. And if I
was good enough 3 1 /2 years ago, what's happened now?"

Neither of the men's dismissal letters make reference to their
criminal past, only stating that their services were "no longer required."

Yet both claim stellar job performance.

Last year, Ellison was the lone StarTek customer service
representative out of 2,500 across North America to receive a service
excellence award in recognition of his work for the U. S.
communications company AT&T, one of StarTek's main clients.

An AT&T director from Tulsa personally presented it to him in
Kingston.

A third Kingston man let go in the wave of dismissals, Ken Ruelland,
said he was told in his exit interview that the orders came from AT&T.

"It's wasn't StarTek's decision, apparently. StarTek said AT&T handed
them a list of people that no longer qualified to work for them
because their policy had changed," said Ruelland.

"I'm 35 years old and it was 15 years ago when I was in a bar fight.
I'd been (at StarTek) almost two years. The worst part for me was that
I totally disclosed when I got the job there. They said, 'That's fine.
As long as there were no recent thefts or frauds.' I'm still in awe
they can legally do this."

StarTek officials refused to comment about AT&T's involvement in the
firings. An AT&T official referred theWhig-Standardto StarTek.

Donald Carter, professor emeritus of labour law at Queen's University,
said it sounded like StarTek may not have initiated the dismissals.

"It costs money to get rid of employees. I assume that it's the
outside contractor that's dictating the employment policy," said
Carter. "That certainly does happen."

He said the employees likely have no grounds to contest their firings.
The Ontario Human Rights Code stipulates that workers are only
protected if they have applied for and received a pardon for their
past crimes.

"It's not easy to get a pardon," noted Carter.

Carter said they could hire a lawyer and sue, but not to get their
jobs back "because courts don't reinstate employees."

The Kingston StarTek operation was the first in Canada, opening in
2001. At the time, the company was assisted by the Kingston Economic
Development Corporation (KEDCO), which ran job fairs and hiring events
and even conducted a local marketing campaign.

In October 2007, StarTek added 550 new jobs, bringing its total
Kingston workforce to 1,700. In 2008, the company received the
"Outstanding Corporation of the Year Award" for raising hundreds of
thousands of dollars for local hospitals.

Grant, Ellison and Ruelland say their firings have left them in
financial difficulty. They will likely apply for employment insurance.
Grant and Ellison received severances amounting to one week of pay for
each year of service. Ruelland got only one week's pay because he fell
just short of two years at the company.

"It's rough for me. I'm a single dad. I have a four-year-old daughter
and I'm on my own," said Grant, who receives no child support from his
former partner.

"There's not a lot of work out there. It's not like I can bring a
four-year-old on a job search. I'm sort of struggling now. It's me and
her and that's it."

Ellison said he was told by a manager that "if you get your pardon,
we'd love to have you back."

But even when he was working for StarTek earning $14.99 an hour he
couldn't afford to pay for one. Not all requests for pardons are
granted and they can take years to get.

The three men are dismayed by their firings. "We had no trouble
whatsoever. If anything, we were commended for our work," said Grant.

Carter said they were probably the victims of sweeping corporate
policy. "That's the trouble with big companies," he said. "They often have
rigid policies that don't make a lot of sense."