First Reference Talks

Business, Payroll, Employment Law, Internal Controls & You!

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Free Updates

What will Ontario’s Bill 168 mean for businesses? (Part 1)

Author: Adam Gorley

Posted on Thursday, September 10th, 2009 at 11:47

Tweet
Bill 168

Image taken from: http://safety.1800inet.com

All workplaces house risks to employees’ health and safety in varying degrees: factories have machinery that can cause serious injuries; warehouses store loads and move them around with cumbersome vehicles, both of which have the potential to injure; even office environments are far from risk-free, although the threats tend to be less visible, like poor indoor air quality and ergonomic arrangements. However, only in the last decade or so has the issue of violence in the workplace gained wide recognition—and this is an issue that can affect all workplaces indiscriminately.

According to Statistics Canada’s most recent report on workplace violence, Criminal Victimization in the Workplace, 2004:

“17% of all self-reported incidents of violent victimization, including sexual assault, robbery and physical assault, occurred at the respondent’s place of work. This represents over 356,000 violent workplace incidents in Canada’s ten provinces.”

In addition:

“Physical assaults made up a higher proportion of all violent incidents in the workplace, representing 71% of all incidents of workplace violence. This compares to 57% of violent non-workplace incidents.”

Obviously it’s an issue worth looking at. Regardless of the “how” or “why”, legislators across Canada have taken notice, and some have moved to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the danger to employees and their employers of violence at work. Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan, all address violence at work in some form through health and safety legislation and regulations. Ontario might be next on the list, if Bill 168, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace) 2009, passes into law.

This law would legally define both “workplace violence” and “workplace harassment”, in terms of occupational health and safety rather than human rights. Subsequently, employers would have to perform a risk assessment on the potential for violence in their workplaces, and report the results to a committee or employees; they would also have to develop policies and procedures on both workplace violence and harassment, and instruct employees on them.

These new obligations are pretty standard as far as occupational health and safety issues go. However, some commentators have found an additional clause in Bill 168 controversial due to the difficult responsibilities it might place on employers:

“If an employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace, the employer shall take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker.”

It seems fair that if employers must protect their employees from violence in the workplace, that protection would also extend to domestic violence that plays out at work. However, several legal commentators and others have pointed out two sticky points in the clause: that the law would oblige employers to act on the risk of violence, if they “ought reasonably to be aware” that it might cause harm to a worker, and that employers must “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances” to protect a worker who might be at risk.

The main question is: will employers have to cross the line of employee privacy in order to enforce this regulation?

In other words, does this regulation force employers to intrude on their employees’ private lives and information in ways that they would otherwise have no right to do?

Come back tomorrow to read part 2 of ‘What will Ontario’s Bill 168 mean for businesses?‘ for more information on the potential implications of this law for employers.

Adam Gorley
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

Tags: Bill 168, domestic violence, health, HR issues, Human Resources, occupational health and safety, OH&S, OHSA, ontario, safety, workplace violence, worplace safety and insurance act, wsib

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 10th, 2009 at 11:47 and is filed under Health and Safety, Human Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “What will Ontario’s Bill 168 mean for businesses? (Part 1)”

September 30th, 2009 at 13:54

Adam Gorley says:

Here’s a strong illustration of how domestic violence might affect the workplace, along with some great tips for spotting domestic violence and what employers can do about it.

http://www.ccohs.ca/newsletters/hsreport/issues/2009/09/ezine.html#inthenews

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice. Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.




Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Get Free Updates

    RSS and Email

  • 2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

    2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

  • Categories

    • Accessibility Standards
      • Integrated Accessibility Regulation
      • Standard for Customer Service
      • Standard for Employment
      • Standard for Information and Communications
      • Standard for the Built Environment
      • Standard for Transportation
    • Announcements
    • Conferences
    • Human Resources
      • Corporate Immigration
      • Employee Relations
      • Employment Standards
      • Health and Safety
      • HR Analytics
      • HRMS
      • Human Rights
      • Privacy and Security
      • Recruiting and Hiring
      • Training and Development
      • Union Relations
    • Internal Controls
      • Environmental Law
      • Finance and Accounting
      • IT, Privacy and Security
      • Not-for-Profit
    • Payroll
      • Benefits
      • Compensation
      • Source Deductions and Reporting
  • Recent Comments

      CommentAndrew Taillon:
      Thanks Chris. I would suggest that the confusion arises from the way damages were...

      CommentChris Davidson:
      I am a bit confused on the terminology you’re using. It has been my...

      CommentLiChing Ooi:
      Suzanne, another timely post on this standard. My question is, there are...



  • First Reference:
    @firstreference

    Yosie Saint-Cyr:
    @yosie23

    Adam Gorley:
    @agorley

  • Like us on Facebook!



  • Links

    • First Reference
    • HR eSource
    • HRinfodesk
    • HRtrack
    • Human Resources Advisor
    • PolicyPro
  • Blogroll

    • All About Information
    • Chambers on the Profession
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Governance & Risk Management Blog
    • Corporate Reporting to Stakeholders
    • Daniel A. Lublin Employment Law Blog
    • Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog
    • Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
    • Human Right in the Workplace
    • International Corporate Governance
    • Leech Talks Risk
    • Marks on Governance
    • Osgoode Labour & Employment Law Society
    • SBH Lawyers blog
    • Slaw
    • Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
  • Post Archives

    • February 2012 (4)
    • January 2012 (26)
    • December 2011 (27)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (22)
    • September 2011 (34)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (35)
    • May 2011 (29)
    • April 2011 (28)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (20)
    • January 2011 (22)
    • December 2010 (23)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (22)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (28)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (29)
    • May 2010 (32)
    • April 2010 (24)
    • March 2010 (22)
    • February 2010 (9)
    • January 2010 (11)
    • December 2009 (11)
    • November 2009 (14)
    • October 2009 (16)
    • September 2009 (11)
    • August 2009 (1)
  • Questions?

    Email us:
    editor[at]firstreference.com

Copyright © 2012 - First Reference | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Twitter | Facebook

WordPress theme designed by web design