First Reference Talks » policies and procedures

Reverse discrimination: is it just an attitude?

Andrew Lawson — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:00:04 +0000

Image: www.fitsnews.com

Reverse discrimination is not a legal term but a socially constructed idea that describes a particular phenomenon; it is a side effect of employment equity programs, as they are called in Canada; “affirmative action” programs in the United States. Reverse discrimination in employment is perceived to have occurred when the majority (or a member of it) is denied an opportunity because the law forces an employer to hire a person from a minority group.

So, reverse discrimination, by definition, occurs when one person(s) loses an employment opportunity and another person(s) gains that opportunity and the hiring decision is based on race, age, disability or other minority criteria.

Federally regulated employers in Canada (banks, airlines, the federal government, telecommunications companies etc) are required by law to have active programs that seek to provide the employment of four main groups: women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. These programs make it legal to discriminate against a job candidate that does not fit into one of the above categories; it is legal discrimination.

When a participant in one of these programs is hired over a qualified majority employee, fulfilling a legal mandate, “reverse discrimination” has occurred; the majority worker is the “victim.”

Many workplaces have policies that allow a worker who needs to be on “light duties” to jump the queue, so to speak. In these situations a worker who is returning to work post-injury, is pregnant or who may suffer from a variety of various medical conditions is given priority in hiring over a more senior or more qualified candidate. This action is often described as “reverse discrimination.”

These employment programs are perfectly legal in most jurisdictions because human rights legislation permits employers to favour historically disadvantaged workers in an attempt to “level the playing field.” The idea is that without these programs otherwise qualified individuals may never be given the chance to prove themselves because of widespread misperceptions of illness, disability and cultural norms.

I find it interesting that we even use the term “reverse discrimination.” It begs the question, “a reversal from what?” The examples described above are examples of discrimination—period. They are examples of “legal” discrimination but are they examples of “reverse discrimination” because the majority is being denied an opportunity? Can discrimination only happen to blacks and gays and single mothers and when “people like us” are discriminated against we have a different name for it?

Reverse discrimination!

Isn’t it interesting how people act when occasionally faced with unfair treatment that others live with every day of their lives?

This article looks at attitudes over legal facts. In order to push back against discrimination in the workplace, in fact in society at large, we need to explore attitudes in addition to educating ourselves about the letter of the law.

Learn don’t Litigate.

Andrew Lawson
www.learndl.ca

Sick days or personal days?

Stuart Rudner — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Over the years, I have witnessed many of my firm’s clients struggle to manage absenteeism while respecting the privacy of their employees as well as any illnesses or disabilities that they may face. Employers are often at a loss as to how to ensure employees who take sick days are really sick and not simply abusing the system. They are often scared to ask for doctor’s notes, but also scared that if they don’t, the abuse will become rampant. I often encourage employers to consider abandoning the notion of sick days altogether, and simply provide a fixed number of “personal days”, which eliminates the implicit or explicit requirement that an individual be sick in order to have time off.

In the infamous Keays v. Honda Canada case, I was lucky enough to represent the Human Resources Professionals Association when they intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada hearing. Our submissions were relatively simple: we asked the Court to confirm that the mere act of asking an employee with a known disability to provide doctor’s notes in order to justify workplace absences did not constitute a failure to accommodate. The submission was made in light of comments in the trial judge’s decision that seemed to equate the requirement of doctor’s notes in such circumstances to an act of bad faith. Fortunately, the Supreme Court was receptive to our submissions and confirmed that, in and of itself, requiring doctor’s notes, even for an employee with a known disability, does not constitute a failure to accommodate or an act of bad faith.

Employers are often faced with doctor’s notes that say something along the lines of “Joe was absent from work yesterday for medical reasons”. Or, perhaps even worse, “Joe advises that he missed work yesterday as he was sick”. In both cases, employers are left scratching their heads, unsure as to whether or not there was a valid reason for the individual’s absence.

At the same time, most employers recognize that individuals sometimes need time off for reasons entirely unrelated to sickness. They may have to take a child to an appointment or an activity; they may have to travel for a family function; they may simply need some time to catch up on personal errands. Many employers conclude that employees “abuse” sick days for these reasons.

I, and others, have suggested that employers simply formalize this reality by providing a certain number of personal days each year. Rather than tying the absence to illness, employers can simply provide their employees with time off in order to look after their personal responsibilities. The personal days can be lumped into vacation time, as long as it is administered properly, or simply offered as additional time off. Each employer can assess what is reasonable for its operations and workforce and establish its own policy accordingly.

I don’t mean to suggest that this is a perfect solution. Realistically, most employees will see this as a “perk” that should be used, and will make sure to take every single day off, whether they need to or not. That said, whether or not the personal days are paid or unpaid will certainly be a factor for many employees. Just as organizations assess how much vacation time to provide, they can assess whether providing personal days is realistic, and if so, how much they can provide. Doing so can eliminate the monitoring that is necessary to address abuse of sick days.

If employers do continue to provide designated sick days, I encourage them not to unnecessarily restrict themselves. I often see sick leave policies that provide that the employer can require a doctor’s note for absences of a certain number of days, usually three. However, we have all seen the employees that seem to become sick on the Fridays before long weekends. If the policy in place only allows the employer to require a doctor’s note for absences of three days or more, then they will not be able to insist that the employee justify his mysterious extra-long weekends with medical documentation. When I ask clients why they put that policy in place, they typically have no explanation. It is far more effective to give the organization the discretion to require appropriate documentation. So long as the discretion is not used in a manner that is discriminatory or for the purpose of harassing employees, employers will be able to manage absences more effectively.

There is no right or wrong answer in dealing with this issue. I would welcome comments as to what readers have tried, and whether the measures have succeeded.

Stuart Rudner
Miller Thomson LLP

Can I be disciplined for off-duty behaviour?

Andrew Lawson — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:00:12 +0000

Image: http://winecountry.it/assets/articles/sundance/

“I am at a party on my day off and a coworker hurls racial insults at me or makes sexual suggestive comments to me.”

Am I protected by my employer’s harassment and discrimination policy?
Likewise, if I am the one doing the hurling or suggestive commenting, am I subject to discipline under my employer’s policies?

I am asked the above questions frequently by workers attending my harassment and discrimination prevention workshops. The simple answer is: it depends. Let’s look at some examples:

Swearing at co-worker not just cause for firing

The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench considered the effect of off-duty behaviour in Legere v. YMCA-YWCA of St. John. The employee in this case saw a co-worker in public and rebuked her with very strong language. The employer dismissed the employee for cause claiming that her behaviour was expressly forbidden by written policy of the employer.

The court ruled that the employer did not have just cause to terminate this employee. The court found the employee:

simply asked, although in a forceful way, to be left alone;
did not add a personal insult to the remark;
was exercising her right to freedom of expression.

This case illustrates that the courts may not uphold policies of the employer that are found to be unreasonably intrusive or restrictive.

Loss of confidence in worker is just cause for firing

In a somewhat similar case the Supreme Court of Canada came to a different conclusion. In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 the court found the employer did have just cause for termination because:

the employee, a teacher, published racist statements over a period of years.
this behaviour contributed to a “poisoned environment” in the workplace
there was a loss of confidence in the teacher and in the system.

Ask yourself these questions:

Is the behaviour harmless self-expression or a deliberate personal insult?
Is the behaviour an isolated event or does in happen regularly, over a long period of time?
Is the behaviour likely to cause harm to your organization?

Unionized workplaces

For those readers working within a unionized environment, some guidelines established in the case of Millhaven Fibres[1] illustrate whether or not the employer has the right to invoke a policy against employees during their off-duty hours:

Did the worker’s conduct harm the employer’s reputation or product?
Did the worker’s conduct render him unable to perform his duties as an employee in a satisfactory manner?
Does the worker’s conduct lead to a refusal, reluctance, or inability of other employees to work with him?
Has the worker been guilty of a serious breach of the Criminal Code, and is this conduct injurious to the general reputation of the employer and its employees?
Has the worker’s conduct made it difficult for the employer to manage its operations efficiently and to direct its workforce efficiently

Andrew Lawson
www.learndl.ca

[1] Millhaven Fibres Ltd., Millhaven Works, and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International, Local 9670 (1967), 1(A) UnionManagement Arbitration Cases 328 (Anderson)

Occupational health and safety missteps often cost workers their lives

Andrew Lawson — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Danger Lurking

Nova Scotia is a wondrous place full of amazing–and dangerous–places. I visited “Canada’s Ocean Playgound” this summer and came home with a renewed appreciation for labour history and the reality that occupational health and safety missteps often cost workers their lives.

While visiting the world famous Peggy’s Cove I was struck by the profound respect local fishers have for the power of the sea depicted by the sign pictured above. I have always been caught up in romantic notions of the sea and never really stopped to think that, for many, the sea is a workplace; I never really thought of occupational health and safety regulations on the ocean!

I had the opportunity to visit a coal mine in Cape Breton and be escorted underground by a real-life “man of the deeps.” Seventy-two year old Abbie Michalik was our guide and fascinated us with his myriad tales of working underground for many decades–since he was a young boy.

One of Abbie’s amazing stories was about a general strike when the miners and their families suffered great hardship mostly because everyone in Glace Bay depended on the mining company for everything, including food. He told us that the sole gain at the end of this ordeal was a shortened work week and the prohibition against employing minors.

Abbie gave me the impression he thought this was precious little gain for the hardship the striking workers endured. I had exactly the opposite thought; worker’s rights and health and safety standards are achieved slowly and are the result of hardship and dogged determination on the part of those fighting for what they believe to be fair.

What I took from this experience and what I am asking you to consider is that we often take our rights and obligations for granted. We often forget that health and safety standards–the legal requirement that an employer exercise due diligence–have been created after serious, and often fatal, accidents have occurred; these standards have been created in a response to the real harm suffered by a worker.

Take advantage of the wisdom borne of hindsight and out of respect for those who have gone before us–” . . .savour the sea from a distance.”

Andrew Lawson
Learn don’t Litigate

Web surfing during work – it is better for employers to take a reasonable approach

Christina Catenacci — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:00:00 +0000

New research suggests that it may be wise for employers to take a reasonable approach when dealing with issues of employee web surfing during work; in fact, by banning it outright and excessively patrolling the workplace, employers may cause more harm than good.

These days, it appears to be a fact of life that some employees surf the Internet for brief periods of time after working on tough assignments to give themselves a mental break before beginning the next task.

Contrary to what some may believe, associate professor Vivien K. G. Lim and graduate student Don J. Q. Chen of the National University of Singapore, found that employers can actually increase productivity by giving employees some time to surf the Internet during work hours. Those in the group that were given time to surf reported significantly lower levels of mental exhaustion and boredom, and significantly higher levels of psychological engagement. What’s more, the researchers linked browsing the Internet with more positive mental states, including excitement, interest, alertness and activity. This is because, according to the researchers, the brief moments of Internet browsing serves an important restorative function.

On the other hand, it was found that the more employers monitor for web browsing, the more employees do it, since employees view policies banning browsing as a form of mistrust in them. Further, interestingly, the acts of reading and answering emails were more associated with negative mental states including feeling distressed, fearful, hostile and jittery.

So what does this mean for employers?

Perhaps blanket bans are not the way to go; maybe the best way to deal with the issue of employee browsing is to create a more reasonable policy. For instance, a reasonable Internet browsing policy can balance the employer’s need for productivity and the employees’ need to briefly browse to enable mental breaks between complex tasks. This policy could take the form of allowing some time and visits to certain appropriate sites (such as selected websites offering news, social networking, online gaming, entertainment and hobby-related activities) with certain time restrictions.

Moreover, pursuant to the results of the study, it may be a good idea to limit the time spent on personal emails in order to maintain positive mental states in the workplace.

The comments following the linked article demonstrate both views on the issue. What do you think? Do you believe that web surfing provides a restorative function, or is this just an excuse to socialize and minimize the time spent working?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

‘Sexting’ becoming a problem in the workplace

Christina Catenacci — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:00:00 +0000

What prompts a supervisor or worker to send a co-worker inappropriate text messages? In British Columbia, sexually charged messages in the workplace have led to trouble for employers. What do employers need to know so they can avoid being on the hook for sexual harassment?

In two recent cases, set out here and here, the BC Human Rights Tribunal confirmed that when the female employees were continually sent sexual text messages by a supervisor or co-worker, the female employees were indeed sexually harassed. The employers in both cases were held liable for not handling the situation properly. In one case, the employer terminated the employee who was sexually harassed. In another, the employer replaced the harassed female employee after she took a stress leave as a result of the harassment.

The employers were held liable because they did not meet their responsibility to ensure a workplace free of (sexual) harassment and they did not uphold the terms and conditions of the employees’ employment.

What can employers do to avoid this outcome?

First, it is important to understand what sexual harassment means. It occurs when someone is subjected (often repeatedly) to unwelcome sexual or gender related remarks and gestures, including:

Engaging in inappropriate touching
Making offensive jokes or remarks about women or men
Making sexual requests or suggestions
Staring or making unwelcome comments about someone’s body
Displaying sexually offensive pictures
Engaging in verbal abuse involving someone because of gender

Sexual harassment occurs most often to women, but it can also happen to men and between members of the same sex.

Employers must make every reasonable effort to ensure that no employee is subjected to sexual harassment. Employers must also, after consulting with affected employees or their representatives, if any, issue a policy statement concerning sexual harassment and train all under the employer’s direction about the policy statement.

Employers should be proactive in preventing sexual harassment in the workplace by using the following recommended practices:

Issue a strong policy statement that defines and condemns harassing behaviour
Inform all employees about the policy and their rights under the policy
Develop a complaint procedure, which includes management’s response to investigating a complaint
Spend extra time training managers and supervisors about sexual harassment, and inform them of their responsibilities
Discipline managers and employees involved in sexual harassment
Keep thorough records of complaints, investigations and actions taken
Publish the policy annually
Monitor and tour the premises to ensure that sexually explicit material is not displayed in the workplace

As can be seen in the cases mentioned above, it would have been beneficial for the employers to have anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies in the workplace. It is recommended that employers have these policies, train all staff about the policies and make clear the consequences of not complying with the policies.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

Workplace violence and privacy: what’s the connection?

Andrew Lawson — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Image: metromonctonnews.com

Two seemingly unrelated, yet interesting, events occurred this month that made me think about occupational health & safety. Of course, my friends and family say that the evening breeze will cause me to think about some employment law related risk! Anyway—what do you suppose is the commonality between the First Reference 12^th Annual Ontario employment law conference and the Stanley Cup playoffs?

It was my privilege to attend the former and my horror to witness the mayhem that occurred in the streets of beautiful Vancouver following the final game of the latter. Among all of the media, including social media, attention that followed the Vancouver riots was an article published by thestar.com about people being fired or losing commercial endorsements after being identified rioting in social media generated photographs. There are hundreds of ongoing online debates on the merits of being fired for off-work behaviour.

The question of whether I can be fired for what I do away from work is a complicated one to answer and one that requires more time for legal research than what I have available prior to my deadline for this posting. However, Ontario employers must, under certain conditions, provide information to workers about another worker who poses a threat in the workplace due to having a history of violent behaviour. Please see Occupational Health & Safety Act, s. 32.0.5 (3).

“Workplace violence” is defined in the Act as being of a physical nature but “violent behaviour” is not defined thus leaving this determination up to individual judgment. So here’s a question to ask yourself—what are your legal obligations under Ontario law when you see an online photo of your worker committing violent acts?

This brings me to the other interesting event that occurred in the last month—the First Reference employment law conference. Among the many informative presentations was one entitled, “Social networking and internet abuse in the workplace” by Kelly McDermott of Stringer Brisbin Humphrey. Kelly did a great job of educating us on how to legally monitor the online activity of workers and she said something like: Notwithstanding privacy settings [on social media applications] everything posted on the internet eventually becomes public.

I can post a photo online and control access to it with my privacy settings. That doesn’t stop someone from copying that photo and distributing it. Likewise, photos can be snapped on a cell phone and posted on public websites instantly—there is no privacy anymore! Whether you were intended to view a photo or not, what is your legal obligation once you do?

Preventing workplace harassment and the resulting violence that is delivered over the internet in a huge challenge for the twenty first century employer. However, responding to information received via the Internet, whether intentional or not, is an obligation the modern employer must also take seriously.

Andrew Lawson
Learn don’t Litigate

Listen to your employees and reduce your workload!

Andrew Lawson — Tue, 24 May 2011 13:00:27 +0000

My training workshops are often an opportunity for managers to learn about what’s happening on the “floor” of the workplace. I experienced this recently while conducting a training session designed to inform workers of their rights and obligations under their employer’s harassment and violence policy.

I am happy to share this learning experience with you but, first, a little background on the law. The Occupational Health & Safety Act (OHSA) requires that when conducting a workplace violence risk assessment you take into account both the:

Nature of your workplace and;
Type of work you performed.

You are also required to consider circumstances:

that are common in similar workplaces to yours i.e., social workers in similar agencies have been threatened or have experienced violent clients;
that are specific to your workplace i.e., our social workers have not experienced threats or actual violence.

I have discovered through my work in this area that most clients benefit from one simple direction—talk to your employees!

Here’s a real life example to illustrate the need to effectively communicate with your workers:

My client had performed their violence risk assessment and written a workplace violence policy. I was now facilitating training workshops in order to provide “information and instruction” to the workers as required by the OHSA. s. 32.0.5 (2)

During a workshop, a worker spoke up and asked, “What is the procedure when I encounter an irate client in the field? I don’t see that in here anywhere.”

Clearly, this hazard had been overlooked during the initial risk assessment. The assessors focused too much on “circumstances specific to their workplace.” They should have focused equally on, “circumstances specific to similar workplaces.” No worries, the legal requirements are designed to take these types of situations into consideration.

The above example illustrates why reassessment is so important. The OHSA is very clear on this point— reassessment of risk must be ongoing.

The OHSA requires that the risk of workplace violence be reassessed, “as often as is necessary . . . to continue to protect workers from workplace violence” S. 32.0.1 (4).

Don’t have the time?

Delegate this responsibility to all workers.
Encourage a workplace culture where there exists an ongoing dialogue about workplace harassment and violence issues.
Encourage your workers to share their concerns with management.

And, oh, one more piece of advice when talking to your employees—listen to what they have to say and utilize this information in the reassessment process.

Andrew Lawson
Learn Don’t Litigate

Applying overtime rules in Ontario can sometimes be complicated

Yosie Saint-Cyr — Wed, 11 May 2011 13:30:18 +0000

With the collaboration of Christina Catenacci

Section 22 of the Ontario Employment Standards Act provides that, in most circumstances, an employee who works more than 44 hours in a given week shall be paid at least one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked. However, this simple rule can become complicated and lead to lawsuits, as several employers have found out recently due to their failure to pay statutory overtime.

Employers may get confused in applying overtime rules because of the myriad of exemptions, special rules and different industry thresholds. Legal exemptions and special rules arise because of the job or the industry sector and are not based on method of payment or employment status. Many employees have jobs that are exempt from the hours of work and overtime provisions of the ESA. Some work in jobs where the overtime threshold is more than 44 hours in a workweek. For example, certain hotel, motel, tourist resort, restaurant and tavern workers get paid overtime after 50 hours a week.

For a full list of excluded workers and special rules, consult Employment Standards Act, 2000 – O. Reg. 285/01.

Let’s examine one specific exemption that complicates the overtime rule. Generally speaking, managers and supervisors are not eligible for overtime pay. Briefly, for managers or supervisors to be denied overtime pay, they must actually manage a part of the business, including other employees, and they must devote the greater part of their workday to doing so.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board recently awarded overtime and vacation pay to a manager whose work included both managerial and non-managerial duties. Since the employee’s non-managerial work exceeded 50 percent of his working hours, this arrangement resulted in the employer owing him overtime and vacation pay for those hours worked, as outlined in the Employment Standards regulation.

The worker was hired as Executive Chef to supervise and administer the employer’s kitchen operations, including food selection, purchasing, employee management and coordination of the kitchen service with other departments.

His duties included:

Supervising food preparation, quality and inventories; planning the kitchen budget
Interviewing and hiring job applicants
Administering the training program and proper placement of employees
Setting up work schedules and job requirements
Preparing inventories and revising work schedules
Reporting on payrolls, overtime, absenteeism and accidents
Assisting line cooks during peak hours

The chef was paid a salary and received benefits and a bonus based on a percentage of food costs, unlike the kitchen staff who were paid hourly and did not receive benefits or bonuses.

Due to a combination of employees quitting and being terminated for not meeting standards, the chef had lost five kitchen staff only two weeks after starting the job. The short-handed situation lasted approximately two months until he was able to bring it back under control. During this time, he typically worked seven days a week, 12–16 hours a day. He was performing the non-supervisory/non-managerial duties of line cooking.

Even though the position was viewed as managerial, and hence not entitled to overtime, the owner made a gratuitous payment to him in the amount of $5,000 for his hard work and long hours. The worker made a claim with the Employment Standards Branch for overtime and vacation for all hours worked, and was successful. The owner of the company appealed, claiming the chef was a manager and thus exempt from overtime and vacation.

The board decided the following:

The worker’s duties clearly indicated that the fundamental character of the Executive Chef position was managerial and supervisory
The performance of line cooking, in the given circumstances, did not alter the essential character of the Executive Chef position
The board held that the non-managerial/non-supervisory duties were not irregular in nature, but they were exceptional or “out of the ordinary”
Thus, the worker was a person whose work was supervisory or managerial in character, and who performed non-supervisory or non-managerial tasks on an exceptional basis
Section 22 of the ESA states that for an employee who performs work that the regulations (s.8(b), Ont. Reg. 285/01) exempt from overtime pay (e.g., managerial or supervisory), and whose position requires the employee to perform both exempt and non-exempt work (line cooking, in this case), overtime pay applies in respect of all work performed in a workweek, unless the time spent performing that non-exempt work constitutes less than half the time that the employee spent fulfilling the duties of his position in that workweek
In this case, due to the crisis in the kitchen, there were weeks when the worker’s position required him to perform both overtime-exempted work and work of another kind of character (i.e., the line cooking). In some of these weeks, the evidence indicated that the employee spent more than half of his time performing the other work (i.e., line cooking).

Therefore, the worker was to be compensated for overtime performed in a workweek, so long as the non-exempt work in that workweek constituted 50 percent or more of the time the employee spent working. The overtime pay and associated vacation for time worked amounted to about $9,443. The gratuitous payment of $5,000 was to be deducted from this amount, leaving $4,443 owing to the worker.

What can employers take from this principle?

The Employment Standards Act and Regulations make it clear that a managerial worker who spends more than 50 percent of his or her work time performing non-managerial tasks must receive compensation for those hours. That means, if the managerial employee spends at least half of her or his time performing non-managerial tasks, and at some point works some overtime hours, the employer must pay overtime for these hours.

Employers are recommended to:

Be as clear as possible regarding workers’ job duties, and whether the worker is a full-fledged manager
Monitor how much time a manager is spending on managerial tasks versus non-managerial tasks so those hours can be tracked as well as overtime owed

But overtime and manager/supervisors is just one issue when it comes to applying Ontario’s overtime rules, and many other variables can increase the complexity. That is why First Reference Inc. has prepared a 36-page guide that will help you keep your overtime practices and procedures up to date and ensure compliance with employment standards overtime rules in Ontario. The guide provides easy-to-understand explanations of what employers need to know and do to comply, as well as practical guidelines, tips, techniques, sample policies, forms and checklists needed when dealing with an employee overtime issue.

Check out our new guide available now on Overtime rules in Ontario. Guides on overtime rules for other jurisdiction will follow shortly.

Yosie Saint-Cyr and Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editors

Don’t sweep harassment under the carpet

Andrew Lawson — Tue, 10 May 2011 13:00:25 +0000

Addressing the issue will only make it worse

This is a troubling attitude I hear expressed by many of my clients.

Here are just a few concerns raised by participants attending my workshops on workplace harassment and violence prevention:

“I don’t want to rock the boat.”
“I know I should report it to my supervisor, but it would be career-limiting.”
“I manage over 50 people, I can’t respond every time someone feels harassed.”
“Oh sure, I speak up but when the time comes nobody else supports me.”

Image: marketpreview.blogspot.com

I empathize with my participants. In the real world, there certainly is a risk involved when coming forward with concerns or allegations of abuse, harassment or violent acts happening in the workplace.

There is a naive perception among many workers, including managers, that the easier route is to “sweep it under the carpet”—to pretend the abusive behaviour is not there and hope it will go away. But both occupational health and safety and human rights legislation prohibit reprisals, threats and intimidation against a person for exercising their rights. Employers can face stiff financial penalties for permitting this unacceptable behaviour. For example, in Curling v. Victoria Tea Company, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal awarded a young woman $17,600 after her employer threatened her for filing a human rights complaint.

Just in case you honestly believe it is easier to just “sweep it under the carpet” follow the links below for some eye-opening information on failing to effectively deal with workplace harassment and violence.

Pierre Lebrun

Chronology of attempts to reform the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act

Lori Dupont

Learn don’t litigate

Reporting and addressing workplace harassment and violence is now a legal obligation, not a choice
Employers must have harassment and violence policies in place
Your policies must outline how an employee files a complaint
Employees must be trained on the above policies and procedures
All employees must be aware that threats, intimidation and reprisal against a worker for exercising their legal rights will not be tolerated

Andrew Lawson
Learn don’t litigate