As of 15 June 2010 all Ontario employers must implement policies and procedures aimed at addressing the issue of workplace violence and harassment. As if on cue, early June saw the Toronto news media full of stories detailing tales of City of Mississauga workers enduring hazing activities. A key piece of evidence was a cell phone video clip showing two workers tied together with duct tape, lying on a table. Other stories involved workers duct taped together and being driven through a car wash in the back of a pick up truck.
Some workers have talked to the media and said that “it was all just a bit of fun” and they did not mind or object. However, at least one worker has been consistently trying to make his objections known and has been requesting that the department manager put an end to these practices. His demands have apparently been falling on deaf ears – at least until last week. In light of the intense media pressure, the mayor has become involved and more reports are pending about whether or not more disciplinary actions will be taken against the manager in question.
Workplace Violence & Harassment - Bill 168, Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act
The new legislative requirement, known as Bill 168 (link to Bill 168), was designed to address exactly these issues. It has been well established that bullying will escalate over time and very often leads to more significant forms of violence. It has also been demonstrated that these forms of aberrant behavior have a particularly corrosive effect on morale in the workplace. It is this behavior that the legislative initiative attempted to address.
It says that employers must have a program to assess and identify when and where violence might occur in the workplace and the program must identify steps that will be taken to investigate and effectively deal with instances of violence and harassment that are brought to the attention of management; or when management ought reasonably know are occurring. The legislated definition of violence is limited to the actual exercise or attempted exercise of physical force and any reasonable threat of physical force. Harassment is described as the use of “vexatious comment”. That is comment that is unwelcome or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, unpleasant or disturbing. It is very important to understand, that in instances of harassment, what is important is the perception of the injured or insulted party. It does not matter what the perpetrator intended. Only the perception of the other party is relevant. In such instances we often say: “perception is reality”.
The evidence being brought forward in the City of Mississauga case appears to indicate that there is no compliance with the new standard of Bill 168. There does not even appear to be compliance with the established requirement of section 25 (2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that requires employers “take every precaution reasonable to protect the health and safety of workers”.
What should be done in the Mississauga case? What steps would a diligent employer follow in such a case? Does anything have to be done at all? We will look at some of these questions in the next installment and attempt to see how a diligent employer would proceed.
