Recent reports of the ongoing hazing of City of Mississauga workers have highlighted the need for employers to address issues of violence and harassment in the workplace. There is also a new legislated requirement, effective as of 15 June 2010, known as Bill 168. The fact that at least one city worker had repeatedly objected to these hazing activities and that his concerns were completely ignored, or more importantly downplayed or dismissed, indicates a serious lack of policy and procedure in the city's management system.
The new law requires employers to have a policy that forbids workplace violence and harassing behaviour in the workplace. The activities described in the City of Mississauga case clearly fall into the category of harassment. The fact that previous allegations were ignored or dismissed was a mistake that in today's regulatory climate would mean that employers have fallen afoul of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Bill 168 requires employers to investigate allegations of harassment or violence in the workplace
The recent amendment requires employers to investigate such allegations and take actions to prevent its recurrence. Managers who minimize, or ignore, the significance of such activities do not understand the fundamental premise of harassing behaviours. It is the perception of the victim that is what is at issue; the intention of the perpetrator is secondary and does not absolve the perpetrator of wrong doing. In cases such as these, I suspect that the manager probably thought "this is all in good fun"; "just boys, being boys". The mistake here is that a worker did not find it fun, spoke out against such "fun" and was ignored or dismissed as a "kill joy" or "party pooper". What should have happened is that a series of sequential steps come into play as a result of such an allegation. The first step would be for the manager to take the allegation of harassment seriously. The case then would be referred to a specified person for investigation. Ultimately there would have to be consequences for this kind of misbehavior.
The resultant penalties would have to be based on a number of factors. Was this the first time for this kind of activity? Were the persons involved, properly trained and advised of what behaviours are deemed as unacceptable in the workplace? Is there a reasonable expectation of the disciplinary action having a positive outcome and effecting real change in the perpetrator's demeanor? Most organizations should consider having a policy that states that inappropriate harassing activity will result in consequences "up to and including dismissal". This simple statement allows any organization a substantial amount of leeway that accommodates any number of different scenarios for any number of different levels of unacceptable behaviours.
A crucial final step, for a diligent employer, would be to go back and review the situation at a later date. In six to eight months we would want to know: has the aberrant behavior stopped? What is the current climate in this work area? Have we affected real change in the culture of the workplace and is this the change that will advance our stated goals?
The challenge of Bill 168 for employers is to create a policy that expresses management's desire to create a workplace free of undesirable behaviours. The employer must then produce a "program" to implement that policy goal. The program must provide steps for workers to follow when confronted with behaviours they have been trained to recognize as inappropriate for the workplace. The program must encourage workers to report such unwanted activities and assure workers that they will be dealt with in an effective manner. An employer that can manage to do this is in a very good position to be considered duly diligent.
