Workplace Complaints Archives - Industrial Relations Centre

Workplace Harassment After #MeToo

February 2, 2018 by IRC Queen Uni

On October 5 2017, the New York Times published an article detailing serious sexual harassment allegations against famous Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.[1] Three days later, his company’s Board of Directors terminated his employment effective immediately.[2] In this context, actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter, encouraging all women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted to change their status to “Me Too” (a hashtag originally coined by activist Tarana Burke) in order to give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.[3] Since then, “Me Too” hashtags spread virally across the world’s social media accounts, having reportedly been posted or commented on millions of times.[4] The women who came forward about sexual harassment allegations were referred to as “silence breakers”, and Time Magazine named these “silence breakers” its “2017 Person of the Year”.[5] This movement led to an outpouring of new allegations against various male celebrities and public figures on an ongoing basis. What followed was the rapid downfall of many of those accused, leading to prompt resignations and terminations from their respective roles.

Meanwhile in Canada, two high profile politicians recently resigned promptly after public allegations of sexual harassment and/or misconduct were made. Amidst the #metoo movement, the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre reported an increase in calls.[6] It appears many employers experienced a similar spike in sexual harassment related complaints, likely due to heightened awareness of the issues and women encouraged to speak out by those who already had. Workplace sexual harassment is a complicated subject. It involves far more than inappropriate comments or unwanted sexual advances. Sometimes consensual relationships can be considered sexual harassment when a significant power imbalance exists. Consensual relationships gone sour can turn into sexual harassment if reprisals or unwanted advances occur after the relationship ends. Joking co-workers and jock culture may create a toxic working environment for those exposed to it. Complainants may not wish to come forward due to fear of losing their jobs. Not all complaints are meritorious, leaving some respondents wrongly accused, stigmatized and/or wrongfully dismissed. When receiving a sexual harassment complaint, employers have an obligation to inquire most often by way of an investigation. Third-party or external investigators may be most appropriate in sensitive situations. Given the complexity of sexual harassment issues, findings and fault may not always be clear cut. In some cases, employers should terminate the respondent. In other cases, substantiated findings may not warrant termination, but instead discipline and training. The workplace culture must be considered and may require change, and every circumstance must be considered based on its own facts.

The #metoo movement has empowered many women who were the victims of unjust behaviour to come forward, although the movement has its own inequities by persecuting and often impacting the livelihood of the accused without due process, or any process whatsoever. The court of public opinion quickly makes judgment, but employers should not do the same. Due process is important for all parties, as an employer has an obligation to all of its employees, both in terms of maintaining a safe workplace for all, and in terms of not summarily dismissing someone simply because an allegation is made. This article will explore the complex considerations regarding sexual harassment in Canadian workplaces, consider the roles and obligations of all parties involved, and review the importance of investigations and due process in relation to workplace sexual harassment complaints.

Download Full Article (link below footnotes)

[1] Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades”, NYTimes.com, last modified October 5, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html

[2] Robehmed, Natalie. “Harvey Weinstein Fired From The Weinstein Company”, Forbes.com, last modified October 8, 2017,https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2017/10/08/harvey-weinstein-fired-from-the-weinstein-company/#12af4f216681

[3] Milano, Alyssa (@Alyssa_Milano). “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” 15 October 2017, 1:21 pm. Tweet.

[4] Unknown. “More than 12M “Me Too” Facebook posts, comments, reactions in 24 hours”, CBSNews.com, last modified October 17, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/metoo-more-than-12-million-facebook-posts-comments-reactions-24-hours/

[5] Stephanie Zacharek, Eliana Dockterman and Haley Sweetland Edwards “Time Magazine Person of the Year”. Retrieved from: http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/

[6] McLaughlin, Amara. “Toronto sexual assault, harassment services flooded by calls triggered by #MeToo movement”, CBC.ca, last modified October 27, 2017, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-sexual-assault-harassment-services-flooded-by-calls-triggered-by-metoo-movement-1.4375827

4 Steps to Fix a Toxic Workplace

January 22, 2018 by IRC Queen Uni

How do you fix a hostile workplace after a strike, merger or other polarizing event? How do you create a healthy workplace after a harassment or grievance investigation? It can be difficult to rebuild the trust that has been lost between members of a team or in leadership, or both. But, according to Anne Grant, a Queen’s IRC facilitator and workplace restoration specialist, you have to bring people back to a joint vision of what the workplace should be.

Is Your Workplace Toxic?

According to Anne, a toxic or poisoned workplace is a work environment where the work product is being affected by the dysfunction of the members of the team. Some signs and symptoms of a workplace that needs help could be an increase in grievances or sick time; it could be more people quitting or retiring; it could be difficulty in recruiting and retaining talent. But there are also more subtle signs, like apathy among workers or an increase in gossip or bullying.

“We have all kinds of processes for addressing a complaint,” says Anne. “But we don’t have as many processes for getting back to an ideal workplace after a complaint or polarizing event like a merger, strike or perhaps a big investigation.”

And that’s where a workplace restoration comes in. Whether it is addressing difficulties with management, a group of rogue employees spreading negativity through the office, or an issue that no one ever got around to investigating, a workplace restoration can help re-establish communication and trust in an organization.

Anne shares four steps to fix a toxic workplace:

1. Assessment

The first step is to figure out what’s really going on by doing an assessment of the situation. Why do we have a lack of trust? Why do we have apathy? Why do we have dysfunction?

Sometimes assumptions are made that are not quite correct, so the first step is always to find out what the actual issues are by talking directly to the staff. It could be dysfunctional team relations or team behaviour, which could include malicious gossip, bullying behaviours, or perhaps some members of the team just not getting along. Another issue that often comes up is challenges with management practices. There may be a perception of favouritism, that management isn’t managing the workplace or that there’s a lack of planning. Perhaps there’s the perception of unfairness, that management isn’t managing the negative performers or correcting unacceptable behaviour.

A key part of the assessment piece is to communicate the process and be clear that it’s not an investigation. Perhaps a memo that says: “We have recognized that there are some challenges on this team. We are going to be doing a workplace assessment starting on this day. You will be able to complete a confidential survey and/or attend a confidential interview. Then the survey results and our plan will be released at a meeting next month.”

When completing the assessment, you might find that there are operational or technical issues, but most likely, you will find that there’s a lack of trust and communication.

Anne worked with a group of public works employees who drive snow plows. The initial information was that: “Oh, there’s a couple of guys, and they don’t get along with the new guys. It’s a millennial thing.” However, as she dug into the issue and spoke to the employees, she found that one of their biggest issues was that they didn’t feel like there was a plan for their department. They felt like everything they did was at the whim of the manager. George said: “You know, Frank and I are the only two guys that can drive the grader, and we’re pretty close to retirement, and we don’t see the plan for who’s going to get to drive the grader next.”

2. Plan

The second step is to make a plan to move forward. How are we going to fix this? Are we going to send the manager for sensitivity training? Are we going to give everybody a refresher on bullying? Are we going to work to model some effective workplace structures, like effective staff meetings and that sort of thing? What is the plan going to be?

In Anne’s example above with the snow plow drivers, the discovery of the real issues led to the development of a skills inventory being posted, so the workers knew who was certified to drive different pieces of equipment. It incorporated the seniority list, so it had senior employees at the top and junior employees at the bottom. Everyone could see who had what certifications, and then it could be used to plan who would be next to get training. Going straight down the seniority list wasn’t working, because George and Frank, who were at the top of the list and were the most senior guys, were going to be gone in the next year. The next person on the list, Sam, was already was certified in two other areas, and it didn’t make sense to certify him in the grader because he could only drive one piece of equipment at a time. Identifying some tangible issues meant that they were able to make an effective plan to work towards a more ideal workplace.

3. Implement the Plan

This is where the rubber hits the road in the process. Many times, organizations do the assessment and planning pieces, but the recommendations never get implemented.

One of the ways that a workplace restoration differs from a grievance investigation is that it’s not about disciplining the rogue employee(s) or manager; it’s about identifying what the ideal workplace looks like for that team, and figuring out how to make it happen.

A big part of the implementation is communicating to the staff what can and can’t be done, and why. “We’re going to do this this month. We’re going to do that next month. That recommendation that you made, it’s a great idea, but because of the regulations for our industry, we can’t implement it.” The workers need to know that they have been heard. Treating them like partners will help motivate desired behaviour.

Anne says while it’s important to acknowledge the injury in order to heal and move forward, the focus has to be on the ideal workplace and what steps can get you there. A key part of that process is education – it’s a good opportunity to remind people of expected and substandard behaviour, without blaming or singling out individuals. “One of the issues that was reported in the survey is some substandard behaviour. There’s noncompliance with our organizational code of conduct or with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”

Anne recalls a workplace restoration experience at a coal yard. There were many complicated issues, but one of the workers said: “We need a Tim Horton’s down by the lagoon.” It turned out that a bunch of these guys worked outside down by the lagoon all day, with a Johnny on the spot and no access to a cafeteria. Everybody up in the main building had access to hot coffee, a cafeteria and real bathrooms. One of the things that they were able to implement as part of the workplace restoration was getting a coffee truck to come down to the lagoon at 9:00 in the morning and at 1:15 in the afternoon to sell them hot coffee. While there were big issues that were not easily fixed, this small step made the workers feel like they had been heard and contributed to creating a more ideal workplace. The coffee truck was bringing more than caffeine. It was bringing good will.

4. Evaluation

The final part of the process is a check-in. Anne recommends an evaluation in three months, six months, or a year, depending on the situation. This reminds the troops that their leaders haven’t forgotten about them, and it continues to engender trust and engagement from the staff. It also holds everyone accountable for maintaining the new processes and expected behaviours. People fall off the wagon after a while, and by completing an evaluation, it holds all parties accountable.

Queen’s IRC has introduced a new Workplace Restoration program, which will teach you how to address a toxic workplace to rebuild relationships and productivity.

The Golden Years: The Aging Workforce and Human Rights Matters

March 31, 2017 by IRC Queen Uni

Overview

Employers can significantly benefit by retaining and hiring older employees who may offer considerable knowledge, experience and insight, along with dedication and work ethic. All of these benefits are accompanied by a unique set of human rights considerations related to our aging workforce, including age discrimination and age related disability. As the Canadian population ages, so does our workforce. Mandatory retirement programs have generally been outlawed (with few exemptions), and many Canadians now choose to work into their 60s and 70s for various reasons including: fulfillment, financial gains, longer life spans, lack of savings and failed pension plans.

With respect to age discrimination, employees may experience ageism within an ongoing employment relationship, or when trying to secure a new job later in life. Older employees may feel like they are being forced to retire or may be passed up for deserved promotions on the unverified assumptions they will not be working too much longer. Older employees may also be targeted for termination, when they had intended to work for several years more. Persons seeking new jobs later in life may experience age discrimination during the recruitment process.

With respect to age-related disability, older employees may experience medical issues, and employers must accommodate age-related health issues in the exact same way that any other disability is accommodated. Some disabilities are far easier to accommodate than others. A defined physical limitation may be readily accommodated on a permanent basis by using an assistive device, whereas an invisible disability and/or cyclical disability may require a more flexible accommodation approach. For instance, an employee experiencing certain forms of arthritis may feel significant pain and require time off during flare-ups; however, the cyclical and sporadic nature of the required accommodation could present scheduling challenges. Far more challenging is understanding and accommodating a brain disorder (such as Alzheimer’s disease or dementia). In such situations the employee may not even be aware of their own health issues, and the employer will be tasked with determining if any medical conditions even exist and if so, if such can be accommodated.

The aging population may also result in increased requests for family status accommodations, when children or relatives request time off to assist in the caregiving needs of their elders.

This article will explore some key human rights considerations and interesting case-law related to our aging workforce.

5 Insights into Conducting Effective Fact-Finding Investigations

April 18, 2016 by IRC Queen Uni

Fact-finding is an essential skill set for anybody who is in an HR, labour relations or employee relations role. If you stay in this role, at some point you will end up doing investigations, and having this skill set is going to make you much more efficient as a practitioner.

Jerry Christensen, who recently retired from the City of Calgary, managed and coordinated the City’s respectful workplace program and dealt with all of their human rights issues. With previous experience working in the criminal justice system and with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, Jerry has worked in several regulatory environments where someone had to be held accountable. In this interview, Jerry shares his thoughts about the value of fact-finding and investigation training for HR and LR practitioners, as well as the five most important things he’s learned about conducting effective fact-finding investigations.

“If you’ve not done any workplace investigations, never had any training to do so, and then find yourself being thrust into that role, it can be very intimidating. The word ‘investigation’ is going to be flashing in front of your face in letters that are 10 feet high and blazing red. You may find yourself feeling anxious and nervous about your role in this process.” Jerry points out that this is why it’s important to have training in fact-finding. “Usually, when people are intimidated about the process, they’re going to stumble through it and they may not do it very well.”

As an investigator at the City of Calgary, Jerry took on a neutral role, where he didn’t advocate for one party or the other. This was very important to his role, because if HR or LR are perceived to be favouring one side, the parties involved may feel that it’s not a fair investigation.

Improving your skills in fact-finding is another essential tool in your toolkit, Jerry says. “These skills are your bread and butter as an HR or LR practitioner. I think taking the Queen’s IRC Mastering Fact-Finding and Investigation course increases your competency as a professional.”

“Fact-finding is really all about talking to people. I really believe this kind of training is going to help improve their communications skills and their ability to engage with all types of people more effectively. It doesn’t matter what job you do or what kind of business you’re in. I believe that this training will be of benefit to you.”

Whether you’re just starting out, or whether you’ve been through some fact-finding investigations before, Jerry shares the five most important things he’s learned about conducting effective fact-finding investigations.

1. Good Investigations Are Thorough And Fair

The two main criteria for a good investigation are thoroughness and fairness.

It’s important to respond effectively to complaints in the early stages because issues can escalate quickly, to a point where the workplace can get polarized and toxic very quickly. You have camps of ‘he said’ and ‘she said’, no one trusts anybody, and employees are upset with what they perceive as an unfair situation because they feel nothing is being done to investigate the complaint. Productivity goes out the window and work doesn’t get done. An employer’s reputation can be negatively impacted very quickly because these perceptions become topics on social media or other outlets – nobody can keep it internalized anymore.

There are many cases where an employer has been accused of not doing a thorough and fair investigation. Those employers then have to deal with negative press, and possibly be involved in costly litigation.

Recently there have been media reports of an employee who launched a civil action, alleging that she brought forward what sounds like sexual assault allegations against another employee, and that the company didn’t deal with it properly. The employer will now have to demonstrate what they did and how they did it in order to defend themselves against those allegations in civil court. If they can’t prove that they investigated this in a fair and thorough way, and if they can’t demonstrate it with tangible facts or documentation, then their liability and reputation could be at risk.

2. Not All Investigations Are The Same

The word ‘investigation’ has a very negative value attached to it. For a lot of people, when they hear that word, they have their own perceptions of what investigations are – mainly from all the crime shows that we see on television. But crime shows don’t show the real way that workplace investigations should be done.

In some situations when a complaint is on the lower end of severity, there may be an opportunity to try to informally resolve the issue. HR and front line managers or supervisors should be able to (and prepared to) give coaching and/or advice to both parties so that they can resolve their conflict themselves. If they can do this, then nine times out of 10, the resolution will stick, and people will be able to work together much more effectively.

When the situation is dealing with more severe allegations, this is where the process tends to get more formalized. Complaints are written out and the allegations are very specific in terms of who, what, when, and where. People will have to be interviewed about their knowledge of the specific allegations. All of that information will have to be evaluated to determine if there has or has not been, a violation of some workplace rule or policy. If necessary, discipline may have to be imposed. In most people’s perception of what a workplace investigation entails, this type of process is what it would look like.

This is where the training that one can obtain through a fact-finding course, such as the one offered by Queen’s IRC, is going to help. It helps you learn to maintain that position of objectivity and fairness, and teaches you how to complete a thorough investigation and write proper reports. If you can demonstrate to the parties involved that your process is as thorough and fair as it can be, then they may be prepared to accept the outcome.

3. Patience Is The Key to Good Interviews

Everybody that I interview – everybody, it doesn’t matter who you are – they’re all nervous. On a scale of nervousness, with one being the least, and 10 being the most, usually most people are five and up when I come to interview them because, “Oh no …, now I’m involved in an investigation. Somebody might lose their job. I don’t want to get anybody in trouble.” Getting someone you are interviewing to a point where they feel comfortable to simply begin talking and having a conversation, that’s usually the biggest hurdle to overcome.

In the criminal justice system, people are interrogated, but in the workplace that approach tends not to get anything of value from the person you are trying to interview. You have to have a discussion with them in a way that’s not going to intimidate or make them feel threatened. Usually that’s the biggest hurdle right off the bat and sometimes this takes a while to achieve. Being patient and asking questions in a conversational tone will tend to get you the information you need.

4. People Present The Truth As They Know It

Most people want to tell you the truth as they know it. And by that I mean that people might tell you their version of what happened, and while they’re not lying, it’s very different from what somebody else saw. It’s how they perceive it and how they interpret the situation. They want to tell you that. You’ve got to be patient with them to give them the opportunity to get that out. Sometimes in an investigation, we want it done yesterday. But I’ve always taken the approach that I’m going to do it as quickly as possible, but it’s going to be thorough, and if thorough means taking an extra few days to get the information complete, then that’s what’s going to happen.

The most challenging types of investigations are where the allegations involve a situation that happened in the distant past. When allegations are several months or a year or older, people’s memories get very sketchy. Even though some of us like to think that we have really good memories, when it comes to specific details, we don’t. We tend to have recollections that are influenced with lots of other things that happened in our lives during the time period that is being investigated. Dealing with allegations that are old makes it very difficult to determine the validity of those allegations, and it may seem like the person being interviewed is not being forthcoming. In my experience most people want to be forthcoming but their memories don’t always cooperate.

5. Stay Neutral And Investigate Every Complaint

As an HR or LR practitioner, it’s important to investigate all complaints in the workplace, either formally or informally. The Jian Ghomeshi case really highlights this point. The workplace allegations that involved Ghomeshi were years and years in the making. Some people in the workplace may have minimized it as “Oh well, that’s just him,” or “We don’t believe that.” Then the proverbial volcano erupted. Obviously people who should have looked into those allegations didn’t, and if you have any training in fact-finding, you will know that your first obligation in situations like that is not to say, “Oh well, that’s just him.”

If your organization has HR or LR practitioners who are trained in fact-finding and investigations, they are going to be able to handle most workplace complaints. But there may be instances when you need to bring in an external investigator. If people have the perception that HR is too close to the situation, or isn’t able to handle the complaints, you should consider bringing in an external person that is going to have the perception of objectivity and the necessary skills to do a thorough and fair investigation. That’s crucial here.

As a good employer, you have a duty to investigate any complaints that are made. It doesn’t mean you have to do a great big huge investigation and interview hundreds of people, but you need to check into those allegations to determine what next steps need to be taken. Maybe you will find that this is a matter that can be resolved between two employees, or maybe a more thorough investigation needs to be launched, but you can’t just ignore the allegations.

Human Rights and Human Wrongs: Our Continuing Need to Teach

May 15, 2015 by IRC Queen Uni

Francine had been disciplined before. She had been suspended for 3 days, for an angry outburst that she had in the shipping department. But this time was worse.

Francine was in the cafeteria, finishing her break. Three co-workers sat down at the same table, and within minutes she began yelling and swearing at them. One of them began talking to her, trying to quiet her down. She threw her cup of tea in his face, and then left the room.

Francine was terminated. The letter of termination cited the company anti-violence and harassment policies.

The most interesting piece of the story arose during mediation, when the grievor told the mediator that she didn’t have a problem with anger – she had a problem with the Filipino employees who were working in the plant. “They are all so tight, always together, and they are taking all the jobs in the plant. None of my nephews, and none of my friends’ kids are getting the new jobs…”

This is not just a problem with anger management. This is a problem with racism. Canadian workplaces are full of it.

Mark was new to the parks department. He was thrilled with his new job, and wanted nothing more than to work outside. He was fond of his co-workers, with whom he enjoyed regular Twitter banter about just about anything that came to mind. He commented on the breast size of the girls in the park, and on his view that the non-white cohort of the workforce worked at a slower pace than he and his buddies.

He laughed when one of his co-workers, a black female, replied to one of his tweets by calling him a major jerk. He laughed when she filed a grievance, asserting that he was poisoning the workplace with his offensive Twitter activity, and demanding that management take steps to prohibit the behaviour.

He didn’t laugh when he was suspended from work, pending investigation of the grievance.

This is not just a case of “boys will be boys.” This is discrimination on the grounds of sex and race. Canadian workplaces are full of it.

Angel had twenty years’ service with the company, and was pleased to see the posting for dispatcher. He applied immediately, confident that after all those years, he was going to see a less physical, more predictable, and slightly more prestigious position. When he learned that his competition for the job was the new kid – the one who limps – he lost it. His rant included comments about the “rookie cripple” and the “lousy gimp.”

Angel not only lost his bid for the dispatcher job; he was disciplined for violation of the company human rights policy.

This is not just a case of conflict between seniority and human rights principles, it is discrimination against those with disabilities. Canadian workplaces are full of it.

Consider the implications

A workplace in which there are human rights issues and conflicts can expect the following problems:

Individuals experience pain and genuinely suffer
Employees who are victims of discrimination work poorly and eventually get sick
Employer reputation is threatened or impaired
When workplace poisoning occurs over social media, the image of that workplace is immediately broadcast widely, without geographic boundaries. Global efforts become global embarrassments.
There are hostile feelings among employees
Groups and cliques of employees form
Individuals and groups become marginalized
Hostilities flare up from time to time, raising threats of and actual violence
Union executive become burdened
Time and effort are invested in individual conflicts
The relationship between the union and management suffers
Money is spent on external resources – investigators, lawyers, mediators, arbitrators

Individual conflicts might be resolved, but systemic discrimination often remains as a fertile ground for the next individual conflict.

We Have the Resources

Human rights legislation is not new to Canadian workplaces in any jurisdiction. We have a rich history of meaningful anti-discrimination legislation. We have huge bodies of jurisprudence breathing vigour into the statutes. Our collective agreements have come to recognize, respect and embrace human rights principles. We have proactive human rights commissions that provide accessible and practical resources to individuals, unions and employers. We have human rights and anti-discrimination policies by the truckload in every workplace in the land. There is no shortage of educational programming, of policy reviewing, of posters in lunchrooms.

But the Problem Remains

Yet there remains, I respectfully argue, a continuing cloud of discrimination in Canadian workplaces. Discrimination continues to poison the lives of individual employees, burden our unions, bog down our management teams, and over-employ our lawyers, mediators and arbitrators.

It continually surprises me, in the course of practising mediation and arbitration, how frequently these issues arise in our workplaces. How pervasive the problem is.

Part of the difficulty, of course, is that although some of us have invested our entire professional lives learning, teaching and fighting human rights issues, every time a workplace welcomes a new employee, that workplace opens its doors to a new influence. That new influence is not likely to have had the benefit of all of that learning, any of that teaching, or any of that fighting.

The challenge of fighting discrimination arises anew every time we hire a new employee.

The task of teaching what human rights are, what discrimination is, and what is and is not permitted in the workplace is a critical task that must be brought alive with every new hire. It is a task that requires vigilant attention. It is a task that is worth repeating and refreshing.

It is Our Responsibility to Teach

With few exceptions, high schools do not teach fundamental human rights concepts. With few exceptions, and unless students pursue specific training, undergraduate university curricula do not include the teaching of fundamental human rights concepts. With few exceptions, career programs and professional schools such as nursing and teaching, do not teach fundamental human rights concepts.

The ultimate responsibility to teach human rights concepts, to explain what discrimination is and why it is prohibited by law, falls upon the employer and the union.

At the risk of repeating a point – when the employer takes on a new hire, when the union welcomes a new member, the likelihood is that although this person has heard of a “human rights code”, they have absolutely no familiarity with it. They are not familiar with its principles. More importantly, they are not familiar with what behaviour is and is not allowed in the workplace. Even with those who have some fundamental training in human rights concepts, there is often a “disconnect” between their appreciation of the concept, and their ability to see what behaviours are and are not discriminatory.

I will go so far as to say that with some frequency, even those have been engaged in management roles or union responsibilities require fundamental education in human rights concepts and practical application of those concepts. In teaching human rights principles at Queen’s IRC, we are constantly impressed with the light bulbs appearing over the heads of those who have been familiar with human rights lingo for years, but have never quite appreciated how the words apply.

In the classroom, seasoned managers are still seen rolling their eyes over the challenge and cost of, for example, accommodating the employee disabled by alcoholism, addressing the needs of a parent whose disabled kid contributes to attendance issues, or coping with the conflicts caused by the gender-shift surgery. Our instructors remind them that human rights protections reflect the deeply held values of Canadian society, delivered as a result of democratic legislative process.

Human rights codes are not stable or one-off enactments. They change from time to time, as the norms and values of the community shift. Forty years ago we did not consider gender a characteristic worthy of workplace respect. Thirty years ago we did not consider alcoholism or drug addiction to be a disability. Twenty years ago we did not consider sexual orientation worthy of protection, family status an issue of workplace concern, or transgendered identity a choice worthy of dignity. As the norms and values of our culture shift, so do our human rights codes and their requirements.

Human rights codes, at their core, reflect the reasons that most of our ancestors came to Canada. They continue to be part of the reason that those from less peaceful parts of the world still make that journey.

So What is the Answer?

It is critical that employers and unions continue to embrace their responsibilities to learn and teach fundamental human rights concepts. It is critical that we continue to teach managers and supervisors what the principles are and how they apply to day to day behaviours. It is critical that each new hire receives a meaningful education about what discrimination means and how the rules apply in their workplace.

No, it is not sufficient to hand a new hire a copy of the human rights policy, and ask them to initial it. That is not teaching – that is mere administration.

No, it is not enough to call employees or members together once every few years to hear someone talk about human rights ideals. That is not teaching either.

No, it is not enough to post the results of the latest arbitration award or court decision that affected your workplace, and have employees learn from the mistakes of others. That may be teaching, but it is very expensive teaching.

How to Teach?

Adults learn from reading, listening, discussing, and then practicing. We have to have an opportunity to absorb the information, and then to apply it. We need the lessons, but then we need to learn how to implement them. We have to practice the lessons. We need to translate the human rights lingo into every day words and actions.

Classrooms, seminars, workshops, on-site sessions, and role play opportunities are essential pieces of in-house training systems for all employees. Adult students must be required to feed the information back to the instructor, in order to break the learning barrier. Human rights training in any environment must be interactive. Examples of behaviours that are and are not appropriate must be provided – again and again.

Managers, supervisors and union executive require clear opportunities to learn what is and is not permissible behaviour. Although front line workers require a degree of human rights training, a workplace culture will not be affected and improved unless managers, supervisors and union executive have a firm grip on the concepts, and are ready to model behaviour appropriately.

We have to teach employees, managers and supervisors appropriate intervention and behavioural correction when others commit acts of discrimination. Counselling must accompany progressive discipline in this area. (Discipline alone is a poor teacher, as perpetrators become defensive and denying.) This is a tough area to teach in-house. It should include some awareness of “difficult conversations” and skillful feedback.

Just as workplaces assess the risk of workplace violence by surveying their employees, the practice of repeated surveying for discriminatory behaviours and workplace poisoning is advised. Regular scrutiny will track shifting sensibilities, enabling policies and practices to shift as well.

Finally, an acute awareness of human rights in the workplace will translate into a practice of never missing an opportunity. Any time employees gather in one place is a good time to remind them that this workplace, and this union, reflect certain values, and that their behaviour, day in and day out, is a reflection of those values.

There is no downside to getting passionate about human rights in your workplace. It is individuals who affect change, and the small steps that influence the larger shifts. Train and empower one person to be the advocate for the human rights high ground. It is a valuable investment, and one that will return human rewards.

About the Author

Elaine Newman, Ba, LL.B., LL.M., was called to the bar in Ontario in 1979. Elaine is a very experienced full-time arbitrator and mediator, specializing in labour relations, employment, and human rights matters. She is a teacher, an author, and frequent speaker on labour, employment and human rights issues. Elaine served as Associate Director of the LLM program in Labour Relations and Employment Law at Osgoode Hall Law School 2002 to 2008. She was lead instructor for the Advanced Dispute Resolution Course at Atkinson Faculty, York University for ten years, where she taught the Ethics of Mediation course, and the Advanced Practicum course. She is a frequent guest speaker at Queen’s IRC programs, and is lead instructor of the Strategic Grievance Handling program. Elaine is the author of the online course, “Practical Ethics for Working Mediators”, offered by the ADR Institute of Ontario. Her textbook, Preventing Violence in the Workplace, is published by Lancaster House, Toronto.

Workplace Bullying and Harassment: Costly Conduct

March 2, 2015 by IRC Queen Uni

As media scrutiny over schoolyard and cyberbullying pervade the news, allegations of workplace harassment and bullying are on the rise. Media reports reveal the deleterious and even deadly impact that bullying can have on children in our communities. Unfortunately for employers, adults in our workplaces sometimes engage in similar transgressions. While the popularization of the terms “bullying” and “harassment” has both educated and empowered employees to assert the right to a respectful workplace, it has conversely sometimes resulted in overuse of the terms and meritless complaints in relation to reasonable management measures. Employers are left with the difficult task of managing all competing interests to ensure a safe, respectful and productive work environment.

One Canadian professor previously estimated that a whopping 40% of Canadians experienced one or more acts of workplace bullying at least once a week.(1) Although it is difficult to determine exactly how much harassment and bullying actually occurs in Canadian workplaces, we can be certain of the impact of such conduct. Workplace bullying and harassment create a toxic work environment resulting in many negative effects which may include: decreasing productivity, increasing employees’ use of sick days, damaging employee morale and causing attrition of good employees. It can also result in significant legal liabilities. Considering all of these potential impacts, the tangible and intangible costs of workplace harassment and bullying can be high. This should be reason enough to motivate employers to expeditiously address such issues; however, for those not motivated by practical business measures or healthy employee relations, we should also consider the expansion of Canadian laws to protect workers from harassment and bullying, and the significant liabilities that can arise when such issues are not properly addressed.

Talking Trust in Trinidad

February 17, 2015 by IRC Queen Uni

I recently had the opportunity to work with a group of HR professionals in Trinidad, through Queen’s IRC’s partnership with the Arthur Lok Jack Graduate School of Business within the University of the West Indies.

As part of our discussion about building trust in the workplace, we discussed behaviours that lowered trust and those that raised trust. It did not take long for the participants to generate lists of behaviours through table discussion. It was not surprising how frequently participants pointed to similar behaviours in very different workplaces.

Below are two lists of behaviours which affected levels of trust in their workplaces. Have you experienced these in your workplace?

Behaviours which they experienced in their workplaces that LOWERED trust:

Dishonesty from management and leadership
Leadership not walking the talk
Lack of transparency (hidden agendas)
Not admitting mistakes
Playing favourites/showing bias
Lack of open dialogue (secret side deals)
Lack of rewards and recognition
No credit given for ideas contributed
Executives not fulfilling responsibilities
Lack of communication
Unwillingness to change
Selective sharing of information
Double delegation
Personal biases and prejudice
Double standards
Incompetence
Not listening
Breach of confidence
Acting without facts

Behaviours which they experienced in their workplaces that RAISED the level of trust:

Keeping your word
Being honest, fair and treating people equally
Rewarding and recognizing employee performance
Mentoring other employees
Delegating responsibility
Sharing information
Being personally accountable
Supporting structures such as policy, training, internal promotions, penalties, and sanctions
Keeping confidentiality
Supporting work-life balance
Demonstrating competence
Giving credit for work and ideas
Coaching and acting as a change agent
Demonstrating integrity
Leading by example

To learn some ways to help build trust in an organization, please read 5 Steps to Build Trust and Change the Culture in an Organization

If you are interested in building trust training for yourself or your organization, please visit Building Trust in the Workplace.

The Golden Rules of Fact-Finding: Six Steps to Developing a Fact-Finding Plan

October 21, 2013 by IRC Queen Uni

As labour relations professionals, we are required to engage in fact-finding on a regular basis. Good fact-finding ensures that the information upon which we form our conclusions and recommendations is credible, and that our advice is evidence-based.

When planned and executed properly, fact-finding provides a solid foundation for conducting analyses, forming conclusions, generating options and formulating sound recommendations. Fact-finding may involve researching documents or existing records and data, holding focus groups, interviewing witnesses, or using written surveys and questionnaires. The techniques employed will depend on the project or issue under consideration. What is constant across all fact-finding missions is the need for a plan to guide and document your efforts.

Developing a good fact-finding plan starts with figuring out what you need to know – what information do you have to have in order to form an evidence-based opinion. The precursors to good fact-finding include scoping the issue to determine what it is you need to answer, understanding the context within which the issue has arisen, and appreciating the “political” landscape (organizational and personal relationships often play a significant role in shaping a witness’ view of a matter) – all of these things can influence the approach you take to any given fact-finding endeavour.

I like to follow what I call my Golden Rules of Fact-Finding:

Go to the source. The source may be a person or a record, and while not always readily accessible, you should strive to obtain the best evidence available. Search existing policies and procedures and begin to understand how they affect the issue. Identify unwritten rules or practices that form the context of the issue. Establish a recording protocol to document everything that you have gathered and always obtain original copies of documents and records.
Stay objective. Do not become unduly swayed by the people involved — focus on facts, not on opinions or personalities.
Be persistent. If you are not getting the information that you need, do not get derailed. Determine the root cause of why you are not getting the information. For example, have your sources signed a confidentiality agreement which precludes them from answering discussing the matter? When speaking with sources, if you are not getting the information you need, or they are deflecting your questions, probe them and get to the facts.
Do not get paralyzed. The art of fact-finding is separating the information that is required from that which is not. Go where the facts take you, however, stay within the mandate of what it is you are investigating. Compartmentalize the facts as you gather them and delve deeper only where necessary. This will help you stay on track and avoid becoming overwhelmed.
Do not assume. Confirm, confirm, confirm. All of the facts and information that you have gathered must be accurate. This will help you build credibility and support evidence–based decision-making.
Have a plan and follow it. Think strategically and develop a plan. When you determine what you need to establish and whom you need to talk to before you start, the task of uncovering the facts will progress more smoothly. As you begin to obtain facts, you may branch into new areas of enquiry, be required to clarify previous statements, connect with new sources and review additional documents. Just remember that your plan is a living document and you will need to revisit and review it regularly.

In order to succeed as a trusted, strategic advisor to business executives, today’s labour relations professional requires the ability to separate fact from fiction, and formulate options and recommendations based on evidence. Developing fact-finding skills is critical to ensure success.

About the Author

As a career civil servant, Lori Aselstine has over 33 years of experience in the fields of program management, human resources and labour relations. Lori has worked in all regions of Ontario, in small, medium and large operational ministries, as well as in central agency ministries. Lori has extensive experience conducting complex investigations, developing corporate grievance management/resolution strategies and processes, developing negotiation and bargaining mandates, and managing in a complex union-management environment. As a seasoned LR professional who has conducted hundreds of enquiries, investigations, mediations, arbitrations and negotiations, Lori has established a reputation as a skilled relationship-builder and problem-solver.

Bullying in the Workplace: Doing Nothing Is Not a Neutral Act

March 1, 2009 by IRC Queen Uni

When it comes to psychological harassment and bullying in the workplace, targets report that HR departments often make a bad situation much worse, says Jana Raver, Queen’s School of Business Assistant Professor and E. Marie Shantz Research Fellow in Organizational Behaviour.

An active researcher in the field, Raver gave an overview of harassment and bullying in the workplace in a special lecture to the School of Policy Studies.

She said recent surveys indicate that five to 15 percent of workers experience bullying. Such anti-social behaviour can come in the form of withholding key information, sabotage, and outright ostracism. It is hard to prove and difficult to fight.

Women are somewhat more likely than men to be targets, Raver said, as are above average performers. But bullies are not necessarily only supervisors. In fact, 51 percent of all targets report being bullied by both supervisors and peers; only eight percent reported being bullied exclusively by their boss.

Raver said organizations are not yet responding well to the challenge posed by psychological harassment and bullying. When asked about the result of reporting a bullying act, 42 percent of targets said it only made matters worse, 40 percent said nothing changed, and only 18 percent said it proved helpful. “The typical advice is to get out as fast as you can because it is not worth harming your health,” she said. “Unfortunately, making an official complaint in an organization without an anti-bullying policy will often make it worse and invite retribution.”

When reporting a bully to the organization’s HR department, 32 percent of targets said HR made the situation worse, 51 percent said HR did nothing, and 17 percent said HR had a positive impact. When it comes to bullying, however, “Doing nothing is not a neutral act.”

To deal effectively with harassment or bullying, Raver said there needs to be an robust enforcement process and progressive discipline. But she would prefer that organizations create environments that discourage bullying in the first place. She suggested the following measures: an explicit policy for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour; assessing interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence when hiring; conflict management skills for all employees; performance management with transparent procedures; and high-performance work practices such an empowerment and information sharing.

Psychological harassment is an area of growing legislative concern. In 2004, Quebec became the first jurisdiction in North America to include protection against psychological harassment of employees in its Labour Standards legislation.

The High Cost of Workplace Bullying

March 1, 2008 by IRC Queen Uni

Those who are bullied in the workplace appear to suffer more than employees who are subjected to sexual harassment, says Queen’s School of Business Professor of Business Julian Barling.

This unexpected finding comes from a new study conducted by Drs. Barling and Sandy Hershcovis, a PhD graduate from the Queen’s School of Business who is currently on faculty at the University of Manitoba.

The researchers reviewed the results of 110 studies conducted over the past 21 years. They looked at both workplace aggression, which includes bullying, incivility and interpersonal conflict and sexual harassment. In the latter category are gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and “quid pro quo” harassment: the extortion of sexual cooperation in return for job-related considerations.

Surprisingly, employees subjected to workplace aggression were more likely than victims of sexual harassment to leave their jobs and to have a poorer sense of well-being. The study also showed less job satisfaction and fewer satisfying relationships with their superiors among workers who were bullied.

One possible explanation for these findings is that sexual harassment victims, who now have the backing of legislation aimed at preventing and punishing those responsible, may perceive they have a stronger “voice” to respond, suggests Dr. Barling, an expert in labour relations and organizational behaviour. “Employees are more able to seek recourse by filing a complaint with management or grieving to a union, allowing a perception of personal controllability.”

Non-violent forms of workplace aggression are generally not illegal, however, and employees feel they must fend for themselves if they experience such acts. This lack of societal denunciation of aggression diminishes the employee’s ability to change, reduce, or eliminate the negative act.

Another reason workplace aggression takes a special toll on victims is its concealed and insidious nature, Dr. Barling continues. “Sexual harassment generally involves direct behaviors, such as gender-related jokes, unwanted touching, or unwanted requests for dates.”

In contrast, workplace aggression, in addition to acts such as name calling and yelling, often involves hidden acts, such as withholding resources, failing to correct false information, or ostracizing a target. While the victim of such behaviors can perceive these acts, confirmation or validation by others may be more difficult.

Also, as sexual harassment becomes increasingly unacceptable, victims may be more likely to assign blame. Victims of workplace aggression – not normally viewed as an illegal act – may be more likely to suffer in silence, fearing they are imagining such behaviors or are responsible in some way for being targeted.

There is no intent to downplay the seriousness of sexual harassment compared to workplace aggression, the researchers say.

“What our study shows is that – due to its relative invisibility and comparative lack of a legitimate social voice – the impact of workplace aggression may be greater on employees, who must either exit the organization or endure intolerable behaviors,” says Dr. Barling

Accessibility

Accessibility

Stay connected with updates from Queen's IRC

Accessibility

Accessibility

Is Your Workplace Toxic?

1. Assessment

2. Plan

3. Implement the Plan

4. Evaluation

Overview

1. Good Investigations Are Thorough And Fair

2. Not All Investigations Are The Same

3. Patience Is The Key to Good Interviews

4. People Present The Truth As They Know It

5. Stay Neutral And Investigate Every Complaint

Consider the implications

We Have the Resources

But the Problem Remains

It is Our Responsibility to Teach

So What is the Answer?

How to Teach?

About the Author

Behaviours which they experienced in their workplaces that LOWERED trust:

Behaviours which they experienced in their workplaces that RAISED the level of trust:

About the Author

Stay connected with updates from Queen's IRC

Download the Brochure