Saskatchewan joins Quebec with new psychological harassment legislation
Workplace violence, including bullying, is prevalent in Ontario’s workplaces and it’s damaging to employee morale, health and productivity, according to the president of the union that represents the province’s public service employees.
“The landscape of workplace violence can be quite damaging. Whether it be intimidation, bullying, harassment or any host of other behaviours, they isolate and degrade individuals,” said Gary Gannage, president of the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO).
It’s time the Ontario government enacts legislation that clearly prohibits psychological harassment and bullying in the workplace, said Gannage.
However, the government has no plans to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the act already makes it clear employers must ensure workers’ safety, said Minister of Labour Steve Peters.
“Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it is clear that employers are required to take every reasonable precaution to protect workers,” he said. However, the general clause isn’t enough, said Gannage.
“We think it should be very explicit in the act,” he said. “What we’re looking for is the imposition of duties on employers, supervisors and workers with respect to acts of workplace violence and workplace harassment. We define that as acts of physical or psychological violence or coercion, psychological harassment or misuse of power.”
Quebec leads the way
In 2002, Quebec became the first province to officially enact legislation protecting workers from psychological harassment. (The bill came into force on June 1, 2004.)
The amendment to the Labour Standards Act defines psychological harassment as: “Any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee.”
From April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006 (the most recent statistics available), Quebec’s Labour Standards Commission settled 2,200 complaints of psychological harassment, a 15-per-cent improvement over the processing rate in the first year. About 200 complaints were transferred to the commission’s legal affairs department, of which 32 were settled out of court.
Saskatchewan gets in the act
More recently, Saskatchewan introduced amendments to its Occupational Health and Safety Act, which already prohibits harassment based on race, creed, religion, gender and sexual orientation, to explicitly prohibit psychological harassment at work.
“Concern about harassment that falls outside the current prohibited grounds is an emerging issue that is gaining recognition in other jurisdictions,” said Natosha Lipinski, communications consultant for Saskatchewan Labour.
The act outlines specific guidelines for what constitutes psychological harassment.
“Simply offending someone is not necessarily harassment,” said Lipinski. “The action has to affect the well-being of a person in an adverse way — the person doing the harassing should have known that it would cause harm and that harm has to threaten the health and safety of the worker.”
“The landscape of workplace violence can be quite damaging. Whether it be intimidation, bullying, harassment or any host of other behaviours, they isolate and degrade individuals,” said Gary Gannage, president of the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO).
It’s time the Ontario government enacts legislation that clearly prohibits psychological harassment and bullying in the workplace, said Gannage.
However, the government has no plans to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the act already makes it clear employers must ensure workers’ safety, said Minister of Labour Steve Peters.
“Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it is clear that employers are required to take every reasonable precaution to protect workers,” he said. However, the general clause isn’t enough, said Gannage.
“We think it should be very explicit in the act,” he said. “What we’re looking for is the imposition of duties on employers, supervisors and workers with respect to acts of workplace violence and workplace harassment. We define that as acts of physical or psychological violence or coercion, psychological harassment or misuse of power.”
Quebec leads the way
In 2002, Quebec became the first province to officially enact legislation protecting workers from psychological harassment. (The bill came into force on June 1, 2004.)
The amendment to the Labour Standards Act defines psychological harassment as: “Any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee.”
From April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006 (the most recent statistics available), Quebec’s Labour Standards Commission settled 2,200 complaints of psychological harassment, a 15-per-cent improvement over the processing rate in the first year. About 200 complaints were transferred to the commission’s legal affairs department, of which 32 were settled out of court.
Saskatchewan gets in the act
More recently, Saskatchewan introduced amendments to its Occupational Health and Safety Act, which already prohibits harassment based on race, creed, religion, gender and sexual orientation, to explicitly prohibit psychological harassment at work.
“Concern about harassment that falls outside the current prohibited grounds is an emerging issue that is gaining recognition in other jurisdictions,” said Natosha Lipinski, communications consultant for Saskatchewan Labour.
The act outlines specific guidelines for what constitutes psychological harassment.
“Simply offending someone is not necessarily harassment,” said Lipinski. “The action has to affect the well-being of a person in an adverse way — the person doing the harassing should have known that it would cause harm and that harm has to threaten the health and safety of the worker.”
