'Welcome changes': Alberta streamlines safety requirements

“They're definitely welcome changes. They are streamlining, I would say, previous requirements, and making things less cumbersome.” 

So says Jenna Vivian, an associate at Bennett Jones in Edmonton, discussing new workplace safety rules coming into force in Alberta. 

“They haven’t really added anything new, with the exception of one extra requirement… really, what they've done is taken certain things out that were very, very prescriptive and specific and they’ve given employers, I think, more flexibility.” 

The changes might not be major ones, but employers will want to take note of the new rules around workplace safety ahead of the deadline of March 31. In particular, updates to the requirements in the Occupational Health and Safety Code relate to policies and procedures that employers must have in place around violence and harassment prevention. 

Cristina Wendel, partner at Dentons in Edmonton, agrees that the changes are welcome. 

“It's really simplifying the process, the requirements for what employers have to have in place to address workplace harassment and violence and trying to simplify the paper and the components that are required,” she says. 

“I think it should be a welcome change for employers, in particular, in terms of… lessening the chance that they're going to be offside.” 

‘Hazards’ for workplace violence, harassment 

One of the alterations in the recent ministerial order repeals section 389, which expressly stated that violence and harassment are considered hazards under Part 2 of the code. 

This meant that an employer had to assess a worksite and identify the existing and potential hazards before work begins, says Vivian. 

“[Now], technically, violence and harassment will no longer be required to be done as part of that hazard assessment. But that doesn't, in practice, really do much, I don't think, because you're still going to be required to eliminate or control the hazards of violence and harassment.” 

To do that, the employer is going to have to do assessments to consider what the hazard is for violence and harassment and how they can either control or eliminate the hazard of violence and harassment, she says. 

“In practice, I don't think it really changes much, because employers are supposed to have to go through that same process.” 

They are still considered hazards and while the government has taken out section 389, that just removes some redundancy or repetition, says Tari Hiebert, partner at Dentons in Edmonton.  

“One of the overall goals, when different parts of the code come up for review, is to streamline language, make things a little more user friendly, a little more reader friendly. And I would attribute the removal of section 389 to that goal.” 

It’s also noteworthy that the definitions of violence and harassment are not found in the code, she says. 

“They're found back in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and there were no amendments to those definitions, and they're very comprehensive, broad definitions of what constitutes violence and harassment,” says Hiebert. 

“So, I would encourage any employer at this point to review their policies and procedures and not think that they've now got an easy way out.” 

Integration: fewer documents needed 

The changes also repeal several sections that set out the requirements for violence prevention plans and harassment prevention plans. Previously, employers essentially had to have four separate documents — for the provisions for violence and harassment policies and procedures — and now these can be integrated into one document.  

“I don't know if, in practice, that is a big change. I think a lot of companies were already doing things that way, but now it's clear that you only need one document to address both harassment and violence,” says Vivian. 

And this will be good news for employers that operate elsewhere, she says. 

“It became difficult to create one document that could be used across multiple jurisdictions. And I think now that everything can be contained just in one place, it might make it easier for clients or companies to create just one violence and harassment document that can be used, not only in Alberta, but in the other jurisdictions that they operate in as well.” 

The change is advantageous for employers that have operations across Canada, including in Alberta, says Hiebert. 

“I, personally, always found it a little bit difficult to square the requirement for a client to be compliant with Alberta's legislation with what clients usually have, which is one integrated policy and set of procedures to deal with harassment and violence — which they were using across the rest of the country.” 

Requirements of violence and harassment prevention plan 

When it comes to developing and implementing a consolidated violence and harassment prevention plan, the new rules state that employers must include: 

• measures to eliminate or, if that is not reasonably practicable, control the hazards of violence and harassment to workers 

• procedures to inform workers of the nature and extent of the hazard of violence and harassment 

• procedures to report violence or harassment 

• procedures to investigate complaints and incidents of violence or harassment 

• provisions to protect the confidentiality of all parties involved in a complaint or incident, except where disclosure is necessary. 

The basics are still there, but the government has removed certain elements, such as commitment statements in the violence prevention policy, says Vivian. 

“Before, they were very, very prescriptive about ‘You have to include a statement that says you will eliminate or control hazards of violence and harassment’ and ‘You have to include a statement that says you will investigate any incidents of violence or harassment and take corrective action,’” she says, providing examples. 

“Those have all been removed so you no longer have to include those explicit statements in your policy.” 

Similarly, the government has removed some of the required procedures, says Vivian, such as those: to disclose information about the nature and extent of the hazard of violence; to obtain immediate assistance when an incident of violence occurs; how incidents will be documented; the measures to eliminate or control the hazard of violence; and informing workers about investigation outcomes.  

“All of that has been removed,” she says. “So, if there are certain things in the policies that have been creating headaches or an extra administrative burden that weren’t really making a helpful difference in reality, [employers] can review those policies and procedures and see ‘Are there certain things we can take out that actually weren't helping and we're just creating more administrative burden for us?’” 

Similarly, certain statements required for the harassment prevention policy have been removed, says Wendel. 

“That's all been repealed, so the current versions don't have any of those ‘You have to have this specific statement…’ It's more in line with ‘You have to develop this comprehensive plan, and you have to include certain things, so measures, to eliminate or control.’ 

 “So, the topics or the contents of what's being addressed is the same, it's just taking away that need to have that express statement in the policy. So, you still have to have measures about controlling the hazard, and .... informing workers about the nature and extent of the hazards, procedures for reporting, procedures for investigating, like those are all still addressed — it's just really taking away those statement-type sections.” 

When is a review of plans required? 

Also of note with Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Code are changes around the frequency of reviews. The government states that an employer must review the violence and harassment prevention plan in any of the following circumstances: 

• when an incident of violence or harassment indicates a review is required 

• where there is a change to the work or work site that could affect the potential for violence or harassment to occur 

• if the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative requests a review 

• at least every three years. 

The first two requirements are slight changes, says Vivian. 

“Before, a company was required to review their policy every time there was an incident of violence or harassment. Now, it's only if there's an incident that ‘indicates a review is required.’” 

As to what that means exactly remains to be seen, she says. 

“My thought would be if you have an incident, you investigate it and it sounds to be unfounded, probably you don't need any review of your policy. Or if you have an incident, you investigate it, you take corrective action, but you found that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent that incident.” 

The second requirement about a change to the work or worksite is also new; that could include, for example, changes to the hours of your operation, such as being open later in the evening so the potential for violence and harassment has increased, says Vivian. 

“Or, if you reduce the number of workers so that now people are working alone, that would also affect the potential for violence and harassment.” 

There’s also a small tweak to the third requirement, says Wendel, in saying a review is required when the committee or representative “requests” a review, where before it was “recommended.” 

Tweaks to training requirements in Alberta 

When it comes to training workers, the substantive requirements are largely the same, say the Denton lawyers. Employers must ensure workers are trained in: 

• the recognition of violence and harassment 

• the violence and harassment prevention plan the employer has developed and implemented, including when revisions are made to the plan 

• the appropriate response to violence and harassment, including procedures for obtaining assistance 

• the procedures for reporting, investigating and documenting complaints and incidents of violence and harassment. 

However, the language is a bit different than before, says Hiebert. 

“[Previously], an employer had to ensure that workers were trained in the procedures for reporting, investigating and documenting incidents of violence and harassment. Now, the language is the procedures for reporting, investigating and documenting ‘complaints and’ incidents of violence and harassment,” she says. 

“That seems a little bit more comprehensive than under the old version of section 391 and I don't personally have any theories yet on why that language might [change], why that word ‘complaints’ was added in addition to incidents. However, time will tell.” 

There’s one other small change with the training requirement, says Wendel. 

“Previously, the training was relating to policies, procedures and the arrangements the employer has developed… now, it just refers to the plan, but also it adds on ‘including when revisions are made to the plan,’” she says. 

“I think that would just be a matter of good practice when you make changes to your plan, you want to make sure your employees know about it, right? So, I think that was an unwritten requirement, if not expressly stated in there” 

Rise in harassment complaints 

Since the big changes in 2018 in Alberta, there has been an increase in harassment-type complaints in workplaces as employees become aware of the health and safety provisions that protect them, says Wendel. 

“That is now something that you can go to an OHS officer and make a complaint [about] and ... I'm certainly seeing more and more of those types of complaints coming through.” 

With these latest amendments, it’s a good opportunity for employers to take a look at their harassment and violence policies and procedures to make sure they comply with the new legislation — especially given the penalties for non-compliance, says Hiebert. 

“I would also emphasize that workplace harassment and violence is not just an issue of men against women. There can be workplaces where males are harassing males and females are harassing females, and it didn't really matter who the perpetrator is or who the victim is — it creates a very upsetting and, I would argue, unproductive work environment for everybody who's involved, and that's a reason for employers to take this seriously.”