Manitoba employers required to protect workers
It’s not unusual for conflict to erupt in a workplace, nor is it uncommon for employees and supervisors to have differences of opinion. But a new amendment to Manitoba’s Workplace Health and Safety Act makes a clear distinction about when those situations are defined as psychological harassment and what employers need to do about it.
Under the new law, which came into effect Feb. 1, 2011, employers are obligated to protect workers from harassment that is “severe, if it could reasonably cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated and is repeated, or in the case of a single occurrence, has a lasting, harmful effect on a worker.”
This could include any form of bullying, including verbal abuse, threats, exclusion, undermining or belittling behaviour, gossip and other malicious conduct, according to Don Hurst, Manitoba’s assistant deputy minister of Workplace Safety and Health.
“It’s not so much that we’ve defined ‘psychological’ but we’ve defined the act as severe,” said Hurst.
Complaining about a colleague who always gets to choose the lunch spot is “banter” while sending everyone in the unit a derogatory e-mail about her is “malicious,” he said.
“This amendment is about putting in place something that will stop malicious, hurtful actions,” said Hurst.
The province amended the law after safety professionals identified psychological harassment as an emerging issue during a review of Manitoba’s act. Canadian statistics are slim, but studies from the United States suggest one in five workers have been the target of workplace bullying.
Bullied employees waste 10 to 52 per cent of their time at work because they spend time defending themselves, networking for support, thinking about the situation and taking sick leave due to stress-related illnesses, according to the Canada Safety Council.
Being harassed at work can lead to an inability to sleep, loss of appetite, stomach pains, headaches, panic attacks, anxiety, family tension, stress or an inability to concentrate.
Two co-workers may interpret the same situation differently, just as some people may be more sensitive to criticism than others, said Hurst. The importance of the legislation is to ensure employers have policies in place that define harassment and make it unacceptable, as well as have a system in place to receive and handle complaints.
“You’re the employer and you control the workplace and have the ability to stop this behaviour,” said Hurst. “You need a statement that says these actions are wrong. You also need to let workers know that if they make a complaint they have protection.”
Calgary-based management consultant, Pat Pitsel, runs bullying workshops for employers in Alberta. A policy on psychological harassment needs to have the commitment of everyone in the workplace, including senior level executives, she said.
“You can’t have a rule that applies to first level supervisors but not the CFO or CEO,” she said. “It’s problematic if you have a senior level person doing the bullying but it's a person who performs very well so you let it go.”
The policy also needs to include consequences for someone who displays bullying behaviour.
“We’re not talking about exploding once a year,” she said. “The behaviour needs to be repeated and on-going.”
Likewise, the policy should also be clear about what happens to those who file malicious complaints, said Pitsel.
Managers need to understand how demotion, exclusion and isolation can be perceived by an employee as bullying and how that differs from day-to-day management actions, she said. The Manitoba law is explicit that “normal and reasonable” actions, including discipline, are not defined as psychological harassment.
Employers should complete a risk assessment to look for “organizational antecedents” — circumstances that could encourage bullying. Employers should also get buy-in from workers by presenting the significance of the problem, she said.
“It’s a matter of good training. Don’t sell the solution until you sell the problem,” said Pitsel. “Ask people if they’ve ever been a victim or witnessed bullying. Then talk about strategies, the changes in policies and what happens if you’re malicious.”
Organizations should have both a formal and informal complaints process in place, said Yvette Milner, a health and safety consultant in Winnipeg.
“Try to deal with it informally at first,” she said. “Once you’ve gotten to a formal investigation, you’ve lost a lot.”
A third party should investigate formal complaints to ensure objectivity, said Milner. At the very least, the investigator should be an HR professional properly trained in bullying.
Enforcement in Manitoba will be both complaint driven and be included as part of regular health and safety inspections. Investigators want to know whether employers have systems in place to address psychological harassment, said Hurst.
“If someone makes a complaint, our reaction is not, ‘That’s a lousy employer.’ It’s, ‘How do you deal with this?’” he said.
Employers may be given a standard order to correct the situation with 30 to 60 days to comply. Willful non-compliance could result in a penalty of up to $1,000.
“There’s not a lot of pushback,” said Hurst. “It’s relatively easy to comply. It’s not like they’re spending $20,000 retooling a piece of machinery.”
Quebec was the first province to make psychological harassment an occupational hazard in 2004. Saskatchewan, Ontario and now Manitoba have followed suit.
It’s likely there will be more focus on psychological harassment in the workplace, especially once courts start to make rulings under the legislation, so employers need to be prepared, said Milner.
“It’s a fact of life today,” she said. “But the cost of not doing anything about it is much greater.”
Danielle Harder is a freelance writer based in Brooklin, Ont.
Psychological harassment regulations by province
•British Columbia: “Improper activity or behaviour” is defined as “any threatening statement or behaviour which gives the worker reasonable cause to believe he or she is at risk of injury.”
•Alberta: Psychological harassment is not included under health and safety legislation.
•Saskatchewan: “Personal harassment” is defined as “behaviour that adversely affects a worker’s psychological or physical well-being and that the person knows or ought to reasonably know would cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated.”
•Manitoba: “Workplace-related harassment” is defined as “harassment of a worker by his or her employer or supervisor or by another worker, whether or not the harassment occurs at the workplace.”
•Ontario: “Workplace harassment” is defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcomed.”
•Quebec: “Psychological harassment” is defined 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.”
•New Brunswick: Psychological harassment is not included under health and safety legislation.
•Nova Scotia: No legislation specific to psychological harassment but regulations on workplace violence include “threats, including a threatening statement or threatening behaviour that gives an employee reasonable cause to believe that the employee is at risk for physical injury.”
•Prince Edward Island: No legislation specific to psychological harassment but regulations include “threats or behaviors that gives a worker reasonable cause to believe they are at risk of injury.”
•Newfoundland and Labrador: Regulation on workplace violence includes “threatening statements or behaviour which gives a worker reason to believe that he or she is at a risk of injury.”
•Yukon: Psychological harassment is not included under health and safety legislation.
•Northwest Territories and Nunavut: Proposed health and safety regulations include workplace violence and harassment, though not specific to “psychological” harassment.
Under the new law, which came into effect Feb. 1, 2011, employers are obligated to protect workers from harassment that is “severe, if it could reasonably cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated and is repeated, or in the case of a single occurrence, has a lasting, harmful effect on a worker.”
This could include any form of bullying, including verbal abuse, threats, exclusion, undermining or belittling behaviour, gossip and other malicious conduct, according to Don Hurst, Manitoba’s assistant deputy minister of Workplace Safety and Health.
“It’s not so much that we’ve defined ‘psychological’ but we’ve defined the act as severe,” said Hurst.
Complaining about a colleague who always gets to choose the lunch spot is “banter” while sending everyone in the unit a derogatory e-mail about her is “malicious,” he said.
“This amendment is about putting in place something that will stop malicious, hurtful actions,” said Hurst.
The province amended the law after safety professionals identified psychological harassment as an emerging issue during a review of Manitoba’s act. Canadian statistics are slim, but studies from the United States suggest one in five workers have been the target of workplace bullying.
Bullied employees waste 10 to 52 per cent of their time at work because they spend time defending themselves, networking for support, thinking about the situation and taking sick leave due to stress-related illnesses, according to the Canada Safety Council.
Being harassed at work can lead to an inability to sleep, loss of appetite, stomach pains, headaches, panic attacks, anxiety, family tension, stress or an inability to concentrate.
Two co-workers may interpret the same situation differently, just as some people may be more sensitive to criticism than others, said Hurst. The importance of the legislation is to ensure employers have policies in place that define harassment and make it unacceptable, as well as have a system in place to receive and handle complaints.
“You’re the employer and you control the workplace and have the ability to stop this behaviour,” said Hurst. “You need a statement that says these actions are wrong. You also need to let workers know that if they make a complaint they have protection.”
Calgary-based management consultant, Pat Pitsel, runs bullying workshops for employers in Alberta. A policy on psychological harassment needs to have the commitment of everyone in the workplace, including senior level executives, she said.
“You can’t have a rule that applies to first level supervisors but not the CFO or CEO,” she said. “It’s problematic if you have a senior level person doing the bullying but it's a person who performs very well so you let it go.”
The policy also needs to include consequences for someone who displays bullying behaviour.
“We’re not talking about exploding once a year,” she said. “The behaviour needs to be repeated and on-going.”
Likewise, the policy should also be clear about what happens to those who file malicious complaints, said Pitsel.
Managers need to understand how demotion, exclusion and isolation can be perceived by an employee as bullying and how that differs from day-to-day management actions, she said. The Manitoba law is explicit that “normal and reasonable” actions, including discipline, are not defined as psychological harassment.
Employers should complete a risk assessment to look for “organizational antecedents” — circumstances that could encourage bullying. Employers should also get buy-in from workers by presenting the significance of the problem, she said.
“It’s a matter of good training. Don’t sell the solution until you sell the problem,” said Pitsel. “Ask people if they’ve ever been a victim or witnessed bullying. Then talk about strategies, the changes in policies and what happens if you’re malicious.”
Organizations should have both a formal and informal complaints process in place, said Yvette Milner, a health and safety consultant in Winnipeg.
“Try to deal with it informally at first,” she said. “Once you’ve gotten to a formal investigation, you’ve lost a lot.”
A third party should investigate formal complaints to ensure objectivity, said Milner. At the very least, the investigator should be an HR professional properly trained in bullying.
Enforcement in Manitoba will be both complaint driven and be included as part of regular health and safety inspections. Investigators want to know whether employers have systems in place to address psychological harassment, said Hurst.
“If someone makes a complaint, our reaction is not, ‘That’s a lousy employer.’ It’s, ‘How do you deal with this?’” he said.
Employers may be given a standard order to correct the situation with 30 to 60 days to comply. Willful non-compliance could result in a penalty of up to $1,000.
“There’s not a lot of pushback,” said Hurst. “It’s relatively easy to comply. It’s not like they’re spending $20,000 retooling a piece of machinery.”
Quebec was the first province to make psychological harassment an occupational hazard in 2004. Saskatchewan, Ontario and now Manitoba have followed suit.
It’s likely there will be more focus on psychological harassment in the workplace, especially once courts start to make rulings under the legislation, so employers need to be prepared, said Milner.
“It’s a fact of life today,” she said. “But the cost of not doing anything about it is much greater.”
Danielle Harder is a freelance writer based in Brooklin, Ont.
Psychological harassment regulations by province
•British Columbia: “Improper activity or behaviour” is defined as “any threatening statement or behaviour which gives the worker reasonable cause to believe he or she is at risk of injury.”
•Alberta: Psychological harassment is not included under health and safety legislation.
•Saskatchewan: “Personal harassment” is defined as “behaviour that adversely affects a worker’s psychological or physical well-being and that the person knows or ought to reasonably know would cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated.”
•Manitoba: “Workplace-related harassment” is defined as “harassment of a worker by his or her employer or supervisor or by another worker, whether or not the harassment occurs at the workplace.”
•Ontario: “Workplace harassment” is defined as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcomed.”
•Quebec: “Psychological harassment” is defined 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.”
•New Brunswick: Psychological harassment is not included under health and safety legislation.
•Nova Scotia: No legislation specific to psychological harassment but regulations on workplace violence include “threats, including a threatening statement or threatening behaviour that gives an employee reasonable cause to believe that the employee is at risk for physical injury.”
•Prince Edward Island: No legislation specific to psychological harassment but regulations include “threats or behaviors that gives a worker reasonable cause to believe they are at risk of injury.”
•Newfoundland and Labrador: Regulation on workplace violence includes “threatening statements or behaviour which gives a worker reason to believe that he or she is at a risk of injury.”
•Yukon: Psychological harassment is not included under health and safety legislation.
•Northwest Territories and Nunavut: Proposed health and safety regulations include workplace violence and harassment, though not specific to “psychological” harassment.
