Ontario’s Bill 168 is an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and has been in effect since 2010. Its aim is to establish minimum standards and to set out the rights and responsibilities of all those who have a role dealing with violence and harassment in the workplace. Although you may feel that you “know it when you see it” when it comes to violence and harassment in the workplace, it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the legal understandings of these terms.
“Workplace violence” means the use, attempt to use, or the threat to use physical force that causes or could cause injury, in a workplace. The “threat” of violence includes threatening notes, emails, or telephone calls. (The legislation is silent as to Facebook postings and threats via Twitter.)
It is important to note that the relevant factor here is that the violence occurs in a workplace. Who commits or threatens the violence is not relevant. A violent act or threat may originate with another worker, a supervisor, a customer or client, an acquaintance of someone in the workplace, or a random stranger. When employers assess the risk of workplace violence (as they are obliged to do), they must consider all of these possible sources of violence. It is worth noting that domestic violence that takes place in a workplace is covered under the Act, and that employers have a duty to protect workers from domestic violence in the workplace.
Although workplace violence can have deadly consequences, thankfully it is relatively rare. Workplace harassment doesn’t often make the news, but I suspect that it contributes more often than we realize to low morale and low productivity. (See my previous posts on Workplace Strife and What makes for a “good job”?) “Harassment” is defined as a course of “vexatious” (bothersome) comment or conduct that is unwelcome, or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Examples include bullying, intimidating or offensive jokes or innuendos, displaying or circulating offensive pictures or materials, and making offensive or intimidating phone calls. A “course” of comment or conduct implies that the behaviour in question has happened more than once.
Does this mean that a supervisor can no longer criticize a worker’s job performance? No. Reasonable actions on the part of a supervisor that are part of his or her normal work are excluded. These include changes in work assignments, scheduling, job assessment and evaluation, workplace inspections, implementation of dress codes and disciplinary action. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for Mary to tell her employee, Mike, that the company’s dress code requires him to cover up his new tattoos while on the job. It would not be acceptable for Mary to belittle or ridicule Mike for getting tattooed in the first place. Nor would it be acceptable for Mary to allow or encourage others in the workplace to hassle Mike about the tattoos.
I am not a lawyer and none of this is intended as legal advice! The Ontario Ministry of Labour has some excellent resources for Bill 168 on their website.
In my next post, I’ll talk about employers’ responsibilities under Bill 168.
No comments:
Post a Comment