Federal Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations – a Guideline
Chad Sullivan and Kathleen Nash
In June 2020, the Federal Government released the new Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (“Regulations”) along with Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (“Code”). The Regulations will come into force on January 1, 2021, providing employers with less than six months to prepare for their enhanced obligations.
Our previous update on the Regulations provides an overview of the Regulations and outlines what employers need to know before the Regulations come into force.
The Federal Government recently published an Interpretations, Policy, Guidelines document regarding the Regulations and the Code (“Guideline”). The Guideline addresses some of the main questions that arise regarding the respective obligations of federally regulated employers and employees under the new legislation. The Guideline is in a “Q & A” style format, providing guidance on most of the provisions in the Regulations.
The following provides a brief summary of some of the issues addressed by the Guideline. Employers should review the entire Guideline prior to updating their workplace harassment and violence policies and procedures (and whenever those policies and procedures are engaged) to ensure they are in compliance with the Regulations and the Code.
Important guidance for employers
- Broad interpretation of “work place” for the purposes of an “occurrence” – “work place” has been defined to include any place where an employee is engaged in work for the employee’s employer, including public spaces, third-party premises, and even the employee’s residence if the employee has been allowed to work from home. Notably, an “occurrence” can therefore include incidents of domestic or family violence if the employee has a “work-from-home” agreement with their employer.
- The employer’s decision prevails on joint matters – the employer must reasonably attempt to agree on any joint matters; however, if the employer and the policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative are unable to agree, the employer’s decision with respect to joint matters will prevail. If no agreement is reached, the employer must record their decision and the reason for the decision.
- External factors to be considered when conducting the workplace assessment – includes factors such as working with customers or members of the public, family or domestic violence, or working with third party workers.
- Identifying risk factors – a sample tool to assist in identifying risk factors that contribute to harassment and violence in the work place is provided within the Guideline. Some examples of risk factors are identified under the following categories: client/third party characteristics; physical work environment; work activity/culture; job factors; demographics of employees; and other external or internal factors.
- Training – employers must provide workplace harassment and violence training to employees (including interns and students), the designated recipient, and the employer (including managers, directors, business owners, executives, or anyone else who has employer duties under the Regulations).
- Contact with the responding party – as part of the resolution process, the employer or designated recipient should only contact the responding party if the principal party agrees or if the principal party chooses to proceed with conciliation and/or an investigation.
Important guidance for employees
- Deadline for providing notice of an occurrence to former employer – employees must provide notice of an occurrence to a former employer within three-months after their employment ended unless the employee was unable to do so due to trauma incurred as a result of the occurrence or a health condition. Employees must provide documentation to substantiate a claim that they were unable to provide notice of an occurrence to a former employer within the three-month time period after their employment ended. Such documentation can include, but is not limited to: a current note from health practitioner, social worker, or other identified person; a police report or restraining order; or a statutory declaration.
- Obligation to participate in a negotiated resolution before engaging in an investigation – the principal party and the employer or designated recipient must make every reasonable effort to resolve the occurrence before the matter is referred to an investigator.
- Representation – during the resolution process, a principal party and a responding party may be represented by: a union representative; a colleague; a spouse/partner; family member; or a friend. The same person cannot represent both the principal party and the responding party.
Other issues addressed
In addition to the issues addressed above, the Guideline also provides the following:
- A review of the Internal Complaint Resolution Process outlined in the Code and the Regulations;
- The purpose of the initial workplace assessment, the three-year review of the assessment, the review and update of the workplace assessment, and the initial review of an occurrence;
- Clarification of a “negotiated resolution”;
- Clarification that a negotiated resolution, conciliation and an investigation can run as parallel processes;
- The suspension of an investigation to engage in negotiated resolution or conciliation would not extend the one year time limit to complete the resolution process;
- The process which must be followed by the principal party if the principal party is dissatisfied with the results of an investigation;
- When a resolution process is considered complete;
- Information that needs to be included in monthly status updates;
- Examples of harassment and violence;
- Examples of preventative measures which may be implemented;
- The difference between “designated recipient” in s. 10(2)(e)(i) of the Regulations and “person who is designated” in s. 10(2)(k) of the Regulations;
- Guidance on developing and implementing emergency procedures; and
- Examples of other support services that an employer must provide information to employees about.
This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.
Archive
In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…
Read MorePerlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…
Read MoreJonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…
Read MoreRick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…
Read MoreJonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…
Read More