Evidence of meeting #88 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workplace.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Yves-Thomas Dorval  President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Employers' Council
Ann-Therese MacEachern  Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation
Marina Mandal  Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association
Derrick Hynes  Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
Sheryl Johnson  Lawyer, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP
Guy-François Lamy  Vice-President, Work and Legal Affaires, Quebec Employers' Council
Manon Fortin  Vice-President, Operations Integration, Canada Post Corporation

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Okay.

I have two very different questions. One is for Ms. Johnson. I believe it was you who made the reference—and this has not been discussed a lot—to mitigating against being found guilty without due process. Nobody likes to talk about that much.

1:40 p.m.

Lawyer, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

Sheryl Johnson

That's a very important part of the process. You're going to get a lot of strong reaction, one way or the other, from the employees in your workplace as well. Generally, in my experience, when anyone comes forward, there always will be camps of employees with regard to the complainant versus the respondent. In order for the entire process to be respected, the confidentiality and dignity of everybody involved needs to be respected and encouraged. That includes no gossiping, not talking about it, not coming to judgment about decisions.

We need to go through our process. We need to apply natural justice. We live in a democracy. We have a criminal justice system in which you are innocent until proven guilty, and that is something everybody—the stakeholders, the employers, the employees—all need to grasp and hold onto to ensure this is all done right. If we go too far to one extreme or the other, we'll undermine the entire process.

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Do you think the legislation is strong enough in that area?

1:40 p.m.

Lawyer, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

Sheryl Johnson

There is some definite language you can add to make it stronger. I didn't see anything in there with regard to minimums. As I mentioned earlier, there are no reprisals if you come forward with an allegation or you participate as a witness, as long as you do so in good faith and you're not vexatious about the complaint.

There are exceptions that can be put in, as mentioned earlier, with regard to the proper exercise of management rights not constituting harassment or violence in the workplace. There are definitely gaps in there that could be filled.

February 22nd, 2018 / 1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

I want to go back to Canada Post.

There was really conflicting testimony given earlier, versus today's. In fact—this is not a direct quote, but it's close—a witness said that there is systemic harassment in Canada Post in managing overtime on routes, and that bonuses to supervisors are determined by managing overtime.

Would you care to comment on that? The testimony we're given now is that this does not happen.

1:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation

Ann-Therese MacEachern

We talked earlier about the importance of leadership when creating a positive workplace culture. There's probably no more important role than that of a team leader with his team, so it's counterintuitive for an organization, including ours, to incentivize people to—

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Can I stop you there?

1:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

I want you to comment specifically on how Canada Post manages postal workers, especially postal route deliverers, with respect to excessive overtime and what Canada Post determines to be the timeline to complete a route.

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Make it very brief, please.

1:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation

Ann-Therese MacEachern

I'm going to turn this over to my colleague.

1:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Operations Integration, Canada Post Corporation

Manon Fortin

We have thousands of routes delivering parcels and mail to Canadians every day, and as in every other business, there is overtime required on certain days. There is a process for employees to have an interaction with their supervisors. They know their routes best, so before they leave, we say, “You've seen the mail that you have. Come and talk to us about what you think you will have in overtime.” There's also a process after they're done for the day. They need to come in and talk to us about their overtime.

That's the interaction. It happens thousands of times every day in our operation. When there's what's considered above-average overtime, it stands out, and of course, as a responsible employer, we need to have a look. We need to understand why an employee would work four hours a day, every day, on a route that's built on averages. There's a process to handle that, and that's how we manage overtime at Canada Post. It's a daily occurrence.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

I hate to jump in, but we're actually over time.

MP Trudel is next, please.

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Dorval. Mr. Hynes and Ms. Mandal may also join in after.

On February 12, 2018, officials appeared before this committee. They noted that implementing the act would entail costs for employers. They said that these costs would fall over time, owing to a potential drop in absenteeism, increased productivity, and a reduced number of disputes.

Would you like to comment on those costs? What might they represent for smaller employers?

1:45 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Employers' Council

Yves-Thomas Dorval

The costs will depend on the regulations made under the act. As we indicated in our brief, it would be best if the regulations are provided at the same time as the law comes into force. In any case, employers have the duty to maintain a healthy workplace, among other things. So they are already required to be vigilant to processes and to develop internal policies.

The bill will not completely change everything for employers. For them, it will really depend on the regulations. As for small companies, if the regulations establish very detailed processes requiring small companies to call upon outside expertise to develop a policy internally or an assistance mechanism, that would certainly represent a cost to those companies or SMEs. As I said earlier, employers already have certain costs related to their responsibilities.

I would like to pick up on the question asked earlier. With regard to obligations, that is already being done to some extent. Rest assured that the environment will not be revolutionized overnight. Nor will we be on very different terrain. As regards workplace health and safety, for instance, many things are already being done.

There will be costs and they will depend above all on the scope of the regulations and the obligations set out in them, but employers already have responsibilities and the vast majority of them fulfill those responsibilities appropriately.

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC

Thank you.

Ms. Mandal or Mr. Hynes, would you like to add anything?

1:45 p.m.

Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association

Marina Mandal

Sure. I think with the banking industry, as I set out in my opening remarks, a lot of the measures required by the bill and the regulations are already in place, so it's lucky that way, but to echo what Mr. Dorval just said, that was in a sense always the obligation, and banks take some proactive steps to have policies and processes in all the things I mentioned earlier.

In terms of costs, there are of course always going to be costs of compliance with new rules, whether that's on the reporting side or whether it's audit functions. Whatever is put in place, to meet the letter and the spirit of the law there will be additional costs, which might be more burdensome for our smaller banks that have fewer resources than the largest.

I have two things to suggest there. First is that to the extent possible, the regulations be streamlined and made clear, so that not a lot of money is spent on lawyers on how to interpret them—and I'm a lawyer, so I can say that. The second is flexibility, so that those employers who do have practices and policies in place could leverage off them. It would be good if there could be some recognition that the way you do this, the way you meet the objectives of Bill C-65, doesn't have to be exactly prescribed either in the legislation or the regulations, but managed and understood by the labour program and others so that we don't have to replicate what we're already doing.

1:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)

Derrick Hynes

I can't add much to what Ms. Mandal said. I wholeheartedly agree with every point she just made.

The large employers I represent in FETCO generally already align with the new provisions that will be put in place. Will there be some incremental costs around new regulatory requirements and reporting? We can expect there to be some, as there are when any new legislation or regulation is introduced. At the outset, as we've been articulating, a harassment-free workplace is the ultimate goal that any employer wants to see. Not only is it simply the right thing to do, but it's good for business: absenteeism goes down, productivity goes up, and your employees are happier. It's good for everyone, which is why we are supportive of this bill.

Will there be some incremental cost increases? Likely yes, but as we stated earlier, and as Marina did, we generally align with the principles that are laid out in the bill and the processes that are articulated anyway, so we don't expect a tremendous change.

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

MP Fraser is next, please.

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I want to shine a bit of light on the “competent person” selection process.

There was some testimony that perhaps the appropriate method of selecting them would be to say, “Look, give some clear guidelines, but potentially default to the employer's choice.” I keep coming back in my mind, trying to put myself in the shoes of a harassed person in the workplace, who's not at their best because they have been harassed and they have no faith in the process. The natural human reaction is not to go to the legislation and the provisions in the regulation and say, “Oh, I have faith the employer will put a good person there.” They would tend to say, I think, if I can read human emotion well, “I don't want to go before the person selected by the person or company that has perpetrated the harassment.”

Is there a role for the unions and the employees to have a voice in who the competent people are who are going to be conducting this investigation?

I'll open it up to whoever wants to jump in.

1:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)

Derrick Hynes

Currently in the health and safety regulations, under the violence investigation process there are criteria laid out for who the competent person is. They are as follows. The competent person is to be defined as somebody “who is impartial and is seen by the parties to be impartial; has knowledge, training and experience in issues relating to work place violence”—in this case, of course, it would be harassment—“and...has knowledge of relevant legislation.”

Normally that works fine: a competent person is appointed. In large organizations, it is often a person within the organization who has met these criteria, is agreed by parties to be reflective of the criteria, and could therefore conduct an investigation.

In issues where the complaint is more egregious or more sensitive, you might bring in an outside investigator to conduct an investigation on your behalf. One of the issues that we see come up from time to time is some complexity around choosing the competent person, and a debate, if you will, between the employee—or the union—and the employer around who that person should be. One side might agree that the criteria are met; the other side might not. Therefore, what is implied is some sort of a veto right over who the competent person is.

This is an important matter that we should work out through the regulatory process. There could be a consultation around this, to figure out a way forward.

I know some organizations have an agreed-to roster, for example. The union and the employer sit down and agree to a list of names, and we all agree they're all acceptable. We think there might be a way of getting through some of those complexities—

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

Excuse me, but I'm a bit limited on time. I'm just curious to ask the other witnesses, very quickly: would there be a problem with having, for example—in the arbitration context, this happens all the time—a roster of qualified people who both the unions and employers have agreed to ahead of time?

I see some nods. I'll give a chance to the witness from Antigonish.

Ann-Therese, go ahead.

1:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation

Ann-Therese MacEachern

Certainly that's our practice at Canada Post. We're a large employer, so we have the ability to do that. That's our practice, and we publish it on our website as well.

The other thing we do, which is important to keep in mind, is agree to the person prior to an investigation taking place. I say that because although I may be competent, perhaps if I'm too close to the matter, you might want to have a different person. What we do is agree, prior to an investigation, on whether we are still going to assign a particular person or someone from a different part of the country or a different part of the city. That's worked well for us.

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS

I have one more topic. Maybe we can revisit the competent person if we have a minute left. We have a bit of time.

Ms. Johnson, you talked about there being a need to explicitly prohibit reprisals. Of course, a fear of reprisals puts a chill on anybody who would consider reporting. I've heard of many examples at our constituency office of people not knowing what to do. Sometimes federally regulated employers can't point to a specific example of being bullied because they launched a complaint, but they haven't been promoted in eight years and all their contemporaries have been. There is this soft, informal feeling of reprisal. They can never prove it, because it hasn't been proactive discrimination following the harassment complaint.

1:55 p.m.

Lawyer, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

Sheryl Johnson

It hasn't been direct. Yes.