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—