Human Resources Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2018

[Ann-Therese MacEachern]

I'm not sure the legislation will change things for Canada Post, in the sense that we already have many of the goals of the legislation in place. We already have policies on no discrimination, no harassment. We train our people. We have many avenues for them to seek support and redress, and we have consequences.

Maybe where the legislation would be helpful is in the fact that it's coming up, and it'll be another conversation for us to repeat the same things that we do today. In other words, can we do things differently? Are there things that our union would like to see us do differently in the joint committees that we have? That would be perhaps an opportunity for us.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

If I may drag the lawyer into this scenario, maybe you can help me with this one.

[Sheryl Johnson]

One of the things that might be good, and what is done in Ontario, is to have a requirement, either in your regulations or in the legislation, that there be consultation with the health and safety committee, or whatever committee is involved, on the drafting of the anti-violence and anti-harassment policy, as well as on its implementation, because you have a program. If you just have a policy and it's sitting on a shelf, that isn't helpful. You need to have education, a reinforcement of it, and go back at least annually and assess if it is working or why it isn't working. We need to address this issue and concern sooner than annually. How can we do that? I think having the consultation as part of it would be very helpful.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

All right. Because you have experience with the Ontario system, can we learn things from that legislation that we should be bringing in? You just mentioned one.

[Sheryl Johnson]

There are many things. I heard the questions earlier with regard to the concern about an exemption. With any kind of reasonable workplace discipline that occurs, you have an exemption built right into the legislation to say that any proper management action in disciplining an employee is not going to be considered harassment under the legislation. We have that in Ontario. It's a simple exemption. It's not very long, and it covers that kind of scenario.

We do have the definitions in the legislation itself as to what constitutes harassment.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'll stop you on that one, then. Do you like the definitions of harassment in the Ontario legislation, or would you amend that wording if we were going to adopt wording?

[Sheryl Johnson]

I think it's appropriate. The way the Quebec legislation is drafted—I have looked at it because I reviewed all of Canada's legislation on the issue—their definition of “psychological harassment” is probably the best definition. In defining “harassment” and “sexual harassment”, the Ontario version is very good. It's meant to be flexible, because not every situation fits every definition, but it's broad enough. The way that the regulation in this bill is worded is in expressions of harassment and violence. You have a general definition in the legislation, and then you give more clarification in the regulation, and that can be updated more easily. You have exactly what the one question was; you had the basis, so everybody knows the rules of the game. Then, as society and our cultural values change, and as the law changes—because it is fluid—that is dealt with in the regulations. I think that's a fair compromise between the two viewpoints.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Trudel is next, please.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you for your interventions and for your participation in this committee meeting.

My question, which follows on those of Ms. Dabrusin, is for Ms. Fortin and Ms. MacEachern.

A few weeks ago, Canada Post employees spoke out in the press and denounced a culture of psychological harassment and reported on certain events. In addition, during the public consultations conducted by the Prime Minister, a worker called on him directly to denounce this culture.

In this committee, witnesses said that supervisors were psychologically harassing and bullying employees. It seems that these behaviours were directly related to their bonuses.

Is this kind of remuneration part of the culture at Canada Post? We were talking about sick leave and people working overtime on their own route.

You said you have already implemented measures, but I would like to know whether you think Bill C-65 could help to improve the situation and mitigate these common practices that have emerged in recent weeks at Canada Post.

[Manon Fortin, Vice-President, Operations Integration, Canada Post Corporation]

With respect to the compensation of our supervisors, I want to make it clear that they do not receive financial incentives related to overtime or work by employees. Supervisors are responsible for operating a postal station, a work unit, safely and productively, and ensuring that good service is provided to clients. In general, this is what we ask them. They have all kinds of procedures to follow as part of their job. We ask them to follow these procedures. In general, they provide the results we ask them to provide. In short, there are no incentives specifically for our supervisors.

I am aware of what has been said in the media and in public. For my part, I have long worked in operations. I worked in Quebec as well as in Atlantic Canada and the Prairies. I have met a good number of work teams and was able to observe the evolution of the situation. We are not perfect, far from it—

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but I don't really have a lot of time. These are the only minutes I've been given.

Do you agree that, under the bill, health and safety committees should be able to handle complaints?

[Manon Fortin]

Our health and safety committees have union representatives and management representatives at all levels, even in the postal stations, which are the smallest workplaces. I absolutely agree that unions and employers have to work together to solve workplace problems. Whether it is harassment or any other difficulty, the goal is to improve the workplace.

In terms of working to improve the workplace, I think that's the job of the health and safety committees. This is also the case for discussions about workplace issues. As far as individual cases are concerned, I am not sure, because that affects privacy. These are difficult situations. I have been involved in many situations like this since I worked in operations. Some aspects must be kept confidential so that people are protected.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

If the complaint concerns a supervisor, what can employees do if they don't have the opportunity to consult the health and safety committee?

[Manon Fortin]

There is always the union representative. There are also the possibilities that Ms. MacEachern mentioned. We are talking about the union representative, the human resources representative and the independent whistleblower line, the number for which we published at Christmas. I think there are several avenues. Over the years, I have found that, in general, all these possibilities made it possible to resolve and manage these situations.

[Ann-Therese MacEachern]

Perhaps I'll just add to that.

One of the reasons we have so many avenues is that we recognize that you may need different avenues depending on the situation. However, I want to assure the committee that every one of those issues that comes forward is looked at. We have zero tolerance for harassment in the workplace. We share that value. We share that goal, and we honour it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have 20 seconds.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Ms. Johnson, would you like to add anything based on your experience?

[Sheryl Johnson]

I have so much to add.

Very briefly, one of the things that was mentioned is with regard to ensuring they can go to somebody. It's not always the human resource department. It's not always.... I think what the bank is doing with regard to the ombudsman makes employees feel more comfortable coming forward, because retribution is one of the main reasons employees are afraid to come forward or are afraid to follow through on their complaints and are experiencing what they are in the workplace.

It is maybe not the case with this employer, but with many employers it's about efficiency. Nowadays, with the economy the way it is, I see a lot of people going off on disability leave and having burnout because it is about bonuses at the end of the day. The incentive is that everybody needs to do more for less. That does have an impact. It's not meant to have the impact that it has, but it does, and they are right in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Fortier is next, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. I think we are all here because we want to find a way to strengthen the proposed legislation. A number of questions have been answered from the beginning and that has allowed us to see that the bill can be improved.

We must help to change the culture. As my colleague said this morning, the status quo is not an option in this case. So we need to find a way to help to change the culture and improve inquiry processes.

What can be done to protect victims and their witnesses or the people who support them? How can Bill C-65 be strengthened? Is this bill sufficient or should it be amended to protect victims, complainants and their witnesses? I would like answers to be brief, please.

Ms. Mandal, would you like to start?

[Marina Mandal]

As Mr. Hynes mentioned earlier, we see this as framework legislation. As the Canadian Bankers Association, our main concerns with the bill in its initial proposal form were addressed. Those were the privacy and confidentiality of all parties involved in the investigation, as well as the role of the workplace health and safety committee. Those concerns were addressed.

From this point forward, we want to continue the productive dialogue we had with the government to create regulations that fill out the details of the process and provide for clarity and flexibility for all the parties involved.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Ms. MacEachern or Ms. Fortin, would you like to comment?

[Ann-Therese MacEachern]

What I would say is similar to what you heard from our colleague in FETCO. If there's a dual track happening in terms of an issue coming up—either through the health and safety committee or the Human Rights Act—it's important to clarify how that will be managed.

At Canada Post we actually created a situational analysis for our team leaders, so that they understand, if a complaint comes up, whether it relates to physical versus psychological violence, versus a human rights complaint, versus general harassment. We've actually created a template to help team leaders understand which avenue they go to. To clarify or provide some clarity through the bill would be really helpful.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Hynes, I know you've shared some comments, but would you add anything else?

[Derrick Hynes]

This bill is coming at the tail end of what we view to be a very positive consultation, and it's in the context of a broader, very positive, societal conversation around the issues of harassment and sexual harassment. That's all good. We've taken what was a one-line obligation under part III of the Canada Labour Code to ensure an employer has a policy in place, expanded it, put it into part II, and developed a process that employers will now have to follow. As I stated earlier, many of the employers I represent are already aligning themselves with the steps the minister has laid out here.

In sliding it into part II, we've broadened the organizations that are affected and will be responsible for applying this law within their workplaces. We view that all to be extremely positive, and we're happy to be a part of that solution.