We undertook a joint evaluation in the workplace—a wellness review—and we found that the employees and our members said, “Oh, thank God you guys are working together. I don't want to feel like I'm just a union member. I don't want to feel like I'm just an employee. I am both of those things.” They said to us, “Thank you for not splitting me apart. Thank you for having both of you work together.” I think in that way it is absolutely crucial that the union is involved, and in that case, it was absolutely the union that brought the high-level expertise to the table.
I will mention that in that case—and this speaks to a number of the questions that we've gone on about today—something happened during “learn about harassment” week. The highest-level person in the organization referred to the highest-level woman in the organization using a sexually suggestive term in front of hundreds of employees. It was a slip on his part for sure. Because the person was very sad and remorseful about it in his apology, which he made to all 300 people, managers stood up and said—this is during anti-harassment week—“No, no. We want jokes in the workplace.”
The organization undertook a full review of that incident in the hope that the RCMP could bring harassment expertise to the table at every level, and at every level the expertise wasn't there. Consistently they were unable to explain to their people why.... To the union, it didn't matter so much that the mistake was made. What mattered was that they were entirely unable to manage that mistake and explain to the workplace what harassment was, even though it was anti-harassment week and even though everyone had taken training.
I know it's part of the challenge. There's an absolute necessity for that training. Those workplaces, even when there's an anti-harassment week and anti-harassment training.... We believe that 95% of those in that particular workplace didn't understand the RCMP definition of harassment, which we believe is a decent definition. I think all of us could send some definitions that we think are decent for the committee to consider. We found that 95% of that workplace, and I would say all the way up within the RCMP, did not understand the definition of harassment.