Evidence of meeting #91 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 complaint.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
Yes.
In Quebec, the concept of psychological harassment is defined in the legislation and includes sexual harassment. The concept is clearly set out. It is vexatious behaviour. Since the legislation came into effect in 2004, it has been very important for employers and employees to understand what harassment is. Hence our comments on management rights.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
It is important to preserve the right to manage and to make it clear that, especially with respect to psychological harassment, employers must retain the right to manage the performance of their employees and deadlines and to follow up. It is important to keep this notion of the employer's right to manage.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If you had some text to propose, perhaps you could present it to the committee. It would be nice to have that wording.
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
I have included it in our brief.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
That's perfect. Thank you.
My next question is for Ms. Senneville or Mr. Godin.
What role does your union currently play when incidents in the workplace are reported? Could you please tell us your process, as briefly as possible?
4:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
I will give you a few words about the definitions.
There are plenty of Canadian laws that also contain definitions. Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations deals with violence. There are also definitions in the Charter.
4:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
There are other examples elsewhere in Canada.
4:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Our role is to do as much prevention as possible. The CSN has 300,000 members represented by more than 1,600 unions. Some are subject to federal regulation and others to provincial regulations. Most of these unions are in Quebec, but there are also some in Ontario and New Brunswick.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
We say that, usually, the union must be involved in drafting the policy and be consulted. If the policy is to work, the union must be consulted. The policy must also be promoted. It's a union commitment. Obviously, the parity committee must be aware of the complaints, participate in their processing and find solutions.
I handled complaints. I remember one file in particular where eight people from one department had filed a complaint against someone else. We realized that this service had no mandatory breaks. There, the union had to intervene to suggest that if all employees had a 15-minute break when they worked for several hours, they would not heckle a colleague who would take a break to go to the bathroom, for example. The goal is to find solutions that will improve the workplace.
Often, we will focus on the person who is allegedly doing the harassing, but it is important to go further. The union's role is to ask itself what aspects make employees feel uncomfortable in their workplace. For example, is there too much noise? If I have trouble communicating with my colleague and I work as a team—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I greatly appreciate your answer, but I must interrupt you so that my colleague has time to speak.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
My question is for Ms. Poirier.
I am interested, because you specifically said when you're defining harassment that you're defining it to exclude workplace harassment. I think it was only a week ago that we heard from Monsieur Girouard from Canada Post, who spent his entire time using workplace situations and assessments of overtime as a description of what he included in harassment as harassing behaviour. I'm wondering, as you're asking us to do this, can you perhaps help us as to how we would do that?
How can we exclude workplace performance in a clear way, if in some situations some people may be perceiving it as a lever for harassment?
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
What's important is that an employer still has the right to manage employees.
The right to manage remains important. For example, as an employer, I have the right to manage deadlines, and if the deadlines I manage are reasonable, no one can say that I'm harassing my employee. It is all in how things are done. If someone does not meet the job requirements and is suspended for a day, is this harassment?
Since 2004, when the act came into force in Quebec, there have been several complaints like this. Complaints were filed by an dissatisfied employee, an employee who had a conflict with his boss, or an employee who felt that his boss was giving him too much work, for example.
You have to really manage the performance, to do it in a good way and to make sure you respect the working conditions and the rest. We must therefore be able to do it without being told that we are harassing someone.
I don't know if I am clarifying my point. Certainly if, in a certain environment, an employer suspends his employee for a day and informs him by shouting it, that would be unacceptable. However, suspending the employee for a day is perfectly fine, if the gradation of penalties has been followed.
Often the sound management of resources is adequate, but it is the behaviours that can constitute harassment.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much for being here and for your testimony, which is very important for the committee members.
My first question is for you, Ms. Ebbs and Ms. Adamson. You touched on this a little bit earlier, but I would like to hear more about Parliament Hill, which is a special place to work because of its strong politicization and its high proportion of non-union employees. During several testimonies, we heard about the risk of unfair dismissal. This risk is all the greater here.
In your opinion, does Bill C-65 sufficiently protect employees on Parliament Hill from unfair dismissal? They are the ones who are likely to be when the identity of the victims or the employer is disclosed. Do they even file a complaint about harassment or workplace violence? I would like to know what you think.
4:50 p.m.
Chairperson, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board
Our experience, as I said, goes back quite a few years with parliamentary employees. We receive grievances from them that deal with harassment, and the process we follow with these grievances is identical, really, to the process we follow for federal public servants. In that respect, what's in place for the parliamentary employees provides the same protections as there are for federal public servants.
I'm not sure if that's an answer to your question, or if there's something else I can respond to.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
You may continue if you like. This is still the round. I have several questions to ask, but they relate to the protection of parliamentary employees.
I would like to know if you have ever had such cases and what remedies are available to non-unionized employees. We always talk about the “Ottawa bubble”, but it is a risk for orphan employees, that is, employees who aren't unionized.
4:50 p.m.
Virginia Adamson Executive Director and General Counsel, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board
I would just like to mention that all of our decisions are published on our website.
I don't have on hand any specific cases of harassment of parliamentary employees. Harassment may also be involved, even though the grievance doesn't mention harassment. This happens often too. That said, I can't give you concrete examples right now. However, we will be able to send you the Internet links for these cases because they are on the website.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
My next question is for Dr. Hershcovis.
In your studies, have you compared Bill C-65 to situations in the world? Can you give us some examples?
Are there any amendments you would like to see in the bill? You talked about it earlier in your presentation, but I would like you to tell us more about it?
4:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
My research doesn't focus on legislation, so I haven't really compared what other countries are doing. I know there are good examples out of Sweden and Norway, those countries that tend to be more liberal minded and more forward thinking with their policies. I would recommend that the committee look at some of those policies and at how they've implemented them. They would have done this a long, long time ago, so they would probably have more evidence. But in terms of specifically what they do in those countries, I don't do the legislation, so I don't know.
