Bill 168 is coming into force on June 15, 2010 in Ontario. What difference will it make? How will it affect you if you are an employer in Ontario, Canada? What impact will it have if you are an employee?
Bill 168 is following a trend for workplaces in Canada. There is increasing recognition that conflict, harassment and workplace violence are bad for business. Unhappy, stressed, tense and fearful employees are not as productive as they could be as they are busy trying to cope with whatever is causing them problems.
As a mediator who has worked in the field of harassment, discrimination and conflict management since 1996 I have watched an interesting transition in priorities in Canadian workplaces. Employers are much more aware these days of the underlying costs of conflict, harassment and workplace violence in their workplaces. The dollar costs of conducting investigations into formal complaints can be staggering. In my experience employers can expect to pay anywhere from $50,000.00 to $300,000.00 and up to deal with harassment and workplace violence situations. These figures are prohibitive for any employer but particularly so for small businesses.
The 1980 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the Bonnie Robichaud case in 1980 determined that employers in Canada had a legal liability to provide a workplace free of harassment for their employees irrespective of whether they were aware of the situation or not. The shock wave this caused in the employment world triggered the development of conflict management and harassment policies in many organizations to bring them into compliance with the new era. This recognition of the cost of harassment was focused primarily on sexual harassment. The field has evolved greatly since 1980 to where policies in 2010 typically cover a range of actions and behaviour that are considered inappropriate. Sexual and personal harassment as well as abuse of authority provisions provide employees with a much broader level of protection than what was offered in the 80’s.
Bill 168 offers protections to the employees of Ontario that have not been written into legislation in the past. This puts a responsibility on employers and managers to educate themselves not only on the provisions of the legislation but also on how to work within it on a day to day operational basis. How can you ensure that your workplace is compliant not only with the letter of the law but also with the spirit of the law? The letter of the law is clearly spelled out on the Ministry of Labour website (www.mol.on.ca). It is much more of a challenge to create an organizational culture based on safety, respect, tolerance and understanding particularly in our increasingly diverse workplaces.
It is critical that managers, supervisors and employees are offered support by their employers to ensure that they have both the substantive knowledge of the requirements and the skills in conflict management and leadership that will support them to work with the employer to create the healthy workplaces that Bill 168 is trying to create.
Toxic workplaces cost money. In our experience they are less productive, have higher turnover rates, higher frequencies of absenteeism, grievances, complaints and disengaged employees. This is a recipe for putting a business or organization into trouble. It’s like having an abscessed tooth – the discomfort and pain makes it tough to focus on anything else. If the disproportionate amounts of energy, time and focus expended on trying to survive a toxic environment were redirected to getting the job done, the productivity levels would be stunning.
Managers and supervisors have a critical leadership role to play in creating these healthy workplaces. What steps can help?
1. Clear expectations regarding what constitutes acceptable behaviour,
2. Rewarding the desired behaviour and logical and reasonable consequences for transgressors,
3. Effective informal conflict management systems that help to prevent situations from escalating
4. Accountability from the employer and management with respect to learning the real nature of their workplaces (not what they ‘think’ is happening)
5. A willingness to talk about subjects that in the past have been considered less important than concrete task focused conversations – human interactions, organizational culture and workplace atmosphere
6. A solid commitment (with the teeth to back it up) that employees have the right to bring problems to the attention of management without fear of retribution either from peers or from management.
The fear of repercussions is one of the most critical issues that is raised time and time again in the organizations with which we work. When we come into an organization to do a Workplace Assessment as part of a Partnered Workplace Renewal Process™ employees are typically fearful and reluctant to engage and in some cases afraid even to talk to us. Why? Because they have no trust in management or their co-workers that their participation will not lead to some type of formal or informal payback and that what they tell us will somehow be found out by their employer or manager.
Until this is addressed in a credible and concrete fashion, very few will take the risk and those that do are typically those who see themselves on the way out the door anyhow – either due to retirement or because they have dusted off their c.v. and are exercising their right to vote with their feet and move on.
This fear of repercussions can also create a climate of silence. Not every employee who is subjected to harassment or workplace violence files a complaint – many are too afraid to do so. But much like children being bullied at schools the warning signs are there for those perceptive enough to see them. When this is an issue it is often impossible for the situation to be addressed by those inside the organization and outside help is needed. Employees need to have recourse to help they can trust and who is perceived to be at arms length from management and the employer.
Even then it can be difficult to build credibility with employees as the fear factor can be significant. On the other hand there is typically a strong desire to see things change that is warring with the fear of repercussions for getting involved in trying to make things better. The way to build credibility is different in every situation but there are some common steps that can help.
1. Be open and transparent about what you can do – and what you can’t do and live up to what you promise.
2. Don’t make promises you either can’t or won’t keep – broken promises are a fast ticket to cynicism and skepticism.
3. Make a business case to senior management for ensuring and protecting employees’ ability to participate without repercussions either from supervisors or managers or from co-workers.
4. Enlist a credible and very senior person within the organization to act as a recourse person should repercussions happen (or the employee feels that there are repercussions happening).
5. Take complaints seriously and take action to address concerns raised.
6. Ensure that supervisors and managers understand the ‘No repercussions’ policy and adhere to it.
7. Work with the group to discuss the changes that are needed to create a respectful and safe workplace. Engage participation by being open, transparent and accountable – particularly if you are at a senior level within the organization.
8. Create an accountability framework that is focused on constructive mechanisms to address issues rather than a blame focused punitive approach to problems.
9. Model the behaviour you want to see others use. Set expectations for respectful interactions and reward the behaviour you want to see.
10. Ensure that the operational reality and the articulated values of the organization are congruent, aligned and actually being implemented. In order for this to happen staff at all levels need to understand and buy into the organizational values being espoused by the employer and senior management groups.
11. Believe in the value of a healthy and safe working environment rather than complying with the legislation solely because it is the law.
Bill 168 is a piece of legislation that has the potential to help protect workers in Ontario. However it is also likely to be seen by some as an unnecessary burden that is just one more example of legislators trying to run people's lives. In our experience organizations that invest in creating healthy working environments as a core organizational value fundamental to the organizational culture are more productive, more able to adapt to changing economic environments and more successful overall. They make more money for shareholders and owners in the case of businesses. As a result, they tend to create more stable jobs for for their employees and naive as it sounds - everyone wins.
The Conflict Resolution Workout
We invite you to objectively assess the state of your organization or workplace:
1. On a 0-10 scale what rating would you give it if 0 = Toxic and 10 = Healthy?
2. Using that same 0-10 scale, how would you rate relationships between managers and employees? Between employees? Between the union(s) and management? Between other groups within your specific organization?
3. What level of resistance is there to making positive changes to the organizational culture? Where is that resistance coming from? What might be behind it?
4. What is one action that you could take tomorrow that would make your workplace a better place to work?
Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.
