July 22, 2020
- Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted. - Presentation: Harassment/Violence in the Workplace Investigations: Potential Services from Health Canada’s Employees Assistance Services
As a follow-up to the presentation which was given to the Competent Person’s Sub-committee, Alain Contant, Director and Jeremy Ames, Manager, Business Development and Informal Conflict Management, Employee Assistance Services, Health Canada, provided an update on the Employment Assistance Services (EAS) Harassment/Violence in the Workplace Services pilot. A. Contant and J. Ames are seeking the input of the full SWOHS Committee with respect to this initiative.
The presenters noted that in the past, EAS would be brought in to facilitate difficult situations related to harassment/violence in the workplace, but was not in a position to provide the parties with a roster of investigators. EAS would then only be brought back into the situation at the restoration phase. The ability to provide additional services changed once EAS recognized that approximately ten (10) of the ICMS practitioners noted on its roster are deemed to be “competent persons”.
Under this initiative, once it is determined by Human Resources within a department that an investigation is required, they could then contact EAS for a list of appropriate and vetted investigators. EAS would provide suggestions from the roster based on a triage and best fit and would coordinate the administrative aspects of the investigation (investigator availability, timeline, proposal, and cost). Once the investigation is launched, until such time that the final report is delivered, EAS would monitor the progress of the investigator to ensure that the investigation is completed on time and on budget. Finally, after the investigation is complete and the report submitted, EAS will follow up with the stakeholders to elicit feedback on quality of the process and investigator.
The benefits of using EAS to assist in a harassment/violence investigation include: having access to a curated roster of qualified investigators which will be regularly maintained and reviewed based on quality assurance; management and oversight of the investigation process from intake to invoicing; quick contracting; neutrality.
EAS plans to pilot these new services with one or two files with one department in late 2019-2020, then review and refine its service model with a possible roll out to additional departments based on review and capacity, and present the results of the review to various federal networks.
The Committee questioned how EAS plans to objectively assess the quality of the process and investigator knowing that one of the parties involved in the investigation will generally be unhappy with the report. In addition, it was noted that given that only select individuals, such as the complainant and the respondent, are entitled to the report, it may be difficult for EAS to obtain enough information to objectively asses the quality of the report. N. Porteous, Director General, Specialized Health Services Directorate, Health Canada (HC), requested that the presenters, who report to her, meet with the sub-committee on competent persons to discuss how best to assess and implement the quality assurance piece along with the concern related to access and dissemination of the report. It was mentioned that perhaps EAS could obtain a redacted version of the report or, specific, objective questions could be asked to the parties. The Committee agreed that further discussion on these matters could occur at the competent person sub-committee.
The Committee then discussed the repercussions of what might occur should the quality of the report of the investigator be objectively assessed as poor. The presenters noted that it would not be difficult to have an investigator removed from the EAS roster, if necessary. That said, it was agreed that N. Porteous, HC would contact those responsible for privacy within the department to determine if notification could be provided to those responsible for maintaining other competent person lists, such as the National Master Standing Officer (NMSO), with respect to the removal of an investigator. Should this information be deemed privileged and not be shareable, the Committee suggested the possibility of using a quality assurance checklist to determine if an investigator is, or ever has been, on a competent person roster.
The Committee also raised the question as to whether Departments must first avail themselves of Public Services and Procurement Canada’s (PSPC) NMSO for competent persons, or if they can reach out directly to HC and the EAS team without exhausting the NMSO. N. Porteous noted that HC is simply trying to provide another option to the NMSO and that it has received a legal opinion that the NMSO does not need to be exhausted prior to seeking assistance from HC. It was agreed that TBS would reconfirm this legal opinion.
Following an additional question from the Committee, J. Ames confirmed that the investigators included on the roster have been vetted and pre-screened as per Bill C-65 and Labour Program Directives by seeking confirmation that the investigators have conducted investigations in the past, are familiar with the Canada Labour Code Part II, and have done root cause analysis. It was noted that the questions developed by the Competent Person sub-committee will also be used in the vetting process.
The Committee provided feedback to the presenters stating that a robust initial training program will need to take place to ensure that employees understand and gain confidence in the process prior to having to use it. Otherwise, employees may question HC’s involvement in brokering the investigators.
Finally, the HC representatives confirmed that the Employee Assistance Program, Specialized Organizational Services, ICMS and this new investigations service line within Employee Assistance Services are distinct entities and one does not trigger the other. It was also suggested that the sub-committee on competent persons consider developing generic guidance for Departments with respect to the front and back-end of investigations. - TBS Update on the proposed directive on the prevention and resolution of workplace harassment and violence
A. Gagnon tabled two documents: a draft version of the Directive on the Prevention and Resolution of Workplace Harassment and Violence and a proposed Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template for Public Sector Organizations.
A. Gagnon noted that the draft Directive flows from the Policy on People Management and would replace the following two Treasury Board policy instruments: Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution and Directive on the Harassment Complaint Process.
A. Gagnon indicated that since the last time these documents were presented to the SWOHS Committee in January 2019, the draft Regulations have been released. As such, the current draft version of the Directive, tabled today, has been updated to include changes based on the draft Regulations. It was noted that the TBS Directive is not intended to repeat what will exist under the amended Regulations, but simply provide clarity on how the Regulations will apply to the Public Service. Each Department, in conjunction with its Policy Committee, will then be required to develop its own Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy. As such, the proposed template tabled could be a tool given to Departments to guide them in developing their own internal policy.
A. Gagnon requested that Committee members provided feedback on both documents prior to December 20, 2019 c.o.b.
Initial feedback was received from some Committee members indicating that the ongoing focus continues to be on harassment and that violence, such as imminent physical violence, is forgotten. Furthermore, although concrete suggestions will be provided in writing, it was noted that consideration should be given to having a stand-alone policy on domestic violence and that the Bargaining Agent Side (BAS) would be happy to collaborate on such an initiative.
C. Seeton also noted that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has already developed a Directive and policy on Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention and will be reviewing the draft documents to see if the TBS documents and the CFIA documents are aligned. - GC Workplace Design Guide – Consultations
The Committee was in full agreement that there is a continued role for the SWOHS Committee to play with respect to being consulted on an ongoing basis regarding this initiative. It was noted that the Committee is interested in providing broad feedback with respect to the GCWorkplace initiative covering all health and safety aspects, including areas such as harassment and violence in the workplace.
The Committee Advisor noted that she would report back to those responsible for the consultations at Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC). - Update from the Sub-Committees:
- Competent Persons
The sub-committee tabled two draft documents for approval by the SWOHS Committee: the Statement of Work for Workplace Violence Investigations and the Competent Person Qualification Assessment Tool for Workplace Violence Investigations. C. Seeton and A. Peart, co-chairs of the sub-committee, noted that the documents are based on the current Part XX of the Regulations, but that once new Regulations have been released, the SWOHS Committee will need to revise the mandate of the sub-committee to review these documents to align with the new Regulations.
In addition to approving the tabled documents, the sub-committee sought clarification from the SWOHS Committee on the purpose of the Competent Person Qualification Assessment Tool. The question was raised as to who should be using this tool to assess Competent Persons, Departments or the SWOHS Committee. The SWOHS Committee agreed that this should be a tool to guide Departments with respect to vetting competent persons. Given this, the sub-committee noted that the item which remains on its work plan, to develop an internal competent person roster, may be moot. That said, the sub-committee agreed to provide the list of names that it has developed, with respect to possible competent persons, to N. Porteous’ team to explore in their HC EAS initiative.
The Committee agreed to provide feedback and/or approval on the two documents by c.o.b. on December 20, 2019.
Once the documents are finalized and approval is received from the SWOHS Committee, it was agreed that the documents would be distributed, along with a Communiqué, to all Policy Co-Chairs. It was also noted that the Communiqué will ensure to indicate that these documents are as a direct result of the previous Communiqués published by the SWOHS Committee with respect to Competent Persons and not as a result of revised Regulations. - Guarding Minds at Work Survey (GM@W)
A. Peart noted that she and A. Payette, TBS met with the Joint Employment Equity Committee (JEEC) on September 4, 2019 and that they recommended to the JEEC that both the SWOHS and JEEC wait to review an updated Guarding Minds at Work Tool, which is anticipated to be released in March 2020, prior to continuing any work on this initiative.
The Committee Advisor noted that following this, the JEEC had a teleconference with a representative from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) and that the JEEC had provided the work which had been done by the joint JEEC/SWOHS sub-committee to the representative to share with the researchers who are updating the current Guarding Minds at Work Tool. It was noted that the JEEC is fully aware that there is no guarantee that the work done by the sub-committee will be included in the revised Guarding Minds at Work Tool. - OHS Training/Learning Sub-Committee
F. Murphy and R. de Bellefeuille noted that they will be presenting an update to the NJC Executive Committee on November 27, 2019 with respect to the training that has been developed by the SWOHS Committee.
The Committee suggested seeking the approval of the Executive Committee to present an update on this initiative to the Human Resources Council. - Legalization of Cannabis
J.-F. Gosselin-Dubois, NJC Secretariat, noted that he is currently in the process of trying to schedule the sub-committee’s first meeting. Although the first meeting was scheduled to take place in October, the sub-committee did not have quorum. It is anticipated that the sub-committee will be able to provide a more fulsome update at the January SWOHS Committee meeting.
Following a question, C. Zovatto noted that what is heard on the Employer Side is that impairment has always been an issue and that with the introduction of the legalization of cannabis, nothing has changed. Members of the BAS noted that the issue is with respect to the inconsistency across Departments and Agencies. N. Porteous noted that the Occupational Health Assessment Guide (OHAG) could be used as the baseline for which positions within the Public Service have medical requirements. N. Porteous noted that it is the positions identified in the Guide that are generally considered to be high risk. N. Porteous agreed to circulate this Guide to the Committee.
- Competent Persons
- Standing Items:
- Asbestos
Nil report. - Legionella
Nil report.
- Asbestos
- Round table
J. Ryan noted that he would appreciate the OHAG as he noted that none of the positions under consideration with respect to DND’s cannabis/impairment policy have medical conditions.
N. Porteous noted that Health Canada and the Canada School of the Public Service (CSPS) co-hosted a very successful event on November 18th called “Purge to Pride: LGBT in the Federal Public Service”. She indicated that she would share a link to an informative video. - Next Meeting
- January 23, 2019
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 p.m.