June 23, 2022
- Adoption of Agenda
M. Beland requested that the agenda be amended to include
5. N-95 Mask Usage in the Workplace and
6. New Provincial Quarantine Rules.
The agenda was adopted as amended. - Presentation: National Master Standing Offer (NMSO) for Workplace Harassment and Violence Investigators
Marc Gosselin, Senior Policy Analyst, and Kerry Piccolotto, Program / Policy Analyst with Program and Policy at the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) at Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) presented an update on the new NMSO for investigators. They invited Roxane Baker, Supply Specialist, and Karen Marcotte, Supply Team Leader, with the Business Management and Consulting Services Division of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) to address concerns raised by the Committee related to the process arising from the presentation. K. Piccolotto indicated that the first NMSO was a mandatory use tool dating back to 2018 with three (3) streams: one (1) for incidents of wrongdoing under the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, one (1) for incidents of harassment under the TBS Harassment Policy and one (1) for workplace violence investigations under Part XX of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. He recalled that the use of a NMSO is to facilitate the procurement process and standardize costing across departments and agencies. With the advent of the new Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (Regulations) in January of 2021, K. Piccolotto indicated that the number of streams was reduced to two (2): one (1) for wrongdoing under the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and the other for workplace harassment and violence incidents. This required that the existing NMSO be revised.
To address this difference, PSPC put out a Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) which is due to close on January 24, 2022. Once the deadline for submissions has passed, the individuals will be assessed. K. Piccolotto indicated that a mechanism will be put into place to include additional resources as required. He further advised that everything else with the process will remain the same. K. Piccolotto indicated that the existing NMSO is to continue to be used until it has been replaced by the new NMSO.
He reiterated that under Section 27 of the Regulations, the employer or Designated Recipient (DR) selects a person from a list devised between the employer and the applicable partner, being the National Policy Committee. However, should no such list exist, the employer or DR, principal party, responding party and applicable partner must all agree on the investigator being appointed.
K. Piccolotto advised that if there are specific needs related to language or other requirements in an incident, an exemption may be requested from PSPC to utilize an investigator not on the NMSO using a sole-source contract. This is a “right fit” exemption; however, the investigator must still meet the requirements of the Regulations. As indicated previously, the Harassment and Violence Prevention Tools Working Group (HVPTWG) created investigator criteria tools that can be used in conjunction with the NMSO and in cases of possible exemptions from the NMSO as it would be beneficial to have a variety of sources from which to access investigators.
He concluded indicating that the OHS office within OCHRO is responsible for providing support to the DR and is establishing a committee to share best practices thereby creating a coherent community of practice. The same SWOHS sub-committee has created a questions and answers document that will be posted soon to assist with the process of appointing an investigator. Ultimately, he reinforced that the goal is to uphold the Regulations and facilitate the process.
The Committee was pleased with the presentation and questioned whether issues related to employment equity (EE) concerns in the composition and use of the NMSO and other lists of investigators were being raised to the Joint Employment Equity Committee (JEEC), as well as how EE information was being relayed to the DRs. K. Piccolotto reported that the establishment of the DR Community of Practice (DRCOP) is a priority and that one of the key messages is to have them be aware and mindful of the needs of any particular investigation when selecting an investigator. He reiterated that the DR is not obligated to select someone from the NMSO, however, they may also contact PSPC to select someone from outside. A. Peart asked if there is a tracking mechanism to identify how frequently departments are going outside the NMSO, and for what issues, and if this will be paired with recruiting. M. Gosselin indicated that requests for exemptions are tracked and noted that it is a good idea that these requests should be reviewed on a regular basis with a view to invite the investigator to apply to the NMSO.
The question of how to remove someone from the NMSO was raised. R. Baker indicated that there is a feedback form for investigators, however its usage is very low. She advocated reminding the DRs that this form should be completed for every investigation, whether the experience was positive or negative, to ensure that the quality of investigations completed is monitored and maintained. It was noted that the form includes an opportunity for the investigator to rebut any statements they do not agree with and provide feedback as well. In those instances where the feedback is negative, these will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by both TBS and PSPC representatives to determine the egregiousness of the behaviour behind the negative comments. C. Zovatto raised a question about the ease of filling out this form, as reporting burden is frequently raised as a concern for many employers and that any effort to streamline the process would be appreciated. R. Baker indicated that it is a check box form with space to add comments. The form is two (2) pages long and can be found on the Standing Offer and Supply Arrangement webpage. It was suggested that the policy committee could be reminded to ensure that the DR completes this form and that the Committee get an update on the number of forms completed later this year.
M. Dyck asked when to expect the new NMSO to be available for use. K. Piccolotto indicated that the goal is to have it available in summer 2022, however reiterated that the assessment criteria is currently available on the NJC website. - Update from the Sub-Committees:
- OHS Training/Learning Sub-Committee
A. Peart indicated that the Committee Advisor is analyzing the data related to the usage of the sample OHS modules posted on the NJC website and this will be presented to the Committee at its March meeting. The Sub-Committee will be meeting shortly to discuss the data and discuss next steps, likely focusing on promotion. - Harassment and Violence Prevention Tools Working Group
A. Peart advised that the NJC is working with the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) on an upcoming web event. The event is directed towards DRs, managers, union representatives, but is open to anyone who is interested. The planning for this event is well in hand and the sub-committee are working on finalizing the tools, noting at the most recent meeting that there was no flow chart. The development of this document is a priority as it is to be shared with SWOHS prior to the web event.
- OHS Training/Learning Sub-Committee
- Standing Items:
- Asbestos
Following up on a presentation at the last SWOHS meeting, the Committee identified that it is important to identify what information has already been gathered and what other information is required in order to determine what that data may say about asbestos-related incidents. It was suggested that the Committee Advisor reach out to the Occupational Cancer Research Centre to see what information they gathered related to federal workplaces and if they can share it with this Committee.
- Mental Health
M. Gosselin indicated this is the first time this topic has appeared as a standing item, therefore; the Centre of Expertise on Mental Health in the Workplace (CEMHW) at OCHRO, TBS, has been invited to speak. Michelle McLaren, Manager of Outreach and Engagement at the CEMHW, touched briefly on various initiatives, campaigns, events and resources that they have been working on, including partnering with the CSPS for the government of Canada’s Bell “Let’s Talk” Day, including an event related to peer support and employee connectiveness. She highlighted the Canada.ca COVID-19 page will have a sub-page related to preventing burnout and managing workloads, which will be posted later in the month.
Additionally, she indicated there are joint union and employer committees mandated under collective agreements, specifically the Committee on Mental Health Support Mechanisms (CMHSM) which is responsible for a study which focuses on identifying needs and gaps related to exposure to explicit and disturbing material or threatening situations, especially within the Technical Services (TC) and Program Administration (PA) groups. M. McLaren further stated there is a Federal Speakers’ Bureau on Healthy Workplaces, made up of volunteers who give testimonials on mental health recovery. She stated they held 187 events which have reached approximately 17,642 public servants in 2021, which was their year of highest demand so far.
Looking at mental health policy considerations, the CEMHW has been busy addressing issues including those surrounding COVID, changes to the Canada Labour Code, the future of work, and amendments to the directives on the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), the latter related to meeting the needs of equity-seeking groups. M. McLaren advised that a mental health dashboard is expected to launch in the spring as a result of a re-established Committee on Mental Health Performance Management, co-chaired with PSPC, TBS and Statistics Canada. She also highlighted the Workplace Mental Health Champions Committee which focuses on encouraging mental health promotion within organizations as well as the Mental Health Office of Primary Interest Network, which serves as a community of practice for sharing tools, etc.
The overview was well received with a note that the CMHSM is a relatively new initiative that the Committee hopes works out as more and more employers participate fully in the development and implementation of mental health support initiatives.
Links:
Centre of Expertise on Mental Health in the Workplace
COVID-19 page
Bell Let’s Talk Day Event Information
- Harassment
A. Peart advised that she and C. Zovatto have been in meetings with the Labour Program with a goal to re-establish a sub-committee to update the Interpretations, Policies and Guidelines (IPGs) and expect to approach SWOHS for key issues that need clarification or inclusion. M. Gosselin indicated that it has been a year since the Regulations came into force and last week, TBS sent out a pulse check with departments on various items and will share the results with the Committee at its March meeting. He also noted that there are two (2) other events planned between now and the April Harassment and Violence Prevention tools web event, including a meeting on January 26, 2022, to train more of the labour relations community. He advised there will also be a power chat with the CSPS on February 9, 2022, taking stock of the first year that the Regulations have been out, highlighting lessons learned and reviewing the long term objective, which is a culture change. M. Gosselin noted that the prevention of harassment has been included in multiple mandate letters as it is a high priority file across the government.
It was noted that CSPS invitations may not be making it through to separate employers. M. Gosselin noted that the CSPS is very active on social media and there are ways to access the material even if one’s department is not partnered with the CSPS. - Legionella
C. Truax indicated that reminders about cooling tower start up will be going out in the future as spring approaches. This will be a good time to prepare to re-issue the Legionella communiqué.
- Asbestos
- N-95 Mask Usage in the Workplace
M. Beland noted that with the advent of the omicron variant, there are different rules and recommendations across the country, and he is being questioned on NJC’s position on which masks should be used in the workplace.
N. Porteous indicated that the most recent guidelines are posted by the Public Service Occupational Health Program (PSOHP) on the Information for Government of Canada employees: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) website. The guidance currently indicates that masks are to be worn by all employees in indoor shared spaces at all times, regardless of the filtration level. It was noted that mask-wearing is lower on the hierarchy of controls, being less effective than others including isolation, physical distancing, and improved ventilation, but highlighted that it is most effective when used in conjunction with these other measures. She specified that the most important factor in maximizing its effectiveness is a proper fit.
N. Porteous further noted that while employees are being bombarded by provincial and local guidelines, federal workplaces follow federal guidance. The guidance is expected to be updated shortly and the website will be updated accordingly. She clarified that this guidance and information will be reiterated at the regular COVID call hosted by the NJC with national presidents. C. Zovatto noted that there are some work locations where employees need to traverse provincially regulated workplaces, and many of those locations have adopted the provincial guidelines.
E. Thibeault questioned the status of face shield usage for federal employees. N. Porteous noted that face shield usage is typically reserved for heath care workers who participate in specific higher risk activities. Face shields are not specifically mentioned in the guidance but should not be relied upon as a sole method of preventing transmission and used in conjunction with masks or respirators.
M. Dyke noted that there is fit testing for both N-95 and KN-95 masks and questioned whether any KN-95s have been assessed to be equivalent to an N-95 mask. N. Porteous noted that there is one that is National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved and she will share a table of various masks and their current status in the approval process. She noted that KN-95s do not have to be fit-tested if they are not part of a respiratory program.
- New Provincial Quarantine Rules
M. Beland noted that many provinces have put out new timelines in relation to when one can/should return to work, with different time frames for those with and without symptoms. N. Porteous noted that the Public Health Authority of Canada (PHAC) emphasizes that ten (10) days is best for those with a positive test or presumed case of COVID-19. She noted that there may be some consideration in situations where the employee is part of critical services with increased probability of harm if they do not attend work, but the advice would only go as low as seven (7) days.
N. Porteous affirmed that in cases of close contact, federal guidance remains at two (2) weeks of isolation, but that it does indicate, in situations where the employee is critical services, that the employer may choose to follow the timeline set by the local public health authorities as needed. Clarification was sought if there will be clarification in instances where the provincial guidelines conflict with national guidance. She noted that there is no second number in cases of close contact, only with confirmed or presumed cases.
M. Gosselin noted that there is an OHS Community of Practice meeting at which attendees will be reminded not to automatically follow local/provincial advice, but rather to refer to federal guidance on COVID-19.
Federal Guidance Link: English / Français - Round table:
Y. Fournier asked if the reports by competent persons were preserved in a bank and used for educational purposes. M. Gosselin replied that the investigative reports are protected for privacy reasons as they contain personal and sensitive information. Under the previous harassment regulations, the conclusion indicating if the incident meets the definition of harassment and the recommendations were brought to the local health and safety committee for the implementation planning, but they do not get the details of the event. The parties would have to consent to have their unredacted information shared with the local health and safety committee. It was clarified that under the new Regulations, the parties cannot be identified either directly or indirectly, therefore the entire report goes to the committee to implement the recommendations. A rumour was mentioned whereby consultants use the same report and simply amend details as needed. It was suggested that providing a copy of the report to the policy committee would allow for informed decisions to be made on the investigators, however it was noted that this information also belongs in the feedback form to PSPC and OCHRO. Currently, the policy committee under the new Regulations receives statistics in order to identify trends rather than the report, however it was mentioned that it could be useful to see the report in order for the policy committee to re-assess investigators.
Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for March 24, 2022.