December 19, 2022
- Adoption of Agenda
D. Vidmar proposed that the Committee discuss reintegration into the workplace. This item was added as item 5. b. The agenda was adopted as amended. - Presentation: Risk Assessment Tool (Health Canada Employee Assistance Services)
Lorrie-Ann Charron, Senior Advisor, Harassment and Violence Prevention Unit, Employee Assistance Services (EAS), Health Canada, presented their Risk Assessment tool to the Committee. She noted that the document is an Excel spreadsheet to facilitate data gathering as it is a large document with various tabs for each category of risk factor or hazard. She indicated that there are tabs for physical safety and each of the 13 psychosocial factors. She remarked that the document is modified by EAS to meet each client’s needs to comply with the requirements of the Canada Labour Code and the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (Regulations).
On the title page, L.-A. Charron described the contents, being the name of the organization, the applicable partner, the location being assessed, and the date, among other basic data. She indicated that the next tab, “Guide”, provides information on the purpose and development of the tool, the methodology, and the resources used, relying heavily on the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). She highlighted that there are instructions embedded in each tab.
L.-A. Charron emphasized that the PSES does not contain questions related to all risk factors that need to be assessed, and therefore the “Data” tab was created to hold a non-comprehensive list of example additional sources which contains associated data that may be mined to complete the assessment fully and properly. The next tab, “Definitions”, uses the Guarding Minds at Work definitions to describe the 13 psychosocial factors as well as the definition of workplace harassment and violence.
She noted that the “Continuum” tab was developed to provide a consistent approach in conducting the assessment. She reviewed the tool and how to use it to determine the risk for each hazard, pointing out the definitions used for assessing likelihood of risk, severity of risk, and the existing prevention and protection measures. The tool assigns a recommended score from zero (0) to four (4) for each of the definitions which the working group then uses to calculate the risk. L.-A. Charron then referred to the “Matrix” tab, which allows the working group to assign an overall risk rating for each hazard based on the results from the “Continuum” tab.
L.-A. Charron emphasized that these scores are based on assumptions that may not hold true in every situation or workplace and therefore it falls to the working group to use their judgement and personal knowledge to apply the most applicable score given the actual situation. She noted that there is a comment field for each hazard that will allow for the explanation of the methodology used if it does not adhere to the continuum, or if additional resources or data were accessed.
L.-A. Charron reviewed the steps of the preparation phase of assessing the hazard. She emphasized that each of the psychosocial hazards as well as physical hazards have their own tabs, however the layout and the steps involved in assessing each hazard are identical. She indicated that Step 1 is to review the definition of the hazard. Step 2 is to review the results of the PSES. Any questions that are associated with the hazard are pre-filled as well as the PSES results of those questions. Step 3 requires the working group to review the list of risk factors. Step 4 is a review of the prevention and protection measures, and Step 5 is to list the data sources used for each risk factor.
L.-A. Charron pointed out that there is a list of example prevention and protection measures as well as data sources that may be considered, to simplify the process as much as possible for the working group completing the assessment. She clarified that this list is meant as a starting point, not a comprehensive list.
L.-A. Charron explained the analysis phase of the risk assessment process, starting at Step 6: rating the risk using the continuum. Each PSES question is analyzed and assigned a rating for likelihood of risk and severity of harm, according to the continuum. She noted that some ratings may have been pre-filled using assessments arising from consultations with mental health practitioners with experience in the mental health standard. L.-A. Charron indicated that the working group uses the matrix to determine the overall rating of the risk. Then, they determine the rating of the existing protection and prevention measures, which is then subtracted from the overall risk rating, to give the total adjusted risk rating. She noted that the adjusted risk rating scale starts at one (1); there is no zero (0) rating.
L.-A. Charron indicated that Step 7 is the space to provide the reason for the rating, and that there is an expectation that the working group will use their judgement. This is where comments related to the determination of the risk rating are placed to provide context for when the assessment is next completed. She noted that these comments may include indications that while a measure is in place, the measure may not have been effectively communicated, which then dropped the prevention and protection rating downwards, or why additional data sources were included when completing the assessment of the hazard.
L.-A. Charron advised that the implementation phase takes place when the total adjusted risk rating is a two (2) or higher, beginning with the recommendation of new prevention and protection measures (Step 8). She highlighted that the working group may choose to use the list referenced at Step 4 to identify new measures that may be appropriate for the organization. The next column, risk reduction value of proposed measure, requires that the working group determine the new total adjusted risk rating after the implementation of the new measures, which should be a one (1). She emphasized that there should not be anything higher than a one (1) in this column, as a two (2) indicates that there are additional measures that should be implemented to properly mitigate or eliminate the hazard.
L.-A. Charron explained that the last action, Step 9, is to assign responsibilities and timelines for the implementation of any newly identified measures. She noted that some large or national-in-scope organizations may have the risk assessment completed by region. These regional risk assessments would then be rolled up to identify hazards that apply locally, and those which affect employees across the organization. This column would be used to identify the groups responsible for each measure and the timelines associated with their development and implementation. She reminded the Committee that the Regulations stipulate that the organization has six (6) months to implement the measure once the risk factor has been identified.
L.-A. Charron pointed out that the questions from the mental health community’s crosswalk are highlighted throughout the document, so that organizations have the ability to specifically align the measures with other work being completed on mental health.
The Committee appreciated the walk-through, noting that the tool is thorough and may be used by organizations and agencies of any size across the board. L.-A. Charron noted that the template is updated and shared on an ongoing basis. She emphasized that the tool has been useful for those organizations that do not know where to start. She clarified that conducting a risk assessment is an overwhelming exercise, and that EAS is available to provide guidance or training to organizations on their tool, as needed. - Update from the Sub-Committees:
- OHS Training/Learning Sub-Committee: Quarterly Statistics – OHS Training Module Templates
The Committee Advisor indicated that she would send out the final set of statistics with the minutes from this meeting to the Committee for review and comment. She noted that these will be the last set of statistics due to workload concerns. - Harassment and Violence Prevention Tools Working Group
A. Peart noted that there are issues with consistency within departments and agencies. She indicated that she has been hearing that the investigators on the NMSO are pre-approved by the bargaining agent, which is not correct. Due in part to the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Regulations, she advised that people are unclear on what compliance looks like. The Sub-Committee will continue to work on the development and promotion of tools keeping in mind the three (3) year mark of implementation as an opportunity for additional training.
- OHS Training/Learning Sub-Committee: Quarterly Statistics – OHS Training Module Templates
- Standing Items
- Asbestos
C. Truax noted that the regular update of the asbestos inventory is being completed. C. Fraser inquired on the change in the inventory. C. Truax indicated there was not much change within PSPC but would need time to provide a more fulsome update to the Committee.
A. Peart indicated that there are upcoming changes to the radon limit and would like to hear more from Health Canada. C. Truax indicated his colleague Jeff Moffatt is updating PSPC’s standards and directives and may be able to provide updates on work being done within the department.
- Mental Health
M. Gosselin advised that TBS is working with the Centre of Expertise on Mental Health to align questions in the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) on progress made on mental health strategies and the implementation of the Regulations. There will also be questions in the MAF related to how departments are addressing new and emerging hazards related to the various hybrid work arrangements. - Harassment
M. Gosselin indicated that the evaluation of vendors for the new NMSO is nearly completed. 129 vendors were assessed, and he expects the NMSO to be in place in early fall to allow organizations to update their internal list using the new NMSO. He advised that his team will continue to monitor progress at the departmental level. Whereas his team was focused on the implementation and policy development over the last year, the focus will now be on the risk assessment progress. He anticipates he will be able to provide the Committee with an update in six (6) months and this can be used to inform the working group’s workplan. - Legionella
Nil.
- Asbestos
- Other Items
- Update on proposed joint Joint Employment Equity Committee (JEEC)-SWOHS meeting
M. Dyck, C. Vézina and the Committee Advisor attended the last JEEC meeting to present the proposed shared work items with JEEC. The meeting was a preliminary discussion to gauge interest in working together. M. Dyck indicated that there will be subsequent meetings to discuss the topics of collaboration. He noted that JEEC has concerns with how equity seeking groups are accessing resources under the Regulations and would like to see the extraction of employment equity data from investigations. The Committee Advisor noted that JEEC has requested additional information on SWOHS and the work products that have been produced and will provide same to them.
- Reintegration into the workplace
D. Vidmar advised she has been approached by members with concerns that departments are not holding discussions on a case-by-case basis for returning to the workplace, rather entire groups are being told to report to the office. She advised that if an employee indicates they are reluctant to do so, they are being informed they will be placed onto Leave without Pay (LWOP) or considered to have abandoned their position. She inquired if SWOHS was consulted on the OHS implications of return-to-work plans and if there are any actions or advice they can give from an OHS perspective. Other Bargaining Agent representatives on the Committee indicated they are also hearing the same questions and concerns.
M. Gosselin stated that departments may have forgotten the requirement to consult with the OHS policy committee to design their return-to-work / future-of-work plans, and to have the local OHS committee monitor its implementation. He noted that most departments created their own stand-alone teams to address COVID-related issues and that those teams may be unaware of the requirement to consult OHS specialists. He indicated that TBS has been taking steps internally to share a reminder with departmental senior officials and the OHS Community of Practice of the requirement to bring the OHS Policy Committee into the discussion for a meaningful consultation.
M. Gosselin suggested holding a follow-up meeting to discuss the effectiveness of the sharing of the reminder and whether additional guidance is needed from SWOHS. He reiterated that the Public Service Occupational Health Program (PSOHP) guidance is still in effect and is safe, provided people adhere to it. A Committee member remarked that a check-in meeting around Labour Day might be preferable to be able to correct any missteps early in the return-to-work process.
N. Porteous emphasized the PSOHP guidance is based on science and allows for people to choose to remove their mask when seated safely at a distance from others. She emphasized that if one is moving around, even if no one else is present, it is advisable to wear a mask as one never knows when one may encounter another person in a hallway. The goal is to ensure a mask-friendly, respectful workplace where people may choose to mask, dependent on their personal situation. N. Porteous indicates that Health Canada recommends employees use a well-constructed, well-fitting medical mask or respirator rather than a cloth mask to help protect themselves.
- Update on proposed joint Joint Employment Equity Committee (JEEC)-SWOHS meeting
- Round table
The Committee Advisor noted that the NJC will be returning to holding meetings in person. Therefore, she will be looking to schedule the September meeting to be held at the NJC offices. It was noted that a videoconference option will continue to be available for the time being, however, she will require a minimum two (2) weeks’ notice to ensure appropriate arrangements for the various modes of attendance. The Committee members are asked to respond to the draft agenda email indicating if they will be attending the meeting and how they intend to attend the meeting.
C. Zovatto indicated that she has moved to a new position and that this is likely her last SWOHS meeting prior to her replacement being officially designated. She wished to note her appreciation of the level of collaboration, openness, and frankness that this Committee achieves on a regular basis and how positive an experience it has been. The Committee thanked her for her contributions and work for them and wish her well at her new position
Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2022.