Ultimate Software Interactive HR Workshop: Responding to Allegations of Harassment
-
Upload
rudnermacdonaldllp -
Category
Law
-
view
134 -
download
2
Transcript of Ultimate Software Interactive HR Workshop: Responding to Allegations of Harassment
Ultimate SoftwareToronto HR WorkshopSeptember 20, 2015
Presented byStuart E. Rudner
Responding to Allegations of Harassment
2
OVERVIEW1. Risks of a Flawed Investigation2. The Duty to Investigate
1. Bill 132 3. Responding to Allegations 4. The Investigation Process 5. Preparing a Report 6. Designing and Implementing Policies7. Dismissal and Consequential Action
3
Risks Bad PR Legal liability
– Wrongful dismissal– Punitive damages– Moral damages– Infliction of emotional distress
Amounts are increasing
4
Headlines You Don’t Want“CBC management ignored warnings in
Jian Ghomeshi affair”“Canadian Olympic Council
president resigns over sexual harassment scandal”
“Sexual harassment lawsuit describes Fox News as a “cult” filled with
“mysogyny”“Former intern tells tales of sexual
harassment by supervisor in Parliament”
Getting it Wrong:Vernon v. British Columbia 30 year employee accused of
bullying/harassment Known as “The Little General” Offensive language, racial and other
inappropriate comments
6
Investigators:– Pre-judged– Attacked accused and those who
supported her– Misled decision-makers in report
Result– 18 months’ notice– $35k in “The Damages Formerly
Known as Wallace”– $50k punitive damages
7
Increasing RisksRecent awards for failure to respond/investigate to harassment: $30,000 in Farris v. Staubach (HRTO) $125,000 general damages in City of
Calgary v CUPE Local 38 Over $200,000 in Silveira v. Olympia
Jewellery, including aggravated, punitive, and human rights damages
8
The Importance of the Investigation
Investigate first Ensure fairness, objectivity,
thoroughness Give opportunity to respond Often, employee response is
critical factor in determining appropriate discipline
9
The Duty to Investigate Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc.:
Duty to investigate incorporated into OHRC duty to provide discrimination free workplace
Morgan v. Herman Miller: damages can be awarded for failing to investigate complaints even if discrimination complaint not substantiated
Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau: failure to investigate only where discrimination/harassment has been complained of
AND NOW: Bill 132
10
And now…- S. 25(2)(h): increased
protection for workplace harassment
- “Workplace harassment” includes workplace sexual harassment
- Employers must have policy and procedures for harassment complaints, information collection & response
- Statutory duty to investigate
BILL 132
Sexual Violence and Harassment Action
Plan Act
11
BILL 132
Sexual Violence and Harassment Action
Plan Act
(cont’d)
• MUST investigate “incidents and complaints” of sexual harassment
• MOL/OHSA inspector can retain third party investigator and obtain report at employer’s expense
12
BILL 132Workplace sexual
harassment(a) engaging in course of vexatious comment or conduct
against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome; or
(b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows/ought reasonably to know that the [gesture] is unwelcome
13
Measures/procedures for incident reports to person other than supervisor and employer where that is the alleged harassor
Set out how incidents/complaints will be investigated/dealt with
Set out how information obtained will be kept confidential unless disclosure is necessary for the investigation, taking corrective actions, or law
Review processes ANNUALLY
BILL 132Policies Must Have:
15
Responding to allegations Do not ignore Act expeditiously Check policy
– Requirements for investigation / timing / people involved Review policy now to ensure not overly
restrictive Consider other obligations
– Union– Joint Health & Safety Committee
16
Responding to allegations
Communications with– Respondent– complainant
Be mindful of both parties– Ensure safe work environment– Consider referral to EAP– Interim suspension / transfer?
Do not promise lack of repercussion
17
Hallmarks of Good Investigation
Unbiased Thorough Timely Well documented Defensible conclusions Recommendations & Action items
18
Conducting investigation Internal vs external
– Seriousness of allegations– Sensitivity of issues– Appearance of bias– Expertise– Availability– Cost
19
Conducting investigation Obtain all necessary information
from complainant Do not begin with a conclusion or
investigate for purpose of proving misconduct
Do not make promises of confidentiality you cannot keep– But promise reasonable efforts
20
Witnesses Consider order Do not promise confidentiality
– Require that they do Warn against interference No reprisals for participation Inquire about other witnesses Obtain documents
21
Witnesses Provide respondent meaningful
opportunity to respond to allegations
Follow up if there is new information (can interview same person twice)–confront
Return to complainant with new information, contradictory evidence
22
Preparing a Report Background /
allegations Mandate Process Documents
Witnesses
Policies Evidence Conclusions Recommendati
on
23
Report Assess credibility
Compare to evidence What has “air of reality”?
Don’t cop out – reach a conclusion Ensure it is supportable
24
After the Report Advise complainant and respondent
of outcome Take action based upon findings
– Discipline– Mediation– Training / counselling / courses– Apology– New policies / training for others
Design a HarassmentPolicy
Collaborate with workplace health and safety committee
Bill 132 Compliant – get legal advice! Clearly outline process at all stages
(reporting, gathering information, delivering results)
Avoid “zero tolerance” language
Implementing PoliciesA. Have a policyB. Use clear and unambiguous
languageC. Keep the policy up to dateD. Publicize the policyE. Make employees aware of concernsF. Ensure supervisors and managers
are aware of the policy and how to monitor
G. Monitor behaviourH. Discipline violators
27
Dismissals 2 types: With cause or
without cause
If with cause, no further obligation to employee
Otherwise, need to assess employee’s entitlements to
notice/pay in lieu/severance
No “near cause”
28
Just Cause: What Does the Employer
Prove?1. The alleged misconduct took place,
and2. that the nature or degree of misconduct
warranted dismissal, bearing in mind all relevant circumstances
Proportionality is guiding principle – “punishment must fit
the crime”
29
The Contextual Approach Employer must consider all
circumstances, not just alleged misconduct– Length of service– Disciplinary history– Nature of position– Response to allegation – Mitigating factors
Same set of facts can yield different results
30
Common Law: The Length of Notice
Requirement: “reasonable” notice of dismissal
The Bardal Factors 1) Length of service2) Age3) Position / Character of Employment4) Availability of Similar Employment
Can you package someone out instead of investigating misconduct?
Recent decision suggests employers may not be entitled to terminate without cause in order to 'side-step' the duty to investigate
Ontario Superior Court of Justice:“it is a triable issue whether the employer adopted the procedure intentionally to side step the criteria for fair treatment of an employee against whom cause is alleged”
When an employee is alleged to have engaged in misconduct, employers are expected to investigate before taking disciplinary action
Law is unclear at this point
32
Stuart E. [email protected]
York Region: 905-530-2484Toronto: 416-640-6402
www.rudnermacdonald.com
@CanadianHRLawConnect with me, join the
Canadian HR Law Group and visit the Rudner MacDonald Pagewww.rudnermacdonald.com/blog
www.hrreporter.com/blog/canadian-hr-law Rudner MacDonald Page
: Canadian HR Law, Rudner MacDonald PageRudner MacDonald channel