In the wake of Bill 168 amendments to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace, many of our national employer clients are realizing that there are varying levels of statutory obligations across the country and they are asking, “What should we do?” Ontario was the third province to enact these types of workplace violence and harassment statutory requirements, following Quebec and Saskatchewan.

Our advice to national employers is that although an employer’s statutory obligations with respect to workplace violence and harassment vary in complexity depending on the jurisdiction, now is a good time to adopt one national standard, and that standard should contain explicit protection against workplace violence and psychological harassment. This will mean that the standards are consistent across the organization. Moreover, as the type of protections we have seen included in Quebec, Saskatchewan and Ontario extend to other jurisdictions, organizations will already be prepared.

Implementing national change will ensure that workplace violence and harassment is addressed consistently across the country. It will also likely save time in the long run if policies, programs and training are developed, amended and/or implemented nationally, as opposed to province by province.

Hena Singh

As Janice and I prepare for the Teleseminar on Bill 168 on April 8, 2010, I’ve come to realize that although the legislative amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act demonstrate the importance of addressing violence and harassment in the workplace, the amendments do not provide universal guidelines on how to do that.

As lawyers, we are tasked with guiding our clients to ensure compliance with legislative guidelines. Given that there is limited information in the legislation, employers must ensure that their workplace is properly evaluated and policies are properly crafted to address the needs and risks of the specific workplace. For example, it is becoming more and more apparent how company-specific risk assessments need to be. We must look at the physical features, social environments and policies and procedures which exist in each workplace to determine the best approach to conducting a risk assessment. In other words, there isn’t a set way to conduct a risk assessment.

The date that the amendments come into force is creeping up (June 15, 2010). If you haven’t yet begun to look at ensuring compliance in your workplace, the time to begin is now.

Hena Singh

Bill 168 received Royal Assent on December 15, 2009.  It will come into force on June 15, 2010. 

Hena Singh

Bill 168, which amends Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace, passed third reading yesterday.  It is anticipated that it will receive Royal Assent in the next couple of days.  It will come into force 6 months after it receives Royal Assent. 

Once in force, the legislative changes will impose several obligations on employers to conduct risk assessments, and develop and implement policies and programs, in an effort to reduce the incidents of violence and harassment in the workplace.

While 6 months may seem to be a long time to prepare for the Bill to come into force, employers should strongly consider conducting their risk assessments, policy and procedure drafting, and training and implementation as soon as possible as these can be lengthy and time consuming processes.  Employers who leave these items to the last minute may find themselves in non-compliance with the law come mid-2010.  The Occupational Health and Safety Act indicates that corporations that are in non-compliance with the Act can face penalties, including significant fines. 

Hena Singh

For those of you following the progress of Bill 168, which proposes to add explicit protections for employees against workplace violence and harassment, you will know that one of the trickier elements of the Bill is the requirement that employers perform a risk assessment of the workplace. The purpose of this assessment is to determine if any parts of the employer’s operation are vulnerable to acts of violence.  Unfortunately, in its current form, the Bill does not explain how such an assessment is to be done.

I had a conversation with a client just last week that provided a great example of the kind of potential risk that an employer might uncover through an assessment.  This client is a retailer, and operates out of several malls.  On occasion, members of the public have come into the store and have been difficult to deal with.  Some have been overly aggressive. Even more rarely, members of the public have behaved in a violent fashion in the presence of staff. Luckily, to date, this violence has been directed at the store itself, i.e. knocked down and smashed merchandise, not the employees.

When I was reviewing this situation with the client, they mentioned that they did not know how many of these incidents had occurred and which stores were more susceptible to customers behaving this way. Most importantly, the client indicated that they did not have emergency security buttons in the store, they did not have an established security protocol, nor did they train their employees to know what to do if there was an act of violence or a threat of violence.

I suspect this is not an uncommon situation for many businesses.  I plan to review this situation with my client in anticipation of the Bill coming into law.  For those of you struggling with how to approach an assessment, these types of incidents might be a good place to start.

Janice Rubin