Heightened Risk. Heightened Refusal?

chalermkeat chall/Ahutterstock

Canadian workplaces have to confront the reality of increased safety risks to workers if they are required to attend to work in essential services, such as healthcare or social services, during the current pandemic crisis. While they may face the increased pressures that come with potential increased risks, workers in Canada continue to have the protection of provincial health and safety legislation that includes the right to refuse work when they believe their own safety is in peril.

In healthcare, for example, nurses at the London Health Sciences Centre exercised this right as noted in this news article. The union representing the nurses alleged that the employer did not provide facemasks as part of a personal protective equipment (PPE) requirement for nurses working in a cancer clinic. In correctional services, prison guards in an Ottawa jail refused to work due to the lack of COVID-19 screening for people entering the jail, as noted in this news article.

Both situations provide us with textbook examples of the rationale for work refusal. It begins with the reasonable belief on the part of the worker that the working conditions are unsafe. The worker must alert the employer to the potential danger and indicate their intent to refuse to do the work. The employer must investigate and take corrective action(s) if there is an existing danger to the workers.

The challenge facing the employer in both situations is the increasing scarcity of masks for PPE and the lack of availability of COVID-19 screening and testing tools. How can the employer provide corrective measures if the equipment is just not available?

As a result, the increased vigilance and reactions in both examples are understandable. Additionally, any current situation where service workers feel that they are at risk is heightened by their growing sense of fear. Fear that they will contract the virus. Fear that they will unknowingly infect someone else. Fear that the consequences of exposure may end with devastating results.

While it seems almost impossible to separate the emotional reaction of fear from the recognition of a workplace hazard, the rules must prevail—as noted in this posting by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), which gives clear directions to unionized workers that “fear alone of a potential exposure will not be an adequate reason to refuse work.”

When people start to emotionally escalate into fear, it can quickly turn into panic and result in chaos. We need to help each other to de-escalate out of panic by providing rational and legitimate fact-based information. In a time of turbulence, it is important to go back to the basics and reinforce what the ground rules are for safety protection. The PSAC posting provides excellent and extensive information from a union perspective. From the employers’ side, the law firm of McCarthy Tetrault provides this posting that reiterates the ground rules and circumstances that must be followed in the case of work refusals in order to protect workers and workplaces.

Usually the union and the employer are on opposite sides of a work-related issue. In this current climate, it is heartening to know that the messages are unified in support of protecting each other with logic and reason, through the crisis of this COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are the conditions in your current place of work that could prompt a work refusal by employees?
  2. What measures can an employer put into place to provide additional protection for employees in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis?
  3. How can employees who work in service environments ensure that they are self-protecting and meeting their essential job requirements?

CPP: Time for Change

According to an often used saying, there are only two things that are certain: death and taxes.

The former usually comes as a result of aging. The latter comes as a result of working.

As Canadians, we live in a society that uses taxes or income deductions from those who are working in order to provide financial support for those who are aging and moving into retirement. Much has been written about the impact of the baby boomer generation (those that were born between the early 1950’s to the early 1960’s) on the economy. As the people from this age group start leaving the workforce, they will need to have saved earnings in order to support themselves financially.

Unfortunately, many Canadians do not have enough money set aside for this purpose, nor do all Canadian employers offer a pension plan that allows workers to save for their retirement. In order to supplement income for aging Canadians, the federal government provides financial support through Old Age Security (OAS) payments and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). It is a known fact that the number of Canadians approaching retirement over the next ten to twenty years exceeds the amount of funding that is available to support them. These factors have all come into play and have resulted in significant changes to the Canada Pension Plan, which will require more funding in order to provide for ongoing financial support to our fellow aging Canadians.

The changes to the CPP are being implemented well into the mid 2020’s. As the payments for CPP are processed through employer payroll deductions, all Canadian companies and employees will be impacted. Canadian HR reporter provides us with an overview of the upcoming changes. The video clip below includes practical advice on how to prepare for tracking the financial impact on both the organization and its employees as follows:

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JWLjskiFDc[/embedyt]

Even though the changes to the CPP program are intended to be gradual, both employers and employees will be impacted by the increased amounts that will, over time, appear to reduce the amount of an individual’s take-home pay. As such, another certainty will be the obligation of those responsible for compensation management, to ensure that all employees understand why these changes have been put into place.

Discussion Questions:

  1. As the Compensation Manager, prepare a brief communication to employees explaining how their pay will be impacted by changes to the CPP.
  2. How do the changes to the CPP benefit Canadian workers?
  3. In addition to the CPP, what types of pension or retirement plans would you advise an employer to put into place?
  4. Take a look at a recent pay stub from your current employer. How are the mandatory deductions identified? How are the CPP deductions calculated?

Safety Costs

iQoncept / Shutterstock

There are three key principles in the management of Human Resources. These are, in no particular order, the management of risk, the management of costs and the management of investments. When we apply these three principles to the management of people they help guide our Human Resources practices in a language that non-Human-Resources business leaders can understand.

These same principles apply to the management of Occupational Health and Safety. Risks, costs, and investments are concepts that make sense to business leaders whose main concern is the bottom line. It is our job as Human Resources practitioners to make the connection for business leaders between the bottom line and safe workplace practices. We are responsible for the people who are the resources impacting the fiscal health of every organization.

Nowhere is the need for the diligent Human Resources management of risks, costs, and investments clearer than in the emerging precedent-setting cases linked to workplace harassment. The financial penalties imposed on the employer for failing to providing a safe workplace are significant.

Click here to read about a recent case where an employer was ordered to pay damages as a result of workplace harassment.

If business leaders to do not understand the language used by Human Resources practitioners when we speak to the social need for safe workplaces, free from harassment of any kind, then we need to re-shape the language to get our points across. We need to use the language that makes sense and has an impact on business leaders in order for them to implement what is required by law.

Workplace harassment in Ontario falls under the scope of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in two distinct pieces of legislation. Bill 168 and Bill 132 both impose the legislative requirements for employers to ensure that workplaces are free from harassment of any kind. When the employer fails in these responsibilities, it is a failure of risk and investment management, resulting in significant costs.

Money talks. It is the job of Human Resources to make sure that people are listening.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How does risk management, cost management, and investment management apply to people management?
  2. How could you use these three principles to convince the leader of an organization to implement a harassment free workplace?
  3. What are ‘Wallace damages’? Why would these be a consideration when dealing with the employer’s responsibilities in an allegation of workplace harassment?

Pensions in Peril

Day Owl / Shutterstock

When companies go out of business, the extent of loss is significant. Sears Canada is yet another large retail provider that has made (or been forced to make) the unfortunate decision to close all of its services due to a lack of economic sustainability.

Along with all of the negative media exposure that came with Sears Canada’s inability to pay its employees their rightful severance and notice provisions, their existing pension plans are also in deep trouble.

According to a recent news item reported through Global News, Sears Canada had a Defined Benefits plan for its employees. What has come to light is the lack of funding on the part of the employer for that plan. The employer was obligated to provide financial support for the plan in order to ensure that the level of defined benefit would be available as required for employees once they moved into retirement and accessed their guaranteed pension funds.

This funding is not in place. What is more alarming, according to this news story, is that 30 % of companies in Ontario and an undetermined number in Quebec are in the same unfunded condition.

Click here to access the news story.

The article states that a defined pension plan provides for a set amount of funds to the retired employee, ‘at least in theory’. What we must learn from this example is that pension plans cannot be theoretical. The need is real for ongoing economic support, once employees make the decision to live on the income they think they have been promised, from their long-term employer.

There is another harsh lesson learned from this particular case. It reinforces the need for solid compensation planning, monitoring and adaptability on the part of the employer. Would the former employees of Sears Canada be better off if their employer had communicated the risks of the unfunded pension plan? Could some different decisions have been made before it was too late for those employees who envisioned a retirement plan based on a guaranteed level of income?

These are indeed theoretical questions that do little to help those employees facing poverty in retirement. This is a case of much too little, much too late.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How would you communicate the risks of a Defined Benefits Plan to employees in your organization?
  2. What steps could you put into place as a Compensation Manager to ensure that employee pensions are not in jeopardy?
  3. Identify the differences between a Defined Benefits Plan and a Defined Contributions Plan in order to convince your current employer to implement the one that is best for your organization.