Legislative Change

Balance made of people
Source: Arthimedes/Shutterstock

We are lucky, as Canadians, that we live in a society that tries to provide emergency and crisis support when we need it.  We are also very lucky that these services are provided by skilled and qualified professionals who take on the role of First-Responder when emergencies and crises happen.  First-Responders are usually fire fighters, paramedics, and police officers, among others, who take care of us when we need them the most.  On the other hand, who is taking care of First-Responders when the level of crises become insurmountable for those who provide emergency services to us?

There has been a visible and pro-active push through social media and general media campaigns to promote and discuss the impact of on-going crisis response as experienced by First-Responders in the form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  While the level of awareness about the impact of PTSD on First-Responders is increasing, so too has the need to have an increase in the formal recognition of PTSD as a ‘legitimate’ work-related illness in Ontario.  To date, First- Responders impacted by PTSD have not been able to access intervention and support through traditional worker’s compensation and benefits due to the stigma associated with PTSD as a mental illness and the lack of recognition that their PTSD stems directly from the workplace.

The issue of PTSD may affect thousands of workers from different unions.  This has provided an opportunity for several unions to come together and push for much needed legislative change in the province of Ontario.

Click Here to Read the Article

The power and positive impact of the collective voice is clear.  On April 6, 2016, “Bill 163 Supporting Ontario’s First Responders Act (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) 2016,” received Royal Assent.

Click Here to Read the Bill 

Though the path to make legislative changes may be difficult, it is so important to ensure that successful change is possible and that the end-result truly provides a benefit to everyone.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Why does PTSD need to be recognized as a work-related illness through Bill 163?
  2. Outline the steps that are required for an issue to move through a legislative process and to become law.
  3. What types of programs can an employer put into place to provide resources and support for workers who may be impacted by PTSD?

Good Faith vs. Bad Faith

Nothing seems to drive a collective bargaining process into the ground more than the perception that one of the parties is not playing by the rules.  A key principle, that is enshrined in the legal process of collective bargaining, is the concept of bargaining in good faith.

It is, in fact, more than just a concept.

When parties agree to bargain in good faith, they agree to honour the rules that they make with each other before the bargaining process even begins.  These mutually agreed upon rules include items such as how communication will happen to each of the parties’ respective constituencies and, in the case of public sector bargaining, how information will be communicated to the public at large.  The setting of the ground rules between the parties is as serious as the content and the issues that are discussed at the bargaining table.  Setting the ground rules for bargaining is part of the legal environment and processes that enable fair, honest, and open negotiations to take place.

As with all kinds of rule based settings, when one of the parties appears to be breaking the rules or does not seem to be playing by the rules, the other party gets upset.  When this happens, the other party typically reacts in a negative way, which is not a surprise!  Suddenly, the issues at the table take second place, as the negotiations process stalls and hostile allegations of bad faith bargaining start to take hold.

This seems to be the case as the collective bargaining process continues to unfold in the education sector in Ontario.

Click here to read the article.

What makes this particular bargaining process more complex is that there are three parties at bargaining table: the government, the union, and the provincial association representing public school boards.  Resolutions to these types of allegations and bargaining processes are never easy.  Hopefully, all of the parties will be able to see their way through the layers of complexity and conflict in order to find a way to negotiate and to honour the bargaining process between them.

Discussion questions

  1. What was the agreed upon rule that appears to have been broken?
  2. What are the possible implications of filing a claim of bad faith with the Labour Board?
  3. Why is the issue of communication so important to each of the parties in this process?
  4. As a member of one of the bargaining teams, what steps would you take to resolve these allegations?