Canadian Employment Law Today

conversations about politics — or any other potentially sensitive topic — do not infringe on legislative obligations to protect employ- ees against discrimination and harassment. For one, employers would be wise to have workplace policies in place that specifically refer to the limits of workplace political dis- course. Such a policy would delineate when certain comments will not be tolerated, such as when they target an individual or group of people for their association with a protected ground under the code or the comments may be considered harassment more broadly. Short of a formal policy, employers may and should also lead by example. Supervi- sors play a significant role in shaping the culture of a workplace and their tactful in- volvement in informal office discussions could minimize the risk that employees will veer into risky subject matter. Employ- ers may train their supervisors on not only when to identify situations that may warrant a formal investigation or discipline, but also on how to foster an inclusive environment for all employees by their positive charac- ter. Paying close attention to social cues, understanding employee sensitivities, and providing practical guidance to remind em- ployees that they must speak up if they find themselves in an uncomfortable situation, are all important steps to creating an inclu- sive workplace environment. Moreover, a culture of shared responsibil- ity also facilitates a respectful workplace. In fact, an Internal Responsibility System un- derlies the OHSA, meaning that every per- son in a workplace has a role in maintaining a workplace free of harassment. Such a role means that employees must report incidents of workplace harassment, even if they are not the intended recipient of unwelcome com- ments. As soon as employees recognize that incidents of harassment and discrimination are as integral to their own health and safety as physical risks, they may feel motivated to protect and preserve their work environment against unwelcome conduct. Now, back to the issue of employees hav- ing such discussions in the workplace and slipping into offensive or discriminatory territory. While it's not practical or even ad- visable for employers to attempt to police or prohibit workplace banter, we can agree that seemingly pleasant conversations that turn into negative and exclusionary comments about Code-protected characteristics are not acceptable. That's why organizations should provide workplace communication training to help employees understand the boundar- ies of appropriate workplace communica- tions, including the verbal and non-verbal cues which may indicate when a co-worker is uncomfortable with a conversation. At the same time, employees should feel empow- ered to step up and make colleagues aware if they deem certain topics inappropriate and/ or offensive. Employees can and will engage in political commentary at work, but they should be thoughtful and inclusive, and em- ployers must take the lead in protecting their entire workforce. This isn't about stifling freedom of expression, but to help our teams understand that certain topical themes could be offensive and potentially discriminatory to work colleagues. It turns out that our grandparents' golden rule of communication may be as relevant as ever. For more information see: • British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 CarswellBC 3506 (S.C.C.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2019 February 20, 2019 | Canadian Employment Law Today CREDIT: WAVEBREAKMEDIA/SHUTTERSTOCK ABOUT THE AUTHOR Ioana Pantis Ioana Pantis is a lawyer at Williams HR Law in Markham, Ont., where she practices in all areas of management-side labour, employment, and human rights law. She can be reached at (905) 205-0496 ext. 220 or ipantis@williamshrlaw.com.

• Cover