Canadian HR Reporter

CanaDian hr reporTer July 14, 2014 INsIGHt 15 Ontario: Please come back to the CCHRA HRPA's decision to withdraw from national body opposite of protecting public interest A colleague and I recently published an ar- ticle at the university of saskatchewan on Canada's approach to the professionaliza- tion of HR. we claimed Canada was fur- ther ahead in this process than the united states, notwithstanding our smaller size and newer professional associations. Canada, it appeared, was seeking to uphold higher standards and aspiring to enlightened profes- sional values such as balancing interests between employers, em- ployees and broader society. As a result, we argued, the Certified Human Resources Professional (CHRP) designation was faring somewhat better with regard to credibility than the professional HR designations in the U.S. One of the reasons for this was the federal structure of the Cana- dian Council of Human Resources Associations (CCHRA). Although there were tensions, the CCHRA fostered interprovincial dialogue, sought to harmonize standards across provinces and allowed the potential for an occupational iden- tity to form for HR professionals across the country. Conflict and tension across provinces can fos- ter creativity and innovative solu- tions if they are embraced. Until very recently, CCHRA appeared to mostly transcend entrenched provincial politics in favour of enlightened self-in- terest. e decision by Ontario's Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) to leave the CCHRA is the exact opposite of what I would have recommended to continue on this path. It is also the exact opposite of protecting the public interest. We have to acknowledge On- tario's sheer size compared to the other provinces. e money it puts into the CCHRA is sub- stantial. (Although less per capita than any other province, the total amount is still more than other provinces). It essentially serves the same purpose as provincial transfer payments, and the HRPA board has the right to hold the CCHRA accountable for how these resources are used. Having said that, Ontario seems to have forgotten that, by virtue of the federated model, it was a major player in the CCHRA. e voting model used by the CCHRA for some time has provided On- tario with more power over many of the decisions, direction and actions of the CCHRA than any other province. A failure of the whole is a failure of each of the parts. HRPA can be more effective working within the structure than outside of it, and I believe Ontario will come to real- ize it needs the CCHRA as much as the CCHRA needs it. Its members will want and de- mand a consistent standard of practice across the country. Its members will want and demand reciprocity with other jurisdic- tions. Its members will want and demand a unified voice and ef- ficient infrastructure to support the ever-increasing demands on the profession. The CCHRA is not without its problems. It has cumbersome decision-making processes that need to be re-assessed, a volun- teer structure that can be prob- lematic for ensuring commitment and continuity, and a governance model that requires greater ac- countability. The CCHRA also needs to find a way to engage more with Quebec. However, if you try to think for even one moment of creative so- lutions to the problems in a way that can leverage economies of scale, prioritize quality assurance for the CHRP designation, reduce disparities between provinces and elevate the entire Canadian HR profession, pulling out of the CCHRA is not the first option that comes to mind (it's not even close to the top of the list). Without a strong national as- sociation, every province and HR professional across the country ultimately loses. In a time of ever- increasing interprovincial labour mobility, there cannot be a tier- one HR profession in Ontario if the profession isn't elevated in other provinces at the same time. Provincial associations working at cross-purposes to each other can only result in a profession that is seen by stakeholders as lack- ing professionalism, consistent standards and demonstrating an inability to work together for the common good. at's ironic con- sidering HR professionals are of- ten required to balance competing interests between employers and employees within organizations. Democracy is inefficient but it is the most valuable system we have to ensure the best outcomes possible where there are compet- ing interests, and protection of the public is truly a primary concern. Acts that give provincial HR associations the power to self- regulate do not stop these asso- ciations from working together to protect the public interest. Setting aside legal regulation, I'm fairly certain protection of the public interest doesn't look any different in Ontario than it does in Mani- toba, Nova Scotia or Alberta. It is about ensuring both the compe- tent practice and ethical conduct of HR professionals through stan- dards, education and monitor- ing. And it is about ensuring HR professionals receive the support they need to uphold critical HR values and principles by creating for members some autonomy to make the right decisions in their day-to-day work. If we do these pieces well, we won't need to market our profes- sion as much — HR professionals will do it themselves. HRPA has had tremendous in- fluence in the CCHRA since its inception, and has been a critical partner in elevating the HR pro- fession across the country. HRPA has assisted other provinces in understanding and navigating self-regulation, and its staff have been integral in providing services (both through ongoing contracts and advice offered free of charge) to provinces that do not have the capacity internally. I sincerely hope that one day Ontario decides to come back. And to the remaining provin- cial members of the CCHRA, I have great faith in the HR profes- sionals across the country who have committed to working tire- lessly to foster interprovincial collaboration, enhance standards for the profession and build an improved, yet united, CCHRA. Transcending provincial politics to work together toward the com- mon good is critical to succeed in both elevating the HR profession and protecting the public interest. Dionne Pohler is a professor at the University of Saskatchewan in the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy. She was previously on the board of the Saskatchewan Associ- ation of Human Resources Profession- als (SAHRP), a member of the CCHRA Standards Advisory Committee, and chair of the CCHRA Academic Com- munity Consultation Committee. She can be reached at dionne.pohler@us- ask.ca. Dionne Pohler Guest Commentary Public opposition to union organizing Where do you draw the line between an employer expressing opposition to a union drive and actually interfering? Question: Can an employer publicly oppose a union-organizing drive with- out interfering with workers' rights to organize? Answer: Labour relations statutes in all Canadian jurisdictions con- tain unfair labour practice provi- sions designed to prevent employ- ers from interfering in union-or- ganizing campaigns at their work- place. Employers are prohibited, for example, from dismissing or disciplining employees because they have engaged in union activi- ties or from using coercion or in- timidation to persuade employees to oppose unionization. But employers are not required to remain completely silent — all Canadian labour statutes give them at least some ability to com- municate with employees while union organizing is underway. However, the nature and extent of an employer's communication rights vary among provinces. In British Columbia, the Labour Relations Code was amended in 2002 to broaden an employer's right to express its views during certification and decertification campaigns. While coercion and in- timidation are still prohibited, B.C. employers have an expanded right to communicate opinions about union representation. In Con- vergys Customer Management Canada Inc. v. B.C.G.E.U., the B.C. Labour Relations Board stated: "Taken as the whole, the Legis- lature's amendments to sections 2, 6(1) and 8 reflect important judg- ments about the ability of employ- ees to make free choices about union representation, despite at- tempts to influence their decision- making through the expression of views that are not coercive or in- timidating. e amendments re- flect the confidence that a reason- able employee can make inquiries and assess these views, knowing that most often, their employer will view their participation in a union and collective bargaining as contrary to the employer's self- interest. Hence, the expression of non-coercive or non-intimidating views based on the preference to resist certification are prima fa- cie protected by section 8 and do not constitute interference for the purposes of section 6(1). is reasoning equally applies if views are expressed in what might be characterized a campaign to influ- ence employees' decision-making about union representation. In the absence of a deliberate lie, it is not the board's role to police the ac- curacy or reasonableness of views expressed in accordance with sec- tion 8." B.C. employers can express opinions in opposition to union organizing, as long as they do not use coercion or intimidation. In RHM Teleservices Internation- al Inc., the employer responded to a union-organizing drive by tell- ing employees it preferred to re- main non-union and handing out gifts such as plastic sand pails and shovels filled with popcorn, with the message that the union did not secure work, bring in business or provide job security. e employ- er also distributed water bottles, notepads, and chocolate bars en- couraging employees to question the union about the changes that could result from unionization. None of these actions were found to be a breach of the code. However, the rules are more re- strictive in other Canadian juris- dictions. In Ontario, for example, the Ontario Labour Relations Board in its 1988 decision C.J.A., Local 27 v. Povoa Carpentry Trim ruled that it is unlawful in- terference for an employer to tell employees that both they and the company would be better off if they were represented by one union over another. Employers should obtain legal advice regarding the steps that can lawfully be taken in the jurisdic- tion in which the union organiz- ing is occurring. For more information see: • Convergys Customer Manage- ment Canada Inc. v. B.C.G.E.U., 2003 CarswellBC 2202 (B.C. Lab. Rel. Bd.). • RHM Teleservices International Inc., BCLRB No. B345/2003 (B.C. Lab. Rel. Bd.). • C.J.A., Local 27 v. Povoa Carpen- try Trim, 1988 CarswellOnt 1289 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). Colin G.M. Gibson is a partner at Harris and Company in Vancouver. He can be reached at (604) 891-2212 or cgibson@harrisco.com. Colin Gibson Toughest hr Question Provincial associations working at cross- purposes to each other can only result in a profession that is seen as lacking professionalism and consistent standards. All Canadian labour statutes give employers at least some ability to communicate with employees while union organizing is underway.

• Cover