Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER February 8, 2016 INSIGHT 19 HRPA's regulatory agenda revisited It's been seven years since my article "Regulatory agenda at HRPA" ran in Canadian HR Reporter, so I thought this might be a good time to refl ect on what has happened since then and where the regulatory agenda is at in 2015. e 2008 article started out by explaining that the Human Re- sources Professionals Association (HRPA) was a professional regula- tory body by virtue of the Human Resources Professionals Associa- tion of Ontario Act, 1990, and, as such, the overarching objective of the regulatory organization with- in HRPA is to protect the public by ensuring human resources man- agement professionals are com- petent and act ethically. A second objective was added to move the profession forward along the path of professionalization. e 2008 article then laid out a three-pronged approach to ac- complish these two objectives: 1. Develop awareness and clar- ity around the whole concept of professional regulation in human resources management, both within the profession and within the public. 2. Foster a sense of ownership, re- sponsibility and accountability in regards to regulatory matters on behalf of all members of the profession. 3. Move forward with the contin- ued professionalization of hu- man resources management in Ontario. A lot has happened since 2008, some foreseen, some not. The 2008 article ended with this: "At some time in the future, if HRPA were ever to go back to the province to ask for additional regulatory powers, the fi rst thing the province would likely ask is 'How well did you do with the regulatory powers you were en- trusted with so far?' We want to make sure there is no doubt HRPA is fully accountable for its regulatory responsibilities." In 2008, it was thought that get- ting a public act would be a 10- to 15-year project as it had been with our fi rst act. However, our new act was fi rst introduced in the legis- lature in 2010 as Bill 138. It was reintroduced as Bill 28 and fi nally as Bill 32 before being passed and receiving royal assent in Novem- ber 2013. Either in anticipation of the pas- sage of our new act or as a result of its coming into force, HRPA's reg- ulatory processes and procedures were completely reinvented. e one aspect that had not been foreseen in 2008 was the changes to the designation frame- work. In 2008, we were in the pro- cess of updating the knowledge exam to refl ect the updates that had been made to the HR Body of Knowledge (more familiarly known as the Required Profes- sional Capabilities or RPCs). ese updates had been relatively minor tweaks to the 1998 HR Body of Knowledge. However, there was a growing consensus that a fresh look at HR competencies was needed. It took a bit of time to get this project off the ground but it gathered mo- mentum and HRPA's new Human Resources Professional Compe- tency Framework was published in 2014. A new designation frame- work was designed to align with the three levels of HR practice identifi ed in the framework. And, fi nally, updated certifi ca- tion processes were designed for each of the designations. This work is well underway and will continue for a few more years still. With all this, our understand- ing of the regulatory agenda has grown exponentially. e professionalization of HR, which was still a new idea in 2008, has now become the overarching concept, encompassing both the enhancement of the competence and professionalism of HR profes- sionals and the establishment of a strong, professional regulatory body that has the confi dence of all stakeholders. If the article was published to- day, it would probably be titled "Professionalization agenda at HRPA" and regulation would be seen as a strand in this profes- sionalization agenda. What the 2008 article had rec- ognized is public perception is an important aspect. Becoming more competent and professional is a good thing, no doubt, but if the public doesn't recognize this is so, it really doesn't work. Establishing a professional regulatory body that has the con- fidence of all stakeholders will lead to enhanced protection of the public, but if the public is not aware of this, it really doesn't quite work. HRPA still has a way to go in regards to changing the public's perception of HR, but we have put in place the right foundation to make it happen. Success depends ultimately on changing societal perceptions of the HR profession — but to do that, we needed to take the fi rst concrete steps. To change the public percep- tion regarding the competence and professionalism of HR profes- sionals, we needed to implement a new designation framework based on a new competency profi le. To change the public perception that HR professionals registered with HRPA are governed and regulated by a professional regulatory body that acts in the public interest and that HR professionals regis- tered with HRPA are accountable to their professional regulatory body, we needed to fully imple- ment the regulatory processes laid out in our new act. But doing so doesn't guarantee the public will take notice. It is important to do these things in a way that ensures that. Of course, changing perceptions takes time, but that is the course we are on. Ownership, responsibility, accountability e second prong — fostering a sense of ownership, responsibil- ity, and accountability in regards to regulatory matters on behalf of all members of the profession — is arguably still very much a work in progress. For many members of HRPA, it is not clear that becom- ing a professional regulated by public act has made any diff erence as compared to when the profes- sion was governed by private act. Yet, as the association fully en- joins its mandate of protecting and promoting the public inter- est by making full use of the tools provided for in the act, the diff er- ences will become more apparent. A challenge for HRPA members will be to fully absorb or integrate the regulatory aspects into our identity as a profession. e only reason to focus on the professionalization of HR is the belief that the professionalization of HR is good for the profession and its members and good for the public. It stems from the belief HR has a lot to contribute to society, and the professionalization of HR will maximize this contribution. If professionalization were done solely to further the interests of the profession and its members, it would not get the necessary so- cietal sanction. If professionaliza- tion were done solely to further the interests of the public, there would be nothing in it for HR professionals and the whole pro- fessionalization project would go nowhere. In 2008, no one could have predicted how quickly some of the "wins" would have happened. Now, we are entering a diff erent phase of the professionalization project — that of changing how the profession is understood by both its members and the public. As former British prime minis- ter Winston Churchill once said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Claude Balthazard is vice-president of regulatory aff airs at the Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) in Toronto. He can be reached at (416) 923-2324 x. 327 or cbalthaz- ard@hrpa.ca. Revealing information during investigations How can employers try to keep things confi dential from other employees? Question: If an employer is investigating a harassment complaint, how much infor- mation about the circumstances or who is being interviewed should be revealed to the complainant and witnesses being interviewed? How can their identities be protected from other employees in an open workplace? Answer: In conducting an investi- gation of a harassment complaint, the interview process will nor- mally begin with interviews with the complainant and respondent, during which a list of witnesses will be identifi ed. As the investiga- tion proceeds, additional witness- es are often identifi ed. e identi- ties of the new witnesses need not be revealed to the complainant as their identities are not relevant to investigating the substance of the complaint. In the interview process, wit- nesses should only be provided with enough information to direct their minds to the relevant infor- mation they possess or events they observed. To protect the confi dentiality of the parties to the complaint, witnesses should be given as little information as possible. Witnesses should not be in- formed of the nature of the com- plaint. The investigator should not show witnesses a copy of the complaint form, nor provide any details relating to the circum- stances of the complaint. But the investigator may advise a witness that the employer is investigat- ing a complaint and that the wit- ness' name has been provided as someone who potentially pos- sesses information relevant to the investigation. Revealing unnecessary details about the complaint or investiga- tion not only poses a concern to the confi dentiality of the parties to the complaint, but also imposes barriers to the employer's ability to conduct an eff ective investiga- tion. For instance, when certain witnesses become aware of un- necessary details during the in- terview process, they may form a version of the events relating to the complaint in their minds, which may then shape the an- swers they provide. Oftentimes, going into an inter- view, a witness may already have some knowledge of the nature of the complaint through talking to the parties prior to being warned about confi dentiality, or through word spreading around the offi ce. e investigator may start interviews by asking witnesses if they know why they are being interviewed. If a witness is already familiar with the circumstances surround- ing the complaint, the investigator does not need to worry as much about evading mention of the circumstances. Realistically, it is very diffi cult to protect the identities of witnesses from other employees in an open workplace. e employer should clearly emphasize that confi den- tiality must be maintained by all. e employer may also warn all employees involved in the inves- tigation that if they breach confi - dentiality, they may be subject to discipline. At the beginning of the in- terviews with the complainant and respondent, the investigator should remind them of their con- fi dentiality obligation. e confi - dentiality obligation encompasses the fact a complaint has been fi led, the details of the complaint, the fact there is an investigation be- ing conducted and anything dis- cussed during the interview. Similarly, each witness should be given the same caution regard- ing their obligation to maintain confidentiality and to not dis- close anything discussed during the interview. Witnesses should also be reminded not to discuss the interview with the complain- ant or respondent, and that if the complainant or respondent ap- proaches them about the matter, they should report back to the employer. Tim Mitchell practices management- side labour and employment law at Norton Rose Fulbright's Calgary offi ce. He can be reached at (403) 267-8225 or tim.mitchell@nortonrosefulbright. com. How can employers try to keep things confi dential from other employees? Question: If an employer is investigating a harassment complaint, how much infor- mation about the circumstances or who is being interviewed should be revealed Tim Mitchell TOUGHEST HR QUESTION Realistically, it's very diffi cult to protect the identities of witnesses. Professionalization of HR is good for the profession, members and the public. It's been seven years since my article "Regulatory agenda at HRPA" ran in so I thought this might be a good time to refl ect on what has happened since then and where the regulatory agenda is at in Claude Balthazard GUEST COMMENTARY

• Cover