Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER March 7, 2016 NEWS 9 Prepared for Barbara Smith CHRL Date: January 20, 2016 It's FREE and the best 30 minute investment you can make to advance your career. HRPA.ca/CPDassessment HRPA's new CPD Needs Analysis Self-Assessment tool helps you take a strategic approach to your HR career. Evaluate your current skills and knowledge using a 30-minute online evaluation (based on HRPA's professional competency framework) and pinpoint the continuing professional development you need to develop your capabilities. • Identify your skills gaps • Prioritize your CPD requirements • Receive annual development recommendations • Discover the skills you need to advance your career Prepared for Barbara Smith CHRL Date: January 20, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................... 3 About the HRPA Professional Competency Framework .................... 4 Your organization and you .................... 6 Your Self-Assessment Results YOUR ASSESSMENT SUMMARY .................... 7 1. STRATEGY .................... 8 2. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE .................... 9 3. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS .................... 10 4. WORKFORCE PLANNING AND TALENT MANAGEMENT .................... 11 5. LABOUR AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS STRATEGIES .................... 12 6. TOTAL REWARDS .................... 13 7. LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT .................... 14 8. HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SAFE WORKPLACE .................... 15 9. HUMAN RESOURCES METRICS, REPORTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT .................... 16 Your Personal Development Plan Introduction .................... 18 Certificate Programs .................... 19 Workshops & Seminars .................... 21 Webcasts .................... 23 Enabling Competencies .................... 25 Conferences .................... 26 Hot Topics .................... 27 "I don't care how informal you are, but as soon as you get into touching and caressing and com- menting, you are going to be fac- ing a formal process." Complaint process Stockdale did not consider his comments fl irtatious or inappro- priate, and apparently saw them as part of his role to boost people's confi dence and keep up morale, found the tribunal. "Whether or not the personal respondent was told the conduct was unwelcome by the appli- cant, he ought reasonably to have known that persistent comments about the physical attributes of the people working with him and for him were unwelcome." Stockdale tried to argue that the issues were never brought to his attention — but if it happened, it happened, said Pugen. "If it's not brought to your at- tention, perhaps there's an adverse inference that it never happened because 'If it did happen, you would have talked to me about it.' But things aren't that simple in terms of how you react to harass- ment or inappropriate conduct in the workplace, especially when there's a power imbalance be- tween the boss and subordinates." Panucci's reluctance to con- front Stockdale did not give the tribunal reason to conclude the conduct did not occur or was un- welcome, said Kwasniewski. " is is one more reason why a workplace culture that condones such conduct is dangerous from a code compliance perspective. e (tribunal) recognizes that people may not come forward, for fear of reprisals. is is why having a ha- rassment policy (including sexual harassment) in place is impor- tant," he said. "You can carry out discrimina- tory conduct without meaning it — you don't have to intend to discriminate to be found by the tribunal to have engaged in un- lawful discrimination." Case law has shown that indi- viduals will sometimes be victims of unwelcome conduct but persist in staying at the workplace for var- ious reasons, such as sustenance, said Khan. " e fact that someone decides to continue to work in the face of unwelcome conduct doesn't nec- essarily mean the condemnation or acceptance of that conduct." And with a small employer, a potential victim of misconduct or unwelcome conduct really has a black-and-white choice — she either stays or leaves, he said. " ey don't have a whole hier- archy to work through, they don't have the opportunity to move to a diff erent department, make a complaint; they either leave the workplace and make a complaint or try and continue, as long as they're able to do that." Award amount In assessing the award amount, the tribunal referred to the 2013 case Smith v. The Rovers Rest, which reviewed amounts given for sexual harassment and related issues, ranging from $12,000 to $50,000. For this case, "while the unwanted comments appeared to have been ubiquitous, the instanc- es of unwanted physical contact were fewer and less serious than that found in some of the cases referenced," said adjudicator Jay Sengupta. However, the "objective seri- ousness" of the harassment was signifi cant, he said. "Unwelcome comments about one's appearance or feeling that one has to submit to unwanted physical contact in the workplace are, by any objective standard, demoralizing in their impact and would leave most people feeling devalued and under stress. "In this case, given that the source of the unwanted com- ments and touching was a person the applicant relied upon for ad- vice and who was in a mentor- ing relationship, the conduct is even more serious, when viewed objectively." e amount awarded fell with- in the lower end of the scale, said Kwasniewski, and not all of Pa- nucci's complaints were accepted by the tribunal. "If all the applicant's claims were accepted, then the dam- ages would likely have been more than the $15,000 awarded," he said, adding the agent also did not make any claim for income loss. But Pugen was surprised by the amount. "To be blunt, I wasn't expecting $15,000, I was expecting around $7,500," he said. "I think a lot of employers would be surprised at the award." "If you look at the allegations that were substantiated, really, at the end of the day, it's a hug and a touch to the shoulder. So I'm not downplaying the seriousness of the misconduct but I think many employers and many HR manag- ers would be surprised that that conduct, which some people may do every day or without a second thought, would result in damages of $15,000." It's also notable that Panucci didn't resign because of the ha- rassment but because she wasn't doing well as a real estate agent, said Pugen. And the agent didn't provide any medical evidence of her dis- tress, he said, adding for a small brokerage house, $15,000 is a sig- nifi cant amount. e award is consistent with pri- or awards where there is a fi nding of misconduct but it's not so egre- gious that it puts the award at the high end of the scale, said Khan. "It's not conduct that resulted in loss of employment, she was likely leaving the industry anyway… so it's not as though this was a long- term employment relationship that came to an end as a result of conduct that was more egregious on the scale of things." ere's a lot of discretion around the scope of the awards, he said. "If the award is low, what mes- sage does it send? 'It's the cost of doing business.' At a certain level, it's always going to be the cost of doing business, but if it's lower (employers may think) 'Let's take our chances — if the worst result is we have to pay $10,000… and not have to pay any of a complain- ant's costs, legal costs, it's not re- ally a big deal.'" But employers should expect an upward tick in amounts over time, said Khan. "Some of the reference points for the earlier awards are awards that were given four, fi ve, seven, eight years ago, so one should not expect awards to be static over time." HARASSMENT < pg. 8

• Cover