Clear Path Blog

Office romances have the potential to complicate business operations. Risks such as workplace violence, domestic violence, harassment and sexual harassment could become an issue should the parties involve end their relationship and suffer emotional pain. Other concerns include:

• Accusations of favouritism
• Gossip can take a toll on professional image, workplace atmosphere
• Lowered morale and productivity

Any attempt to “ban” office romance is likely not going to solve problems and it not a reasonable solution to something that may be inevitable.  Your best defence is to outline some clear written policies that define the parameters of office romances in your organization, and send the message that employees should not let romantic relationships affect the professional work environment.  What should your policy include? Below are some tips when developing your policy.

• Employers should require employees to disclose to their manager when they have entered into a consensual romantic relationship, without infringing on their privacy. This allows for confirmation that the relationship is consensual, and offers the opportunity  to inform the two parties of your workplace harassment/sexual harassment policies (Bill 168), how to report complaints and most importantly expectations around conduct while in the workplace environment.
• Outline in your policy how you will manage alleged harassment or sexual harassment claims. Make employees aware of your zero tolerance policy. Refer to your policies that you would have developed in regards to Bill: 168 legislation.
• Be sure to include the steps that are taken by management should a complaint be submitted regarding the office relationship. Business owners/management are required to remain impartial and be sure that decisions made in dealing with the complaint are made on the basis of evidence presented after a proper investigation has been conducted .
• If complaint against an office relationship proves to be accurate, define penalties and disciplinary procedures appropriately. Ex. A couple is initiating in sexual liaisons and behaviour at work. It is affecting the work atmosphere and fellow employees are complaining. Outline in your policy what the consequences are for violating this clause of the office relationship policy. (ex. Discipline, transfer, demotion, suspension, termination)
• Define your policy for office relationship that involves a manager/supervisor and a subordinate. Dating a co-worker who reports to you can cause problems because other employees might accuse the manager or supervisor of playing favourites. Most organizations try to avoid these types of scenarios, and should a relationship happen, often one of the parties is transferred so there is no direct reporting.
• Lastly, be sure to address the expectations of both parties should the relationship end. When an office romance has gone bad there is risk for tension, gossip, workplace violence and potentially unwanted attention or harassment.  By addressing the expectations in your policy your employees will know and understand the consequences of their behaviour.

Avoid the legal ramifications often associated with workplace relationships by planning ahead and providing your employees with guidelines and education on the topic of office romance in your workplace before cupid’s arrow strikes. Perform a Workplace Risk Assessment and ensure your Bill: 168 Workplace Violence and Harassment policies are up to date, and well communicated to your staff. Remember to get your employees to sign off on their acknowledgement of your policy. Informing your employees that as an employer, you actively seek to identify and eliminate potential problematic situation which might result from office romance and sexual dynamics, is an excellent form of due diligence and displaying that your company is taking strong action to prevent favouritism, harassment and hostile work environments associated with office relationships.

Be sure to check out some office romance statistics in our February 2012 newsletter! 

Want updates on when new blogs are published?

Follow Clear Path on Twitter

Follow Clear Path's Company LinkedIn Page

June 15^th marks the one year anniversary of Ontario's Bill 168, an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act related to the prevention of Workplace Violence and Harassment. The McGuinty government passed the legislation with laudable intentions, namely that "everyone should be able to work without fear of violence or harassment, in a safe and healthy workplace."

However, Bill 168's rushed implementation and a lack of clear instruction for business owners has led to confusion for many employers about whether they are compliant or not. Ministry of Labour inspectors state that 80% of small businesses and 20% of large businesses are still not compliant with Bill 168.

This article will attempt to dispel some of the myths related to Bill 168 and help you get your business compliant:

Myth # 1: We already had a violence and harassment policy, so we must be compliant

This myth is incorrect in two important ways.

First, Bill 168 includes numerous requirements for employers that go well beyond the creation of a policy statement. In addition to creating effective policies, companies are required to:

• Perform annual Workplace Violence Risk Assessments
• Gather feedback from their employees
• Establish procedures for their staff (particularly on how to summon assistance and how to report an incident)
• Educate supervisors and workers on expanded Work Refusal rules
• Train their employees on all the elements of Bill 168

Second, Bill 168 significantly expanded the definition of both workplace violence and workplace harassment. Previously existing policy statements will likely not include these changes:

• The definition of workplace violence is no longer limited to a physical act, but now includes the threat of violence against a worker.

• Criteria for a harassment complaint was expanded beyond traditionally "protected grounds" (race, age, religion, etc.) to include "personal harassment" or bullying, which is any behaviour "that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome."

Myth # 2: We're a small company so we don't need to be compliant with Bill 168

All provincially regulated companies with at least one employee are required to be compliant with Bill 168. The only provision related to number of employees is that companies with less than 5 employees don't need to post their policies and procedures in a conspicuous place (however they do have to create them).

Myth # 3: We've never had an issue. There's no need to perform an Assessment

A recent study claimed that 79% of workers have witnessed a conflict in their workplace, either between co-workers or a customer. Most often this involved verbal abuse or harassment, but occasionally this escalated into violence. Assuming that your workplace has never had an issue may be incorrect.

Regardless, Bill 168 requires employers to complete a Workplace Violence Risk Assessment at least once per year. This assessment must include:

• Physical inspection of your workplace
• Identification of risk exposures and existing safeguards
• Document exposures for each role in your company (including sales and delivery persons)
• Review history of incidents in your company
• Research risks faced at similar businesses

Clear Path's easy to use Do-It-Yourself Package can help you perform this assessment. Click here for more details.

Myth # 4: If an employee doesn't share details of domestic abuse, you don't have to do anything about it

Bill 168 does not require employers to prevent domestic violence at an employee's home, but it does require them to take active steps to prevent domestic violence from entering the workplace (potentially impacting both the affected individual and other workers).

Employers are required to take action if they become aware or ought reasonably to be aware of the situation. This means that employers cannot turn a blind eye to someone with suspicious injuries and are required by law to take steps that may include:

• Investigating and assessing the level of risk
• Potentially preventing the accused party from entering the premises or attending a work-sanctioned event (i.e. holiday party)
• Notifying fellow employees who are likely to encounter the accused party

However, it is important to note that no more personal information shall be disclosed than is reasonably necessary to protect workers from physical injury.

Myth # 5: We did our Workplace Violence Risk Assessment last year. We're done.

Bill 168 requires employers to perform Workplace Violence Risk Assessments at least once per year and should do one if there is ever a significant change in workplace design or the nature of goods & services provided to customers.

In addition, employers must embrace the mindset that preventing workplace violence and harassment is an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance. Employees and supervisors will need refreshers and ongoing support to ensure that every reasonable step is taken to keep everyone safe from danger.

Conclusion: What is your company doing on this anniversary of Bill 168?

Join us for our "How to Perform a Workplace Violence Risk Assessment" workshop on June 15, 2011 at the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. Attendees of this hands-on session will receive a copy of Clear Path's easy-to-use Workplace Hazards Inspection tool and will gain tips on how to perform an effective assessment.

If you have any questions or would like to book a complimentary one hour consultation with certified HR professional Anna Aceto-Guerin, don't hesitate to contact us at (519) 624-0800 or by email at anna@clearpathemployer.com.

Maclean's magazine recently published an article by staff writer Colby Cosh on the difficult position Bill 168 puts Ontario employers in, particularly related to domestic violence in the workplace.

To read the article, follow this link: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/16/a-close-eye-out/

Background on Bill 168:

Bill 168 is an amendment to Ontario's Occupational Health & Safety Act (OHSA) that places new obligations on employers to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace. Among other things, it states that "If an employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace, the employer shall take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker."

This broad and poorly defined requirement has caused many employers to be anxious about having to disclose sensitive personal details about their workers to fellow employees, which in turn has made some employees less likely to discuss domestic violence with their employers.

An interesting insight from Cosh's piece: The coroner's jury report on the tragic murder of nurse Lori Dupont at Windsor's Hotel-Dieu Hospital [by ex-boyfriend and staff anaesthesiologist Marc Daniel], which served as an impetus for the legislative change, requested "a review of the OHSA to examine the feasibility of including domestic violence (from someone in the workplace)." But when the legislation was presented, it was broadened to include domestic violence in the workplace from external parties.

Noteworthy quotations from the Maclean's article:

• Lawyer Andy Balaura of Pallett Valo: "It is unclear what an employer must do to properly discharge [his] duty" to be aware of threats to his staff from their own partners and families."
• Norm Keith of Gowling Lafleur Henderson: "It is difficult to understand how employers will be able to prevent domestic violence from spilling over into the workplace. At minimum, the domestic violence provisions of Bill 168 create potential liability for employers while having questionable benefits for the prevention of domestic violence."
• Cheryl Edwards of Heenan Blaikie: "We don't recommend that our clients start pre-emptively questioning all employees. But if something comes to your attention-perhaps a physical indication of an assault-then your obligation to protect is engaged."
• Ontario Chamber of Commerce president, Len Crispino: "For a large company with a human resources department, compliance with this provision might be relatively easy. But the burden of interpretation it imposes on a smaller company already facing a large universe of regulation is tremendous."

Clear Path has helped dozens of Ontario employers become compliant with Bill 168. To learn about how Clear Path can help your company, including details of our Bill 168 Do-It-Yourself Package and Trainings, please contact Anna at (519) 624-0800 or anna@clearpathemployer.com.

The TV program "Grey's Anatomy" (ABC) ended its 6th season with a shockingly violent episode where the disgruntled husband of a recently deceased patient returns to the hospital with a gun and plans to kill those he blames for his wife's death. Over the course of the 2 hour episode, numerous characters were injured or killed.

Although this is a fictional TV drama and your business may not face the same logistical concerns as a major U.S. hospital, the episode did highlight a number of issues related to workplace violence and the recent legislative changes in Ontario under Bill 168, including: 

• Most workplaces are totally unprepared for a violent incident and may not know how to effectively notify fellow employees about the danger or how to evacuate the building
• Even if the offender has an intended target, innocent bystanders (employees, customers) are likely to be injured as well
• Employees may assume that a "general" warning is a drill and not take it seriously
• Workers may inadvertently assist the perpetrator with entry into the building or provide directions on how to find the intended victim (such as Sandra Oh's character does)
• Most businesses do not have controlled entrances, making it easy for unwanted members of the public to enter the premises
• The shock and chaos created by a violent incident can make employees unsure about what action to take, how to summon assistance, and how to keep themselves out of harm's way
• PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) for employees directly and indirectly impacted by the violent incident is likely and may have long-term consequences for your workforce. It will be interesting to watch how Grey's Anatomy handles this in their new season.
• Healthcare providers are more likely to be victims of workplace violence than the general public

To learn more about Ontario's Bill 168 (Workplace Violence & Harassment legislation), contact Anna Aceto-Guerin at (519) 624-0800 or plan to register for one of our upcoming learning sessions.

By David Guerin, Clear Path Employer Services (2010)

Bizarre video of an Ohio woman becoming violent and vandalizing a McDonald's drive-thru window when she was not able to purchase Chicken McNuggets during the early breakfast hours. The incident occured in January 2010 but was released to the media in August 2010.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/mcnugget-rage-grips-woman/article1667750/

Story details how a man with a pistol held up a Toronto restaurant for several hours. The restaurant was evacuated, but the manager had to lock himself in an office for protection. Thankfully, the incident ended and the man was arrested before any injuries occurred.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/23/toronto-swiss-chalet.html