|
|
Report Kept Secret
Human Resources Allows Harassment to Persist?
In this instance the Human Resources department failed to act to stop harassment of several female employees. This is not the only instance of Human Resources failing to stop harassment of other employees. However, in this situation there was an investigation conducted by an outside Ombudsperson in the fall of 2003.
Management issued a simplistic and misleading overview of the report which appears to blame the manager of the Security Office when in fact the blame lay squarely with various senior managers, allegedly;
- Associate Vice President Human Resources (David Mahy),
- Manager of Labour Relations (Stephanie Williams), and
- Directory of Physical Resources (John Wordley).
These managers are alleged to have allowed two security officers (Brenda Whetung and Randy Grimms) to conduct a long standing campaign of harassment of other employees as well as allowing their insubordination. Apparently because of the very lack of action on the part of these senior managers, the harassment was exacerbated as their inaction offered tacit approval. The victims themselves, as well as others, repeatedly made these senior managers aware of the harassment of the victims as well as others yet they did not intervene to stop it. It is worth noting that apparently Mr. Grimms often made others aware that his wife holds the position of Administrative Assistant to the Vice President Academic, perhaps to further intimidate his victims and suggest his own invincibility to reprimand. Indeed Mr. Grimms and Ms. Whetung both have retained their positions with, apparently, nothing more than being docked a week's pay.
Mr. Mahy has a record of allowing managers under his guidance and authority to harass employees with what trial judge Dyson described as "almost sadistic resolve" in his decision in Prinzo v. Baycrest (Mr. Mahy was
Director of Employee Services at Baycrest - a similar position the one he currently occupies at Trent).
The Ombudsperson's report confirms the evidence of management malfeasance already set before the Board of Governors. THe Board has been asked to conduct an independent, arm's length investigation. Instead of conducting an investigation Trent has tried to bury that evidence.
Similarly,Trent management has refused to release the Ombudsperson's report to the community. Even OPSEU (the union supposedly representing the employees who were subjected to the campaign of harassment) agreed with management to keep the report "confidential".
One has to wonder why, and to whose benefit, the veil of "confidentiality" has been used to prevent the release of the full report, hide the identity of the responsible managers and to keep their aberrant behaviour secret.
There must be full disclosure in order to monitor corrective action and institutional progress towards positive outcomes. Otherwise there is no way to assure managers cease harassing and bullying employees. Without transparency how will we monitor progress?
Instead of transparency and making public the full report, Trent and OPSEU officials posted a skimpy and somewhat misleading "overview":
December 2003
OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
An Overview
The investigation was launched in the fall of 2003 and on consent of OPSEU and the University Ms. Beverly Robson, acting as Ombudsperson, conducted the said investigation.
Robson's investigation was initiated as a result of a grievance filed and subsequently settled that alleged discrimination and harassment was occurring.
Robson's findings are expressed throughout the report and are best characterized as:
"The harassment and bullying in this case has been going on for numerous years..by the same employees who still harass her today. The issue, however, was not seen and understood by Management for what it was."
"The excessive dysfunctionality in the Security Office makes it difficult to recognize and label all the symptoms. The very nature of harassment and bullying is often one of subtlety and cover up. But what is clear is that these actions [ongoing harassment and bullying of co-workers], along with inappropriate management strategies within the office are the reasons for the dysfunction."
"This report reveals what has been referred to in two previous reports [ Taylor ] and [Hart]. as 'interpersonal conflict' as something far more serious in its intent, impact and longevity. Management would be wise to consider proper action."
While the Ombudsman findings were the Ontario Human Rights Code was not violated in that the harassment and bullying were not grounded on one or more of the prohibited grounds prescribed in the code, she did provide two helpful definitions in the report.
The Law Society of Alberta describes Workplace Bullying as: the deliberate, repeated and health-endangering mistreatment of one person [the Target] by a perpetrator [the Bully] whose destructive actions are fueled by the bully's need to control the Target. The Bully may focus on one person as his/her target or may continually seek new targets. The aim of bullying is to inflict distress and fear on the target and bullies show little or no affect, remorse, regret, or other emotion. People who bully others are not interested in resolving the conflict with the people they target, They are interested in getting their own way..
In some cases, bullies may align themselves with managers who will protect them, As a result, the targets of bulling leave the organization and the bully remains..
Bullying usually will not end without intervention. Witnesses or targets of bullying should take steps to end the bullying, if possible or seek help.
Personal Harassment by author Joanne Goss states: A number of personal harassment cases have been litigated though the civil courts [the Human Rights Commission cannot deal with complaints outside of the prohibited grounds] on the grounds of intentional infliction of mental shock. The elements of this cause of action are:
- A course of conduct, as opposed to one shocking incident, calculated or likely to cause mental harm; and
- Actual harm, such as visible or provable illness.
The conduct reflects a pattern of disrespectful and unwelcome words or actions.
However, once such a pattern exists, the employer has a responsibility to stop it or face expensive internal and external consequences.
Even before reaching that point, such patterns may lead to a more serious and damaging situation. Where an employer sees such dysfunction, even before receiving a complaint, it is well advised to address the problem.
A summary of the Ombudsman's findings reflect:
- Workers [Targets] encountered unrelenting bullying and personal harassment with the intent to intimidate.
- Management did not deal with the issue sufficiently when it started.
- Management did not intervene sufficiently to stop the harassment and bullying.
- Targets paid a great price for being caught between their manager who they trusted and the harassers' [Bullies] contempt for him.
The insufficient action by Management has inadvertently caused:
- Long standing bullying.
- Personal harassment.
- A growing lack of respect for each other as individuals.
- Unprofessional behavior directed from Management to staff and from staff to Management and from staff to staff.
- Work-related disagreements that become personal and counterproductive to all involved and to the University as a whole.
- Financial costs for the various reports that could have been avoided.
Contained in the Ombudsmen recommendations are:
- Appropriate discipline to be taken.
- Relocation of the complainant [the Target].
- Appropriate redress to the complainant.
[Note all of these recommendations will be acted upon, immediately.]
In addition to these findings and recommendations the University is committed to meet with the Union and they [the University] will take all necessary steps to ensure the non-occurrence of these most unfortunate events in the future throughout the University. The results of this undertaking will be determined and finalized over the next sixty [60] days and will be communicated to all members of the OPSEU bargaining unit.
The parties [OPSEU and Trent University ] undertake to keep the Ombudsmen report confidential, and therefore, will not distribute the report to anyone other than President Leah Casselman, President Bonnie Patterson and Anne Farquharson [the University's Human Rights Consultant/Advisor].
However, this overview of the Ombudsmen Report will be posted on all Union Bulletin Boards and will be provided to all Stewards of Local 365 and all Exempt Staff of the University.
Respectfully submitted on December 12 th 2003 in the City of Peterborough .
For the Union |
For the University |
Rod MacDonald
Local President |
David Mahy
Associate V.P. H.R |
Manuela Lefranc
Local Officer |
John Wordley
Director of P.R.D. |
Terry Baxter
Sector Negotiator |
Stephanie Williams
Manager of Labour Relations |
Beverly Robson
Ombudsperson |
C:\My Documents\L365 TRENT GENERAL\OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Dec 2003.doc |
|
