Member Article

Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 731 > % of complaints: 29% > Cases settled (48% of the files): Unavailable > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): Unavailable -- Montérégie: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 400 > % of complaints: 16% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 182 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 64 -- National Capital (Quebec City region): > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 248 > % of complaints: 10% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 125 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 55 -- Laurentians: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 171 > % of complaints: 7% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 74 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 29 --Mauricie and Centre du Québec: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 167 > % of complaints: 7% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 85 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 17 -- Lanaudière: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 134 > % of complaints: 5% > Cases settled (48% of the files):65 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 29 -- Laval: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 133 > % of complaints: 5% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 55 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 23 -- Eastern Townships: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 99 > % of complaints: 4% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 47 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 21 - Saguenay / Lac-Saint-Jean: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 98 > % of complaints: 4% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 56 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 19 -- Outaouais: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 97 > % of complaints: 4% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 50 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 17 -- Chaudière-Appalaches: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 80 > % of complaints: 3% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 49 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 18 -- Bas St-Laurent and Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 76 > % of complaints: 3% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 45 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 3 -- Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Northern Quebec: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 36 > % of complaints: 1% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 22 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 11 -- North Shore: > Number of complaints files (Total of 2,500 complaints): 30 > % of complaints: 1% > Cases settled (48% of the files): 20 > Agreements between the employee and the employer (one complaint out of three): 6 * Source: Press releases of the Commission des normes du travail, Bilan de l'an 1 sur le harcèlement psychologique au travail, June 14, 2005. A psychological harassment case law sampler Since the provisions respecting psychological harassment came into force, many complaints have been filed with the C.N.T., some of which have been transferred to the C.R.T. To this day, however, the C.R.T. has issued only one decision1. In that decision, the Commissioner ruled that, under the L.S.A., only an “employee” may make a complaint for psychological harassment in the workplace and that the complainant is required to establish his or her status as an employee within the meaning of the L.S.A.. The Commissioner dismissed the complaint on the ground that the employment relationship was ended many years before the complaint was filed and, consequently, he did not analyse the concept of psychological harassment. However, many interesting decisions by the C.R.T. deal with the concept of psychological harassment in contexts other than that of a harassment complaint filed under L.S.A. provisions. For instance, in the context of a complaint for wrongful dismissal, the Commissioner concluded that a new supervisor asking elementary questions to an employee under his or her direct authority respecting such employee’s work could not be considered as psychological harassment. Harassment must be considered objectively rather than being based only on subjective perceptions 2. In another case3, an employee filed a complaint under Section 15 of the Labour Code, alleging that the employer had taken reprisals against him and suspended him in response to his active role in a union organizing drive, which had led to the filing of a petition for certification. It was proved that the complainant had been harassing two colleagues to get them to sign membership cards. Having been notified of this situation, and mindful of its obligation to provide a work environment free from Dissatisfied with the work of her replacement, her supervisor contacted the carrier several times to try to coerce her back to work. The arbitrator ruled that such conduct did not constitute psychological harassment within the meaning of Section 81.18 of the L.S.A.. However, he ruled that the employer had abused its management rights since the carrier was entitled not to come to work. In a recent decision8, the arbitrator, Mr. Blais, held that an employee’s allegations of psychological harassment by a superior can neither be considered as offensive words against the superior nor give rise to the imposition of a disciplinary measure. Indeed, a decision to the contrary could dissuade an employee from exercising its right to a workplace free from psychological harassment. Conclusion The diverse circumstances that have given rise to the interpretation and application of the concept of psychological harassment under the standards introduced in the L.S.A. on June 1, 2004 are interesting. The decided cases generally follow the lines previously traced by arbitration case law. It will be interesting to observe the approaches that will be adopted by the C.R.T. in its future decisions and the members of our Labour and Employment Group will keep you posted as promptly as possible.

 

Footnotes: 1 Montreuil et Collège François-Xavier Garneau, D.T.E. 2005T-534 (C.R.T.). 2 Patenaude et Groupe SGF inc., D.T.E. 2005T-942 (C.R.T.). 3 Drapeau et SFBC Anapharm inc., D.T.E. 2005T-632 (C.R.T.). 4 Section 81.20 L.S.A. 5 D.T.E. 2005T-87 (T.A.). 6 D.T.E. 2005T-418 (T.A.). 7 D.T.E. 2005T-806 (T.A.). 8 Société des loteries du Québec et Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Loto-Québec (CSN), D.T.E. 2005T-880 (T.A.).