WORKPLACE BULLYING IN ONTARIO HEALTHCARE SETTINGS: EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BULLYING, GENDER, AND POLICY
A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science.
Trent University Peterborough, Ontario, Canada © Copyright by Sarah Jessup 2016
Canadian Studies and Indigenous Studies M.A. Graduate Program
January 2017
Abstract
Workplace Bullying in Ontario Healthcare Settings: Examining the Relationship Between Bullying, Gender, and Policy. Sarah Jessup
This thesis builds on scholarship that highlights how expected gender roles serve to both normalize and obscure forms of violence and hostility in health care workplaces. An analysis of 25 labour arbitrations involving cases of bullying reveals how gender relations is a factor in these grievances and relevant policies in Ontario health care facilities. Reinforced by underlying expectations around women as nurturing and men as aggressive, responses to bullying are found to reflect and reproduce embedded gendered power inequalities in labour.
While bullying in the workplace is often treated in policy discussions as an individual and identity-neutral phenomenon, this research provides evidence to the contrary. As a consequence, we must interrogate existing legislation and policies, asking how we can develop approaches that account for, respond to, and mitigate the causes of bullying rooted in unequal power relations, including gendered ones.
Keywords: workplace bullying, workplace harassment, workplace violence, health care, gender, policy, occupational health and safety, labour arbitration, Ontario
ii Acknowledgements
It has taken a great deal for me to get this point, and I am grateful to all those who helped me along the way. A heartfelt thank you for the time and efforts of my supervisor,
Joan Sangster. During this process, your feedback, encouragement, and validation have been immensely appreciated, and I feel very privileged and thankful to have had the opportunity to work under your expert guidance. Thanks also to my instructors, Marg Hobbs (who is also a member of my thesis committee) and Dimitry Anastakis (particularly in the early stages of this project), whose feedback and advice proved very helpful and motivating throughout. Additionally, during the completion of this project, I received funding through
Trent University and Trent’s Frost Centre for Canadian Studies and Indigenous Studies, as well as a SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship, all of which enabled me to focus on my research and complete it in a timely manner, and for which I feel very thankful.
I am very grateful for the personal support and inspiration that made the completion of this work possible and rewarding. Thank you to my husband, Steve. Your continued patience, support, and generosity made finishing this thesis possible, and I am greatly indebted. Thank you also to my father, George, and to my siblings, Carolyn, David, and
Lynda, for their unfailing love and support. And a very special thank you to my daughter,
Scarlett, for bringing inspiration and light to my life every day. Finally, this work is for my beloved late mother, Linda Jean O’Kane, who truly knew me, loved me, and believed in me, and who, through her life and death, taught me about personal strength and resilience, and the importance of kindness and empathy—a little of which, I hope, I have infused into this project.
iii Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….iii
Table of Contents………………..…………………………………………………………..iv
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..…...1
Chapter 1: Workplace Bullying and Gender in Scholarship ……………………………….14
Chapter 2: Workplace Bullying in Ontario: The Policy Environment………………..…….48
Chapter 3: Assumed Risk: Gender, Policy and Workplace Bullying in Ontario Health Care Grievances ………………………………………………………………………………….64
Chapter 4: Gendered Expectations: Workplace Bullying Policy and the Neutralization of Harm in Care Settings……………………………………………………………………….88
Conclusion: Policy Implications and Moving Forward …………………………………...129
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….138
Appendix A: Example of Workplace Harassment Policy (Ontario Ministry of Labour)….152
Appendix B: Example of Workplace Harassment Program (Ontario Ministry of Labour).153
Appendix C: Grievances Analyzed………………………………………………………..154
iv 1
Introduction
Awareness of the prevalence and the negative impacts of workplace bullying has risen in the past three decades, as evidenced by increased and broadened research, greater public awareness efforts, and changes to legislation and policy, including within Canada.1 Originally, workplace bullying was looked at as an organizational workplace stressor, and though scholarship has since branched out from this focus, there remains a need for research, particularly in Canada, that seeks to better understand workplace bullying and its relationship to gender relations.2 Despite increasing recognition that women are at a higher risk for experiencing workplace bullying, there is a persisting lack of attention given in literature to the ways that gender in specific Canadian contexts—legislation, workplace settings, and policies—is related to experiences of bullying in the workplace.3
By examining workplace bullying in the context of Ontario health care, and considering the role of gender relations in the experiences, policy approaches, and outcomes of workplace bullying occurrences, this thesis represents a step toward filling this gap. The research described in this thesis involves the analysis of 25 union grievances that specifically relate to instances of workplace bullying, and that take place within Ontario health care settings. The goal of this analysis was to understand if and how organizational policies and management within health care settings helped or failed to prevent and mitigate complaints of harassment and bullying, and,
1 Al-Karim Samnani and Parbudyal Sing, “20 Years of Workplace Bullying Research: A Review of the Antecedents and Consequences of Bullying in the Workplace,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012): 581; Loraleigh keashly and Karen Jagatic, “By Any Other Name: American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 34-35. 2 Loraleigh Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender: It’s Complicated,” in Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, ed. Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012), 89. 3 Ibid.
2 importantly, to determine if any failure can be connected to gender, the gendered nature of bullying, and/or the gender-neutral nature of workplace harassment policies.
Consistent with and building on scholarship linking gender and experiences of bullying, results of this research revealed two key trends associated with gender: first, policy implementation reflects gendered assumptions of risk in regards to bullying and health care; second, bullying behaviours, the workplace, and policy, are neutralized and individualized through management and arbitration processes that simultaneously ignore and apply gendered assumptions. While bullying in health care settings continues to be an area of research in further need of exploration, findings set out in this thesis further complicate understood notions of the role of power in workplace bullying. In particular, relations of power in the workplace go beyond organizational status—power is also rooted in and reinforced by embedded social inequalities
(such as in gender relations), which are interrelated with broader social, political, and economic contexts that help to shape individual experiences.
Providing context: Workplace bullying, the Ontario health care sector, and gender
Workplace bullying, which is characterized by negative acts—generally of a psychological or emotional nature—toward an employee that are repeated, ongoing, involve a real or perceived imbalance of power, and that cause harm to the target, can be perpetrated by superiors or coworkers within the workplace, and is considered a form of workplace harassment.4 Targets of bullying can experience negative impacts to their physical, emotional,
4 Ståle Einarsen and Anders Skogstad, “Bullying at Work: Epidemiological Findings in Public and Private Organizations,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5, no. 2 (1996): 187; Elfi Baillien et al., “A Qualitative Study on the Development of Workplace Bullying: Towards a Three Way Model.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19 (2009): 2; Patricia A. Ferris, “The Role of the Consulting Psychologist in the Prevention, Detection, and Correction of Bullying and Mobbing in the Workplace,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, no. 3 (2009): 171.
3 professional and personal well-being: depression, physical illness, sleep disorders, difficulties performing in the workplace, and family struggles are just some of the impacts cited by targets of workplace bullying.5 Bullying in the workplace, therefore, is a threat to one’s livelihood and independence, as it limits a targeted individual’s ability to function effectively in the workplace and to earn a necessary living.
While few statistics on workplace bullying exist in Canada,6 research in the United States suggests that one of every four workers will be subjected to bullying behaviours at some point during their working lives.7 Workers in health care settings are particularly at risk for experiencing workplace violence—both physical and psychological.8 In Canada, individuals who work in health care settings, predominantly women, are at a greater risk of being bullied in the workplace.9 Research indicates that Canadians employed in long-term care facilities generally experience some form of workplace violence on a daily basis.10 A study done by the Nursing
Sector Study Corporation, found that 58 percent of nurses across Canada had experienced aggression during their previous 10 shifts, with verbal aggression and emotional abuse representing the most common forms.11 Violence in the Canadian health care sector is considered pervasive,12 particularly in Ontario—physical and psychological aggression are noted by the
5 Keashly and Jagatic, “By Any Other Name,” 53 - 56. 6 Ontario, Public Services Health & Safety Association, Bullying in the Workplace: A Handbook for the Workplace (Toronto: Public Services Health & Safety Association, 2010), 3. 7 Keashly and Jagatic, “By Any Other Name,” 35. 8 Pamela S. Elliot, “Violence in Healthcare: What Nurse Managers Need to Know,” Nursing Management 28, no. 12 (1997): 39. 9 Judith MacIntosh et al., “Workplace Bullying in Health Care Affects the Meaning of Work,” Qualitative Health Research 20, no. 8 (2010), 1128. 10Albert Banerjee et al., “Out of Control”: Violence Against Personal Support Workers in Long-Term Care (Toronto: York University, 2008), iv. This study examined the experiences of workers in long-term care facilities in three Canadian provinces: Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Manitobah). 11 Linda O’Brien-Pallas et al., Canadian Survey of Nurses from Three Occupational Groups (Ottawa, Canada: Nursing Study Corporation, 2004), 38. 12 Sping Wang, Laureen Hayes, and Linda O’Brien-Pallas, A Review and Evaluation of Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in the Health Sector: Final Report (Hamilton: Nursing Health Services Research Unit, 2008), ii.
4
Ontario Public Services Health & Safety Association as hazards in Ontario health care workplaces.13 While patients represent the greatest threat to health care workers in terms of physical violence, co-workers are an important source of psychological and emotional harm, including through bullying.14 And while nurses have been recognized as being particularly at risk, and have been the focus of much research on violence and aggression,15 research indicates that a variety of positions within health care settings are also associated with such risk—a risk that is often attributed to the stressful nature of the work environment itself which is further exacerbated by ever-shrinking resources.16 But for some researchers, aggression in health care is not only an issue for workers in general, but is an issue for women specifically, as women fill the majority of positions in health care.17
There are many factors that determine the way that bullying is experienced: legislation, workplace policies, and workplace settings, in addition to wider social norms that impact and shape the ways that workplace bullying is carried out, managed, perceived, and responded to. As noted, there is currently a greater need for research in Canada that examines the relationship between workplace bullying and gender, and, in particular, how such a relationship might have implications for workplace harassment policies. Thus, the research set out in thesis was initiated with two goals: first, to contribute to Canadian literature on the relationship between workplace bullying and gender by specifically focusing on Ontario health care work settings, and second, to advance research on the implications of this relationship for workplace bullying policies. In order
13 Ontario, Public Services Health & Safety Association, Fast Facts: Hazards in Health Care Workplaces (Toronto: Public Services Health & Safety Association, 2013). 14 Wang, Hayes, and O’Brien-Pallas, A Review and Evaluation, ii. 15 Ibid. 16 Ontario, Public Services Health & Safety Association, Bullying in the Workplace (Toronto: Public Services Health & Safety Association [PSHSA], 2010), 3. 17 Banerjee et al., “Out of Control,” 2.
5 to develop effective policies to prevent and deal with workplace bullying, it is imperative that the gendered experience of bullying and harassment in the workplace be incorporated into research, theory and practice. One way to understand the effectiveness of policies in place to prevent and respond to workplace bullying, is to look at how such policies have (or have been perceived to have) failed employees who have experienced workplace bullying (as either perpetrators or targets of bullying).
Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) sets out the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees relating to violence and harassment in the workplace. Under section 32 of the OHSA, all employers in Ontario are obligated to prepare a workplace harassment policy, and to develop and maintain a program to ensure that employees know their rights and responsibilities, and are aware of reporting procedures.18 In addition to creating and implementing a policy and program to prevent and manage workplace harassment, employers must also be in compliance with human rights legislation, collective agreements, and standards of conduct under common law.19 Employees who feel their bullying experiences (as either a target or as a perpetrator) have been poorly addressed through policy and management, can use other means to seek redress: employees can make a claim under the Ontario Human
Rights Code, file a wrongful dismissal lawsuit or, if a member of a labour union, file a union grievance.20
18 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 1. 19 Elaine Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 For Employers, Unions and Employees (Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012), 124. 20 Ibid., 121-134.
6
Analyzing the problem: The research project
Grievances of 15 women and 10 men employed in a number of Ontario health care settings21 were analyzed. Health care settings, referred to by the Ontario Ministry of Labour
(MOL) as workplaces within the “health care sector,” include “workplaces that provide health or community services”: hospitals, long-term care homes, retirement homes, nursing services,
“supported group living residences,” “independent support residences (group homes),”
“treatment clinics and specialized services,” laboratories, and “professional offices and agencies.”22 Individuals represented in grievances filled various employment positions ranging from personal care aide to nurse, laboratory technician, among others,23 and they were represented as members of several different unions.24
Grievances were selected from the LexisNexis Academic database, which was accessed entirely online through Trent University’s library services throughout the summer of 2015.
LexisNexis Academic is a searchable database and a much used resource for accessing business, news, and legal publications, including labour arbitration awards. Cases were selected from
Ontario Labour Arbitration Awards, since 1992 to 2015, and Ontario Grievance Settlement
Board Decisions, since 2000 to 2015. This was the time span for available arbitration awards on
21 Health care settings in analyzed grievances included hospitals, health centres, long-term care homes, retirement residences, support centres, jail (health care office within jail), and in-home support (home care/support). 22 Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety Branch, Health Care Sector Plan (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Labour, June 2015), 4-5. 23 Individuals described in the grievances filled such positions as hospital porter, registered nurse, personal care aide (also known as health care aide and personal support worker), counsellor, cook, cleaner and waste handler, support worker, cytogenetic technologist, dietary aide, housekeeping aide, hospital laboratory technician, registered practical nurse, and social worker. Though not listed here, workers represented in unions interacted with, including in the context of bullying and harassment, many other individuals who occupied various positions and levels of seniority within the workplaces described in grievances. 24 Grievances represented members from the following unions: Canadian Union of Public Employees (11), Ontario Nurses’ Association (3), Ontario Public Service Employees Union (6), United Steelworkers Amalgamated (1), Sunnybrook Hospital Employee’s Union (1), Service Employees International Union (3), Professional Workers Union (1).
7
LexisNexis, which works well when examining bullying in the workplace, as this timeframe coincides with rising research and awareness efforts on the concept of workplace bullying. The
25 grievances selected for final analysis were chosen based on three specific criteria: grievances dealt with issues of bullying and harassment, while specifically including a discussion of bullying behaviours in the arbitration decision; the bullying and harassment took place within the context of care (health care settings); and the bullying behaviours were not found to be based on protected grounds as set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code.25 In other words, grievances that did not find gender (or other protected grounds) as an issue in bullying incidents were specifically chosen in an effort to find any underlying gendered elements (if any) in the perpetration, management, and outcomes of bullying in the workplace.
Questions for analysis were as follows: How is gender a factor in seemingly neutral bullying incidents? What is the role, if any, of policy and legislation in the failure of dealing with such incidents? To answer these questions, grievances were analyzed using a close textual analysis which involved carefully examining descriptions of relevant workplace policies
(including in relation to Ontario legislation), collective agreements, bullying and harassment incidents, individual and management responses to incidents, and the discussion and treatment of all of these factors in arbitration awards. The mode of presentation, nature of the evidence, and the specific arguments in the arbitrations were all scrutinized. Grievances represented complex and varied scenarios around bullying behaviour, as the grievances were launched by targets and/or perpetrators of workplace bullying, but were also initiated for reasons other than workplace bullying (where bullying represented past incidents requiring discipline). Given this
25 With respect to employment, the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on the following grounds: race, colour, ancestry, creed, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status, disability, and record of offences. Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19.
8 and the small sample size, a qualitative analysis was deemed the best approach, while consideration was always given to the need to look for patterns in the grievances. Because some grievances were richer than others, a few key examples are highlighted throughout this thesis to represent trends and consistencies found during the analysis process.
Taking a feminist approach that recognizes gendered power structures in the workplace, and in health care in particular, I drew from Joan Acker’s theory of gendered organizations, which highlights how practices in organizations both create and perpetuate gender social roles that are related to gendered divisions of labour. Acker, who examines the interrelations between class, race, gender and organizations from a feminist materialist approach, calls attention to the way that divisions of labour, both paid and unpaid, are gendered,26 and the ways that gendered assumptions are “embedded in workplace practices” that serve to perpetuate gender inequalities.27 Acker has argued that caring labour, which is considered akin to women’s natural abilities and roles, is devalued:28 the devaluing of caring work is rooted in capitalist organizations of production, whereby reproductive labour, mostly performed by women, fits outside of profitable work, and outside of state responsibility.29
Gender, as examined throughout this thesis as a conceptual category which serves to shape, in part, experiences in the workplace, follows the definition of gender as set out by Acker:
Gender is best understood as pervasive patterns of difference, in advantage and disadvantage, work and reward, emotion and sexuality, image and identity, between female and male, created through practical activities and representations that justify these patterns and that result in the social categories of women and men. Gender may include more than these two categories. Gender is a basic principle of social organization, almost
26 Joan Acker, Class Questions: Feminist Answers (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006), 1-4. 27 Joan Acker, “Women, Work, & Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality,” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 40, no. 5 (1996): 596. 28 Joan Acker, “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations,” Gender and Society 4, no. 2 (1990): 139-158. 29 Judith A. Howard, Barbara Risman, and Joey Sprague, “Series Editors’ Foreword,” in Class Questions: Feminist Answers, by Joan Acker (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006), xi, xii.
9
always involving unequal economic and social power in which men dominate. Gender is socially constructed and diverse, and varies historically and cross-culturally.30
While the focus of analysis in this thesis is on gender, I recognize that, as also highlighted by
Acker, gender operates in relation to other socially and politically constructed categories, including class, sexuality, race, and so on, which are implicated in social and economic inequalities and relations of power.31 Gender is thus but one aspect influencing power relations within the workplace. Given the limited information provided in grievances which might allow for additional points of analysis, however, a single focus on gender is appropriate. This focus is useful in efforts to challenge notions of objective and neutral experiences of, and approaches to workplace bullying, particularly in health care. Having outlined the gendered nature of workplace bullying, we can build on this analysis in the future to create a more complicated, intersectional perspective.
In taking into account the role of power in workplace bullying experiences and outcomes,
I recognized that, like gender, power is relational and, at times, situational. Following the work of Thomas Wartenberg, who locates power within the “action-environment,” where one individual is able to exercise “power over” another,32 I have sought to consider both the power relations between those individuals involved (perpetrator, target, manager, etc.), and the wider context within which these power relations are enabled and acted out. I was additionally mindful of Foucault’s observations of the systemic nature of power and the manner in which it manifests at the local, or personal, level, and is expressed through both power and resistance.33 Given
30 Acker, Class Questions, 5-6. 31 Ibid., 5-7. 32 Thomas E. Wartenberg, The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 27-29, 87-89. 33 Amy Allen, “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Feminists,” in Feminist Interpretations of Michael Foucault, ed. Susan J. Hekman (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State, 1996), 271; Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 92-93.
10
Foucault’s view of dispersed power, however, feminist political economy needs to be added to our analytical tool kit. A feminist political economy approach sees questions and considerations of individual experiences within broader structural and ideological frames, with experience shaped by gender and other axes of power. The interrelated forces of social, political and economic factors are taken into account.34 Thus, gender relations of power have to be examined in relation to the very specific political, economic and social context of health care settings— settings that are gendered within a broader context of gendered divisions of labour and, as
Armstrong, Armstrong, and Scott-Dixon note, “is not simply a division about difference but also about power and assigned worth.”35 In Canada, a move toward privatization and restructuring of services to emulate “market norms” in the pursuit of efficiency, has resulted in a greater emphasis on self-reliance and individual responsibility, where gender divisions of labour leave women increasingly responsible for care work.36 Ontario’s health care sector is thus situated within a broader context of economic policies marked by austerity, where individual experiences of workers in the health care sector cannot be removed from the background of neoliberal efforts to reduce (or shift) costs of health care through expenditure cuts, which ultimately result in fewer available resources and increased demands on health care workers.37 An examination of individual experiences of workplace bullying is therefore a way to draw attention to the power
34 Pat Armstrong, Hugh Armstrong, and Krista Scott-Dixon, Critical to Care: Invisible Women in Health Services (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 63; Gillian Creese and Daiva Stasiulis, “Introduction: Intersections of Gender, Race, Class and Sexuality,” Studies in Political Economy 51 (Fall 1996): 5, 8. 35 Armstrong, Armstrong, and Scott-Dixon, Critical to Care, 88-89. 36 Judy Fudge and Brenda Cossman, “Introduction: Privatization, Law, and the Challenge to Feminism,” in Privatization, Law, and the Challenge to Feminism, ed. Brenda Crossman and Judy Fudge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 4-37. 37 Salimah Valiani, The Cycle of Sacrifice: Nurses’ Health and the Ontario Health System (Toronto: Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2013); Salimah Valiani, Easy to Take for Granted: The Role of the Public Sector & Carework in Wealth Creation (Toronto: Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2012).
11 relations that enable, or operate within, these experiences—power relations that are poorly, if at all, recognized in approaches to manage and respond to bullying in the workplace.
The research set out here looks at union grievances alone, and thus not at cases which have been dealt with through alternate means, such as complaints through the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, claims to the Human Rights Tribunal, or cases filed in a court of law.
Although this approach has limits in terms of understanding other various complaints and decisions regarding cases of workplace bullying, grievances that have reached arbitration provide detailed accounts of the incidents in question, the workplace policies in place, collective agreements, management and employer responses and approaches to bullying, and the arbitral decisions which take into consideration all of these aspects. Technically, unions are bound to represent the interests of members, and during arbitration, unions and employers attempt to demonstrate the ways that policy was or was not followed. Throughout the process, witnesses and documents provide evidence as to how issues occurred, and how management attempted to deal with issues, and failed or succeeded. The examination of union grievances, therefore, allows for a focussed look at the ways that workplace harassment policies and management have acted
(or attempted) to protect against and respond to workplace bullying.
Union grievances in Ontario represent a relatively untapped source of detailed discussions on incidences, perceptions, and workplace policies and programs with respect to workplace bullying, and are therefore useful for understanding how approaches to workplace bullying and harassment in health care settings can be improved. They can suggest how policy is experienced at the personal and individual level, and how these experiences reflect broader issues of power disparities in relation to gender, as well as how, despite broader relations of power, workplace bullying is often conceptualized and treated as individualized aberrant
12 behaviour, or interpersonal conflict between workers. Moreover, this individualizing approach cannot be removed from the grievance arbitration process, which despite appearance of objective and fair approaches to disputes, has been argued to preserve inequalities, particularly in relation to the subordination of women.38
The following chapters first present the issue of workplace bullying, and then describe findings of the grievance analysis as briefly presented above. Chapter 1 provides historical context of workplace bullying as an academic concept, and outlines broad themes within which gender has been examined in relation to workplace bullying and policy, while Chapter 2 describes the policy environment within which bullying is dealt with in Ontario workplaces.
Chapter 3 details findings of the analysis which reveal that aggression in health care is an assumed risk, and that policies and programs implemented to manage bullying in health care settings can also operate to mask underlying power imbalances, specifically those around gender.
In Chapter 4, the role that gender plays in the application of policy and the arbitration process is further explored, demonstrating that gender norms impact policy implementation and application, despite efforts by employers, unions, and arbitrators to neutralize and individualize bullying incidents. It further notes that, similar to conceptions of sexual harassment, experiences of workplace bullying can be located within existing relations of power that serve to maintain women’s lower status within the labour force. Finally, the conclusion of this thesis discusses policy implications and relates findings to recent and proposed efforts to deal with bullying in health care. It incorporates a call to reconsider approaches that individualize workplace bullying,
38 For example, Judy Fudge, “Rungs on the Labour Law Ladder: Using Gender to Challenge Hierarchy,” Saskatchewan Law Review 60. No.2 (1996): 237-264; Sue Hart, “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment: Looking at the Assessment of Mitigating Factors through a Feminist Lens,” Journal of Workplace Rights 15, no. 1 (2010-2011): 83-110.
13 and for further research that considers the contexts and underlying relations of power that operate to shape and normalize bullying experiences and outcomes.
14
Chapter 1
Workplace Bullying and Gender in Scholarship
This thesis responds to mounting evidence that the Canadian health care system is a dangerous workplace. Building on work that establishes that health care work is gendered, and on emerging research that demonstrates that workplace bullying is a gendered phenomenon, it answers, in part, international calls to examine the ways that gender might have implications for bullying/harassment policy in the workplace.39 The purpose of this chapter is to discuss existing literature on the relationship between workplace bullying and gender, with a specific emphasis on women’s experiences and on relevant Canadian examples within a larger body of international research. This review is not exhaustive, as it does not cover all literature that looks at gender as a factor in bullying. Rather, it is focused on broad themes within which gender has been examined in workplace bullying scholarship, and from which this thesis draws, including the ways that the perpetration, experience, and impacts of workplace bullying are shaped by socially constructed gender roles and expectations, and are reflective of the ongoing relationship between gender, power and labour. As will be outlined, research shows that women are more likely to be victims of bullying in the workplace, and that experiences of bullying can be situated within broader social structures, such as, gender-power relations, though more investigation is needed to appreciate this exact relationship.40 After setting out the historical context and
39 Jacquie Hutchinson and Joan Eveline, “Workplace Bullying in the Australian Public Sector: Why Has Gender Been Ignored?” Journal of Public Administration 69, no. 1 (2010): 56. 40 Al-Karim Samnani and Parbudyal Singh, “20 Years of Workplace Bullying Research: A Review of the Antecedents and Consequences of Bullying in the Workplace,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012): 587-588; Elizabeth McDermott, “Surviving in Dangerous Places: Lesbian Identity Performances in the Workplace, Social Class, and Psychological Health,” Feminism & Psychology 16, no. 2 (2006): 201; Duncan Lewis, Sabir Giga, and Helge Hoel, “Discrimination and Bullying,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 227-243.
15 definitions of workplace bullying, this chapter contextualizes health care as a gendered place of work in order to highlight how gender roles serve to both normalize and obscure various forms of hostility in health care work settings. It concludes with a discussion of how analysis of union grievances can be utilized to illuminate and better understand both the role of gender in workplace bullying experiences in health care, and the resultant implications for policy development and implementation.
Workplace bullying as an academic concept
Research examining the phenomenon of workplace bullying began, and in many ways continues, as a way to understand and prevent behaviours that represent a psychological (mental and emotional) and, at times, physical threat to the well-being of victims. From the earliest works in the early 1990s, bullying was regarded as a workplace stressor that brought about serious personal and economic consequences for victims, organizations, and society in general.41 Early research, mainly in the field of psychology, emphasized the work and organizational environment, and focused on practical prevention and response initiatives through understanding the individual and organizational antecedents and impacts of bullying behaviours, but placed little-to-no importance on understanding broader social relations of power (such as gender) as influencing factors.42 At present, research on the topic can be found within a variety of disciplines and from a multitude of research perspectives, including sociological, medical, organizational management, public health, and nursing, to name a few.43 Though research on
41 Heinz Leymann, “Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces,” Violence and Victims 5, no. 2 (1990), 123. 42 Heinz Leymann and Annelie Gustafsson, “Mobbing at Work and the Development of Post-traumatic Stress Disorders,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5, no. 2 (1996): 251-275. 43 Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic, “By Any Other Name: American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 34-35.
16 workplace bullying has come a long way from its original focus on the phenomenon as a completely gender-neutral workplace stressor, further research continues to be necessary if we are to fully understand the relationship between workplace bullying and gender.44
In 1976, Carroll M. Brodsky, an American psychologist, published a comprehensive book on the topic of harassment in the workplace, The Harassed Worker. Drawing from thousands of case studies, Brodsky discussed harassment in relation to work environment, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, negative impacts, and the role of culture and society.45
The book concludes with a series of recommendations for policies to prevent and manage harassment in the workplace, specifically framing the issue of harassment as one of health and safety, and pointing to the need to incorporate harassment in health and safety education, programs, and legislation.46 Brodsky defined harassment as “behavior that involves repeated and persistent attempts by one person to torment, wear down, frustrate, or get a reaction from another,” and outlined some of the ways that harassment is related to power (e.g., harassment to maintain privilege), though gender was only briefly addressed throughout the book.47 But despite later (and contemporary) influence on the definition and descriptions of harassment (including framing the issue as one of health and safety), Brodsky’s work received little attention at the time of publication.48
Workplace bullying as an area of academic interest largely took off in Scandinavian countries in the 1980s, with the work of Heinz Leymann (a psychologist), who labeled the
44 Loraleigh Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender: It’s Complicated,” in Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, ed. Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012), 89. 45 Carroll M. Brodsky, The Harassed Worker (Toronto: DC Heath and Company, 1976). 46 Ibid., 154-160 47 Ibid., 2-4. 48 Einarsen et al., “The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work: The European Tradition,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011) 6.
17 phenomenon ‘mobbing,’ and described it as “hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic way by one or a number of persons mainly toward one individual.”49
Leymann’s work emphasized the role of organizational factors in the occurrence of bullying, pointing to leadership and management style, work design, employee and employer morale, and other situational elements as triggers for the negative behaviours.50 Building on Leymann’s findings, Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen argued that in contrast to Leymann’s view that workplace bullying incidences were solely related to work conditions, personality and individual traits and work environment should be looked at as interacting factors when attempting to predict and understand workplace bullying.51 Additionally, they demonstrated that targets of workplace bullying were not the only victims in such situations, as bystanders were also negatively impacted by observing bullying.52 Leymann’s work inspired further research throughout the
1990s through to the present, initially in Europe, and then in North America, and the definitions and criteria for ‘mobbing,’ continue to be utilized in research today, though the phenomenon is now most commonly referred to as workplace bullying.53
In contrast to European approaches, which have traditionally involved less ambiguity in definitions and research perspectives, North American, including Canadian, approaches have typically examined the problem as one subset under the broad umbrella of “hostile relations at work.”54 As such, North American scholarship on workplace bullying is often located within the
49 Leymann, “Mobbing and Psychological Terror,” 120. 50 Denise Salin and Helge Hoel, “Organisational Causes of Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 227; Einarsen et al., “The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 23. 51 Ståle Einarsen, Bjørn Inge Raknes, and Stig Berge Matthiesen, “Bullying and Harassment at Work and Their Relationship to Work Environment Quality: An Exploratory Study,” European Work and Organizational Psychologists 4, no. 4 (1994), 381. 52 Ibid., 395. 53 Einarsen et al., “The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 6. 54 Ibid., 4-5.
18 dense area of workplace aggression, which, as contended by Keashly and Jagatic, is “varied, rich, and complex, but also fragmented.”55 Much of it has been influenced by the disciplines of psychology (particularly the area of organizational psychology), which, as noted, dominated early research, and organizational studies, both of which have had lasting influences on conceptions and understandings of workplace bullying used today.56 In particular, ‘power’ as a key element in workplace bullying was only incorporated into the definition in later works.57
Despite that power is currently a core element in workplace definitions, there remains a paucity of research that looks explicitly at how power (including in relation to gender) plays a role in bullying behaviours and responses. Where power is explored, an emphasis is often placed on organizational positions of power and leadership, and less so on the role of social power and identity factors: “In the workplace aggression abuse literatures, power has typically been operationalized as organizational position and occasionally as gender and race/ethnicity.”58 In general, research investigating organizational culture and practices has, until recently, largely ignored gender as a factor,59 exhibiting a “male bias in research.”60 This, as will be further explored throughout this thesis, is reflected in current policy responses to bullying in the
55 Loraleigh keashly and Karen Jagatic, “By Any Other Name: By Any Other Name: American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 42. 56 Einarsen et al., “The Concept of Bullying,”9. 57 For example, see Ståle Einarsen, Bjørn Inge Raknes, and Stig Berge Matthiesen, “Bullying and Harassment at Work and Their Relationships to Work Environment Quality: An Exploratory Study,” European Work and Organizational Psychologists 4, no. 4 (1994): 381-401. 58 Keashly and Jagatic, “North American Perspectives,” 54. 59 Jeff Hearn and P. Wendy Parkin, “Gender and Organizations: A Selective Review and Critique of a Neglected Area,” in Gendering Organizational Analysis, eds. Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992), 46; David L. Collinson and Jeff Hearn, “Breaking the Silence on Men, Masculinities and Managements,” in Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements, ed. David L. Collinson and Jeff Hearn (London: Sage Publications, 1996), 6-7. 60 Joan Acker and Donald R. Van Houten, “Differential Recruitment and Control: The Sex Structuring of Organizations,” in Gendering Organizational Analysis, ed. Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992), 16.
19 workplace, as solutions to problems, according to Carol Bacchi, are created in relation to, and are thus expressions of, how such problems are understood, defined, and represented.61
Definition, instigating factors, and impacts of workplace bullying
There is a persisting lack of agreement on one set definition of workplace bullying which, according to Keashley and Jagatic, is because different definitions and labelling of “hostile workplace behaviors” have simultaneously occurred within a variety of disciplines using diverse approaches.62 They note that literature on workplace bullying can be found within multiple areas of research, and that a lack of interconnection between approaches and disciplines has resulted in inconsistent definitions and labels for the problem: it is variously defined as workplace harassment, workplace aggression, generalised workplace abuse, workplace incivility, and so on.63 Despite a lack of complete consensus regarding a definition for workplace bullying, however, Patricia Ferris asserts that there are some commonalities that have allowed researchers to approach the issue from a variety of research perspectives, but with some agreement as to its general contours.64
Consistent elements of the definition for workplace bullying include that it is the perpetration of behaviours toward an individual in the workplace that are recurrent, negative, harmful and difficult for the target to defend against, and usually involving real or supposed power imbalances.65 Such negative behaviours are generally of a psychological nature (as
61 Carol Lee Bacchi, Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems (London: Sage Publications, 1999), 1. 62 Keashly and Jagatic, “By any other Name,” 31, 32. 63 Ibid., 32, 33. 64 Patricia A. Ferris, “The Role of the Consulting Psychologist in the Prevention, Detection, and Correction of Bullying and Mobbing in the Workplace,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, no. 3 (2009): 171. 65 Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen, “Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 383; Ferris, “The Role of the Consulting Psychologist,” 171.
20 opposed to physical),66 and can include verbal or nonverbal exchanges, and can be either direct
(e.g., taunting or belittling) or indirect (e.g., failing to provide necessary support or information).67 Other examples of bullying in the workplace include, but are not limited to, the following: disseminating spiteful gossip and rumours, using a worker’s private life to try to discredit him or her; unfairly criticizing competencies and overstating shortcomings;68 ignoring, isolating or ostracizing; supervising in an overly critical and abusive manner; and attempting, through a variety of means, to disrupt a worker’s ability to be competent in the workplace.69
When such negative behaviours are committed by more than one person, the term ‘mobbing’ is sometimes used.70 Workplace bullying is often referred to as a form of harassment in the workplace,71 and is characterized by recurring and ongoing behaviours that are harmful to the target, both personally and professionally; one-off instances of workplace conflict are not considered to constitute workplace bullying.72 Debates remain about the role of ‘intent,’ and whether or not it must be shown that the perpetrator indeed intended to cause harm.73 As research and policy approaches to sexual harassment have supported, determining whether or not an individual intended to cause harm to another can be difficult.74 With respect to workplace harassment under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), Kathryn Filsinger
66 Elfi Baillien et al., “A Qualitative Study on the Development of Workplace Bullying: Towards a Three Way Model.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19 (2009): 2. 67 Ferris, “The Role of the Consulting Psychologist,” 171. 68 Maureen Duffy, “Preventing Workplace Mobbing and Bullying with Effective Organizational Consultation, Policies, and Legislation,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, no. 3 (2009): 255. 69 Gary Namie and Ruth Namie, The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurth and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job, 2nd ed, (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, 2009), 3, 31, 39. 70 Ferris, “The Role of the Consulting Psychologist,” 172. 71 Einarsen, Raknes, and Mattiesen, “Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 383. 72Denise Salin, “Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating, and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment,” Human Relations 56, no. 10 (2003): 1216. 73 Einarsen et al., “The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 18-19; Keashly and Jagatic, “North American Perspectives,” 43. 74 Einarsen et al., “The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 18-19.
21 notes that the test to conclude that harassment has occurred is objective: “would a reasonable person in the complainant’s position find the behaviour unwelcome?”75 As this thesis highlights, perceptions of what is considered reasonable and unwelcome behaviour can have decidedly gendered implications.
Though some researchers incorporate acts of physical aggression and acts of a sexual nature within the definition of workplace bullying,76 many do not.77 Legislation and policy, as will be discussed further on, often make distinctions between these various forms of hostility.
Additionally, research and legislation make clear distinctions between what might be considered bullying behaviours, and those deemed to be within the normal practice of management, or the
“reasonable actions taken by an employer or supervisor to correct performance.”78 What is ultimately considered ‘normal’ within a given workplace, however, can be based on assumptions that are reinforced through organizational policies and practices, such as, for example, expectations around gender roles.79 Conceptions of normal management practices, argue
Simpson and Cohen, can thus work to disguise bullying behaviours.80
Adding to definitional issues which can make determining whether bullying has occurred difficult, workplace bullying scholarship has been made further problematic through
75 Kathryn J. Filsinger, Employment Law for Human Resource Professionals, 3rd edition (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2015), 246. 76 Baillien et al., “A Qualitative Study,” 2. 77 Keashly and Jagatic, “North American Perspectives,” 42. 78 Elaine Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 for Employers, Unions and Employees (Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012), 7. 79 Jaime Lester, “Performing Gender in the Workplace: Gender Socialization, Power, and Identity Among Women Faculty Members,” Community College Review 35, no. 4 (2008): 277, 298; Ruth Simpson and Claire Cohen, “Dangerous Work: The Gendered Nature of Bullying in the Context of Higher Education,” Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 2 (2004): 163, 177. 80 Simpson and Cohen, “Dangerous Work,” 177.
22
“methodological challenges.”81 Accuracy in prevalence rates have been questioned, and some researchers attribute difficulties in precisely quantifying bullying in the workplace to varying assessment methods that do not measure bullying using consistent criteria.82 Most commonly, two approaches are utilized to assess bullying—objective and subjective approaches—with both employing self-labelling methods. For example, objective tests involve requiring participants to answer whether or not they have experienced particular behaviours within a set period of time
(often within the last six months), while subjective approaches provide a definition of bullying, and then ask participants to describe their own experiences in relation to that definition. While researchers increasingly use both methods (similar to assessments for sexual harassment), a lack of consistent criteria and definitions within tests renders achievement of reliable numbers and the application of results across studies difficult.83 Keashly and Jagatic contend that objective tests generally yield more generous numbers, while subjective tests often underestimate bullying rates.84 Furthermore, they argue that little is understood from these approaches as to what behaviours participants find tolerable/intolerable, and why. Altogether, variations in assessment approaches have resulted in inconsistent findings, which hinders the ability for researchers to build on existing literature in order to gain a better understanding overall of bullying in the workplace.85
In general, workplace bullying research has focused on three main areas: prevalence rates, antecedents, and impacts,86 with approaches primarily employing a functionalist
81 Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Guy Notelaers, and Ståle Einarsen, “Measuring Exposure to Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 149. 82 Ibid., 150. 83 Ibid.; Keashly and Jagatic, “North American Perspectives,” 80-81. 84 Keashly and Jagatic, “North American Perspectives,” 80-81. 85 Ibid. 86 Samnani and Singh, “20 Years of Workplace Bullying Research,” 582.
23 perspective.87 That is, most literature on the topic takes an “objective” approach that focuses on understanding the relationships between relevant factors (e.g., leadership, individual personality, work environment, etc.), and which predominantly situates workplace bullying as an interpersonal problem.88 This has led to an emphasis on interpersonal antecedents, and the role of organizational factors in prevalence rates and consequences.89 Overall, bullying has been described as stemming from a supervisor’s or worker’s inability to cope with work demands and, as a result, turn frustrations toward, and thus victimize, subordinates, coworkers, and possibly superiors.90 On an organizational level, which directly and indirectly influences the interpersonal relations amongst employees, a lack of monitoring, intervention, and support for workplace conflicts fosters an environment conducive to the initiation and escalation of workplace bullying.91
Internationally, workplace bullying has been found to be prevalent in public sector jobs, though it should be noted that more studies have looked at the public sector than at the private sector.92 Ruth McKay contends that public organizations, concerned with delivering consistent and efficient services, are often structurally designed to put more emphasis on the process of delivering these services, rather than on providing support and enabling individual agency for employees lower on the hierarchy; supervisors and managers, who are given a great deal of
87 Al-Karim Samnani, “Embracing New Directions in Workplace Bullying Research: A Paradigmatic Approach,” Journal of Management Inquiry 22, no. 1 (2013): 26. 88 Ibid., 26-27. 89 Ibid. 90 Baillien et al., “A Qualitative Study,” 91 Anthony R. Wheeler, Jonathan R.B. Halbesleben, and Kristen Shanine, “Eating Their Cake and Everyone Else’s Cake, too: Resources as the Main Ingredient to Workplace Bullying,” Business Horizons 53 (2010): 556-558. 92 Dieter Zapf et al., “Empirical Findings on Bullying in the Workplace,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 121; Denise Salin, “Prevalence and Forms of Bullying Among Professionals: A Comparison of Two Different Strategies for Measuring Bullying,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10, no. 4 (2001): 426.
24 power within such hierarchies, can more easily abuse their power to meet set standards.93 This might especially be the case during periods of reorganization, financial cutbacks, and employee layoffs, where cost becomes a major factor in implementing programs to prevent and deal with bullying.94 Role ambiguity, leadership conflicts, employee dissatisfaction, and feelings of too little control in the workplace are also factors that have been found to contribute to the likelihood of bullying within the workplace.95 While these factors may be inherent to many workplaces, particularly those that are strictly hierarchical, they are greatly exacerbated when measure of austerity result in fewer resources and heavier workloads.
Regardless of sector, workplaces where bullying is perceived to be beneficial or to have few consequences, and where employees feel that they do not have adequate support systems to deal with workplace conflicts, bullying is more likely to occur, and more likely to have detrimental effects on employees and organizations.96 Denise Salin notes that “enabling structures and processes include conditions that make it possible for bullying to occur in the first place,” such as “low perceived cost for the perpetrator,” frustration and dissatisfaction in the workplace, weak leadership, permissive attitudes toward bullying behaviours, and management styles that view bullying as a means to ensure worker efficiency.97 Salin further asserts that
“triggers” such as downsizing and restructuring can result in stressed work environments that lead to role ambiguity and “general feelings of uncertainty and powerlessness.”98 Additionally,
93 Ruth B. McKay, “Confronting Workplace Bullying: Agency and Structure in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,” Administration & Society 46, no. 5 (2014): 548-549. 94Ibid., 550; Salin, “Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying,” 1224. 95 Baillien et al., “A Qualitative Study,” 2; Einersen, Raknes, and Mattiesen, “Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 395; Salin, “Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying,” 1216 96 Salin, “Ways of Explaining,” 1220-1221; Wheeler, Halbesleben, and Shanine “Eating Their Cake and Everyone Else’s,” 557-558. 97 Salin, “Ways of Explaining,” 10-13; Salin and Hoel, “Organisational Causes,” 229. 98 Salin, “Ways of Explaining,” 18-19.
25
Salin highlights the importance of power imbalances, which can be organizational and/or
“associated with traditional gender roles and minority status,”99 though, as previously stated, workplace bullying literature has put little focus on the role of power.100 In competitive or high pressure work settings, bullying may be utilized to gain an advantage (such as sabotaging the work of others to secure a promotion), and where perceived power imbalances and other
“enabling factors” are already in place, this tactic is more likely to be used.101
While anti-bullying (or anti-harassment) policies in the workplace are important for clearly defining the processes of managing and responding to, and setting out the consequences of bullying, studies indicate that policies alone are not effective in preventing and dealing with workplace bullying; to be effective, such policies need to be accompanied by broader programs that actively, and continually, work to train employees on impacts, prevention and management of bullying, as well as to offer support systems and promote positive work environments in general.102 Research suggests that workplaces that offer one-time training sessions, and that do not incorporate active and ongoing anti-bullying programs to educate and support employees, are less effective in preventing and handling cases of bullying, and are thus less successful in minimizing the overall impacts.103
As indicated by mounting research, targets of workplace bullying experience a variety of negative, often severe, impacts to their well-being, which can span across physical,
99 Ibid., 10-11. 100 Marie Hutchinson and Debra Jackson. “The Construction and Legitimation of Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector: Insight into Power Dynamics and Organisational Failures in Health and Social Care,” Nursing Inquiry 22, no. 1 (2015): 14. 101 Salin, “Ways of Explaining,” 16 102 Duffy, “Preventing Workplace Mobbing and Bullying,” 243, 254; Wheeler, Halbesleben, and Shanine, “Eating Their Cake and Everyone Else’s,” 557. 103 Duffy, “Preventing Workplace Mobbing and Bullying,” 243, 248, 249, 254; Ferris, “The Role of the Consulting Psychologist,” 174.
26 psychological, professional, and interpersonal dimensions of their lives.104 Not surprisingly, the more frequently a target is exposed to bullying behaviours, the more severe the resulting harm is.105 Examples of impacts to workplace targets include, among various other physical and psychological responses, anxiety, depression, headaches, sleep disorders, emotional difficulties, reduced family functioning, and, in some cases, symptoms that are consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).106 In general, work-related responses can include poor performance, decreased commitment, and increased absences.107 As previously noted, all of these impacts could serve to undermine a target’s ability to continue to work and, thereby, to earn a necessary income, threatening financial stability and independence.
Workplace bullying is increasingly recognized as a threat to the rights and freedom, health and safety, dignity and self-respect, and personal and family stability of targets, and, ultimately, as a detriment to employers and organizations through a loss of skilled employees, tainted reputations, and potential liability issues.108 Bullying has been found to have widespread influences on the general environment of a workplace, and on other employees who may be bystanders, as witnesses of bullying are also at risk for experiencing decreased emotional and physical well-being.109 Lowered morale, decreased motivation and team performance, and increased absences and workplace injuries, are some of the ways that organizations might be
104 Keashly and Jagatic, “By Any Other Name,” 53. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid., 56. 107 Ibid. 108 Namie and Namie, The Bully at Work, 17-18; David C. Yamada, “Bullying and the Law: Emerging Global Responses,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice 2nd edtion, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 470. 109 Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen, “Bullying and Harassment at Work,” 395; Ståle Einarsen and Eva Gemzoe Mikkelsen, “Individual Effects of Exposure to Bullying at Work,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 140-141.
27 negatively impacted by workplace bullying.110 Given that studies suggest that approximately one in four employees may become a victim of severe forms of bullying behaviours on the job,111 and that hostile work environments can lead to physical violence,112 the problem has increasingly been recognized as one that must be addressed for the well-being of negatively impacted employees, as well as for associated organizations.
Gender, power, and bullying in the workplace
Though findings in terms of differences in the prevalence of bullying for men and women have been mixed,113 and more study is needed in this area, the majority of international and
Canadian research thus far indicates that women are more likely to be victims of workplace bullying, and are bullied by both men and women, while men are more likely than women to be perpetrators of bullying, and are most often bullied by other men.114 But, despite increasing awareness that women are at a higher risk for being bullied at work, there continues to be a shortage of literature that specifically investigates the ways that gender and workplace context are related to bullying.115 In particular, gender as a factor in the experiences of workplace bullying in specific Canadian contexts is still in early stages of relevant scholarship—there is much to learn in this area.116 While some works do look at the experiences, perceptions, and
110 Helge Hoel, Ståle Einarsen, and Cary L. Cooper, “Organisational Effects of Bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, ed. by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Frances, 2003), 146. 111 Laraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic, “By Any Other Name: American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 35. 112 Frema Engel, Taming the Beast: Getting Violence Out of the Workplace, 2nd edition (Montreal: Ashwell Publishing, 2004), 115. 113 Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender,” 81. 114 Samnani and Singh, “20 Years of Workplace Bullying Research,” 583. 115 Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender.” 116 Dieter Zapf et al., “Empirical Findings on the Prevalence and Risk Groups of Bullying in the Workplace,” Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen,
28 impacts of workplace bullying in relation to gender, very few studies in Canada have offered an analysis that compares women’s and men’s experiences of bullying, and that situates gender in relation to bullying within a broader discussion of relations of power and societal gender roles.
A few recent studies in Canada demonstrate the negative impacts that workplace bullying has on women, and the strategies that women use to cope. To understand impacts on women’s work, for example, MacIntosh et al. interviewed 36 English-speaking women living in eastern
Canada, who had experienced bullying during their employment within various sectors
(professional, management, education, and health care).117 Findings of this study revealed that bullying negatively impacted women’s ability to function within the workplace. Women experienced reduced productivity, quality of work, and competency; negative health impacts that interfered with their ability to work, with some requiring hospitalization; and psychological and emotional distress that interfered with their personal and professional lives.118 Of importance to the examination and development of resources, programs and policies, researchers found that outcomes were less positive where victims were not adequately supported, had fewer resources, and experienced more severe health impacts (often in relation to lack of support and resources).119
In a similar study involving interviews with 18 English-speaking women from the provinces of New Brunswick and British Columbia, O’Donnell, MacIntosh, and Wuest found that women reported a variety of negative impacts due to workplace bullying—stress, depression, weight loss/gain, headaches, exhaustion, and more serious health issues—and often
Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 78-79; Loraleigh Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender,” 82-89. 117 Judith MacIntosh et al., “Effects of Workplace Bullying on How Women Work,” Western Journal of Nursing Research 32, no. 7 (2010): 914. 118 Ibid., 915. 119 Ibid., 926-928.
29 attempted to cope with both the mistreatment at work and its impacts by being absent from work, which served to exacerbate problems.120 Consistent with the previous study, researchers found that support and awareness were key to mitigating the harm caused by bullying to the professional and personal lives of women. In another study looking specifically at women in various health care positions, MacIntosh, et al. found that women, in addition to finding less meaning and value in their work, tended to blame themselves for being bullied—a response the researchers note can be reduced with training and early awareness strategies.121 While these studies do not provide a comparative analysis of gendered experiences through which one can consider the ways that gender relations are a factor in the perpetration and effects of bullying in the workplace, they do offer insight into how women experience bullying, and the ways that organizational responses and initiatives in some ways determine outcomes. However, as noted by
Loraleigh Keashly, comparative analysis provides a more complete image of how gender influences experiences of workplace bullying: “decontextualizing bullying and gender or focusing primarily on women’s or men’s experiences of bullying creates an incomplete picture that limits our understanding and hence our ability to address this very costly and challenging workplace interaction stressor.”122
In a study designed to understand if the nature and experience of workplace bullying is gendered, Simpson and Cohen found that men and women employed at a university in the United
Kingdom differed in terms of perpetration, perception and reporting of workplace bullying.123 In
120 Sue O’Donnell, Judith MacIntosh, and Judith Wuest, “A Theoretical Understanding of Sickness Absence Among Women who Have Experienced Workplace Bullying, Qualitative Health Research 20, no. 4 (2010): 441-442. 121 Judith MacIntosh et al., “Workplace Bullying in Health Care Affects the Meaning of Work,” Qualitative Health Research 20, no. 8 (2010): 1138. 122 Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender,” 90. 123 Ruth Simpson and Claire Cohen, “Dangerous Work: The Gendered Nature of Bullying in the Context of Higher Education,” Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 2 (2004): 179.
30 this study, which included survey responses for 378 staff members (two thirds of which were women) at all levels of skilled and unskilled positions (including academics), women were more likely to be victims of workplace bullying, were more likely to perceive certain behaviours as bullying or harassing, and were more likely to report bullying to managers as opposed to union personnel.124 Significantly, men were more likely to view bullying behaviours “within a wider organizational context,” or as just part of the job.125 The authors conclude that the gender differences found in this study can be located within “masculinist discourses of management,” and present evidence that workplace bullying cannot be viewed as gender-neutral.126 They further note that more research is needed to determine the relationship between sexual harassment and workplace bullying, as both they argue, are gendered in nature.127 While this study offers support for the argument that workplace bullying is gendered, more research on
Canadian workplaces would help determine if these results are consistent in a Canadian context.
Of the few Canadian studies that provides a gender-comparative look at workplace bullying, there is a marked lack of research which considers how broader societal constructs contribute to differences in experiences. For example, Stock and Tissot carried out a comparative analysis to understand the risk factors of neck pain in the workplace for men and women by looking at the relationship between neck pain and intimidation (including workplace bullying) and sexual harassment.128 They used data from a population-based survey taken in 1988, the
Quebec Social and Health Survey (QSHS-98), done by the Quebec Institute of Statistics.129 In
124 Ibid. 125 Ibid., 169, 170, 179, 180. 126 Ibid., 183. 127 Ibid., 183. 128 Susan R. Stock and France Tissot, “Are There Health Effects of Harassment in the Workplace? A Gender- Sensitive Study of the Relationships Between Work and Neck Pain, Ergonomics 55, no. 2 (2012): 147-159. 129 Ibid., 147, 148.
31 analysing the results of surveys for 5,405 men and 3,987 women, Stock and Tissot found that women, in comparison to men, experienced higher rates of intimidation and sexual harassment, were at a greater risk of experiencing neck pain in relation to intimidation, including in the absence of physical workplace stressors (e.g., heavy lifting), and were more likely to experience interferences to work and home life as a result of neck pain.130 Interestingly, Stock and Tissot found that socio-demographic risk factors differed for men and women, as, for example, women were more likely to experience neck pain in relation to intimidation if they had two or more children at home, though investigations into root causes (e.g., gender norms) were beyond the scope of this research.131 While these findings are important in that they provide evidence of gender-related differences in workplace harassment experiences, further research could incorporate an analysis of some of the systemic issues in which these findings are rooted, particularly with respect to Canadian policies and work environments. Additionally, further examinations could look at the conceptual similarities between sexual harassment and workplace bullying, such as an imbalance of power and higher rates of victimization for women, to better understand the correlation between gender, power, and workplace bullying.
Much of the literature that examines the relationship between gender, power, and workplace bullying, is rooted in feminist scholarship that originated during the second wave feminist movement, and that brought issues related to gendered labour and discrimination of women in the workplace (e.g., sexual harassment) to the forefront. The term ‘sexual harassment’ was coined by feminist activists in the 1970s, and was, from the beginning, framed as discriminatory behaviour grounded in and reflecting broader power inequalities between men
130 Ibid., 150. 131 Ibid., 155.
32 and women.132 American feminist Catharine MacKinnon noted in her influential book, Sexual
Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (1979), that sexual harassment, as a type of discrimination, ultimately undermines women’s access to equality.133 One year prior
(1978), in Canada, Constance Backhouse and Leah Cohen wrote one of the first books published on sexual harassment, and devoted an entire chapter to the ways that sexual harassment is an expression of power imbedded in gender inequalities, especially within the hierarchical workplace, where men hold the majority of top positions.134
It should be noted that while literature on sexual harassment was expanding (particularly since the 1970s) parallel to that of workplace bullying, there was little, if any, explicit overlap between these research foci, and there remains a distinction between the forms of harassment in scholarship and legislation today.135 It might be argued, however, that research focusing on sexual harassment helped to pave the way to considering non-physical hostility as both more common and as a precursor to physical violence in the workplace. Some works, such as that of
Liz Kelly, tended to situate sexual harassment within a broader conception of violence against women, or within a “continuum of violence,” which at its root is intended to maintain women’s subordinate position.136 The notion that sexual harassment was one small part of a larger problem
132 Victoria L. Bromley, Feminisms Matter: Debates, Theories, Activism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 141. 133 Catherine A. MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 141. 134 Constance Backhouse and Leah Cohen, The Secret Oppression: Sexual Harassment of Working Women (Toronto: MacMillan of Canada, 1978), 38. 135 Carol Jones, “Drawing Boundaries: Exploring the Relationship Between Sexual Harassment, Gender and Bullying.” Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (2006): 148-150. 136 Liz Kelly, Surviving Sexual Violence (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), 75; Elizabeth A. Stanko, “Keeping Women in and out of Line: Sexual Harassment and Occupational Segregation,” in Gender Segregation at Work, ed. Sylvia Walby (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988), 99; Rachel L. Osborne, “The Continuum of Violence Against Women in Canadian Universities: Toward a New Understanding of the Chilly Campus Climate,” Women’s Studies International Forum 18, nos. 5/6 (1995), 637-639.
33 was consistent with rising awareness that physical violence was also one aspect of broader issues of aggression in the workplace, though such connections were little recognized.
The central focus on power, which is shared by conceptualizations of both workplace bullying and sexual harassment, is particularly important to acknowledge when inquiring into the way that gender is a factor in female-dominant (or “feminized”) work environments. Sexual harassment has always been conceptualized by feminists as an issue of gender and power—a gendered construct—that threatens the wellbeing of women in particular, and is, like workplace bullying, rooted in issues of power. Though many researchers examine workplace bullying and sexual harassment in isolation, others point to the overlapping nature of the perpetration and experience of the two, especially where work is considered traditionally “feminine,”137 or where gender conformity is enforced through hostile behaviours (including bullying and sexual harassment).138 In an effort to understand the gendered experience of workplace hostility, therefore, it is important to consider that sexual harassment often impacts women in combination with other forms of hostility, and frequently occurs in relation to workplace environment and expected gender roles.139
As noted by Armstrong and Armstrong, gendered divisions of labour and “women’s work,” are rooted in notions of women’s suitability for particular kinds of work, and are related to ideas of women’s size and strength; perceived skills, abilities, and weaknesses; and,
137 Carol Jones, “Drawing Boundaries: Exploring the Relationship Between Sexual Harassment, Gender and Bullying,” Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (2006): 156. 138 Deborah Lee, “A Feminist Study of Men’s and Women’s Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Sexual Harassment” (PhD diss., University of Warwick, 1998), 139 Julian Barling, A. Gail Rogers, and E. Kevin Kelloway, “Behind Closed Doors: In-Home Workers’ Exerience of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Violence.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6, no. 3 (2001): 264; Tara L. Raver and Lisa H. Nishii, “Once, Twice, or Three Times as Harmful? Ethnic Harassment, Gender Harassment, and Generalized Workplace Harassment,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 2 (2010): 236.
34 especially, women’s ability to bear children.140 The social roles and gender stereotypes that have equated motherhood and the ability to bear children with the traits deemed necessary for caring for children (e.g., warmth, caring, tenderness and nurturance),141 are, for some scholars, what ultimately act to justify various forms of violence in the workplace. Such essentialist ideas can be seen in the connection between sexual harassment and historical views of women’s sexuality, where, as noted by Rahman and Jackson, “women were considered passive and, therefore, needing to be aroused by the more aggressive men.”142 Because sexual desire was viewed as essentially masculine, an aggressive approach to attaining a sexual partner could be justified, or even expected. Research looking at sexual harassment has demonstrated that men and women often have different understandings of what constitutes sexual harassment—men have frequently stated that they thought a woman was sexually interested, despite an absence of clear positive responses, or consent.143 Backhouse and Cohen remark that men are conditioned from childhood
“to take the role of sexual aggressor,” and that “traditional notions of female sexuality are rooted in the image of women as passive seductresses.”144 In this regard, sexual harassment perpetrated by men can be normalized. Carol Jones notes that gendered bullying can overlap with sexual harassment, but that researchers are likely to examine gendered bullying and sexual harassment as distinct issues, potentially ignoring the sometimes co-occurrence, or similarly rooted nature, of the two.145 While this thesis does not focus on incidents that are characterized as sexual
140 Pat Armstrong and Hugh Armstrong, Theorizing Women’s Work (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1990), 21. 141 Alice H. Eagly and Valerie J. Steffen, “Gender Stereotypes Stem From the Distribution of Women and Men into Social Roles,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, no. 4 (1984): 735. 142 Momin Rahman and Stevi Jackson, Gender and Sexuality: Sociological Approaches (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), 15-17. 143 Brian K. Richardson and Juandalynn Taylor, “Sexual Harassment at the Intersection of Race and Gender: A Theoretical Model of the Sexual Harassment Experiences of Women of Color,” Western Journal of Communication 73, no. 3 (2009): 251. 144 Backhouse and Cohen, The Secret Oppression, 164. 145 Jones, “Drawing Boundaries,” 156.
35 harassment, it is important to consider the ways that both sexual harassment and bullying in health care settings, as risks to women in the workplace, are rooted in issues of power imbalance and socially constructed gender roles and expectations that have, over time, contributed to normalizing harmful behaviours towards women. As will be expanded upon further on in this chapter, there is a greater emphasis in contemporary work, though more is needed, on the normalization—even expectation—of violence within health care that can be related to notions of caring work as women’s work.
Bullying and gendered work
Arlie Hochschild explains that women have been attributed with more emotional and caring skills, and are viewed as being able to manage, respond to and even predict emotions and emotional outbursts better than men: “In general, they are thought to manage expression and feeling not only better but more often than men do.”146 Indeed, even in positions where caring is not a requirement of the job, it has been demonstrated that women “perform gender” by taking on the role of caretaker and emotional manager, often to their disadvantage.147 Some researchers looking at the connection between gender and workplace bullying have looked to social roles and gender stereotypes as a way to explain the continued power imbalances in the workplace which result in workplace bullying, particularly in work that is feminized and where emotional and caring labour are part of the job description. As demonstrated by Tracy Adams in a number of studies, health care work settings have been “feminized,” that is they have become dominated, in
146 Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feelings, Twentieth Anniversary Edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 163, 164. 147 Lester, “Performing Gender in the Workplace,” 288.
36 terms of numbers, by women.148 Despite this, however, health care professions in Canada continue to be segregated by gender, as women still largely practice in traditionally feminine roles (e.g., nursing) and fill fewer high-status positions.149 Relegated to the category of
“women’s work,” it has been argued that ‘caring’ has been devalued, and is viewed as less important than work carried out by those in higher positions (e.g., doctors) who are thought to be
“doing” rather than caring.150 Armstrong, Armstrong, and Scott-Dixon state that “health care work is women’s work,” and that “this refers to what women do, what we say we do, and what we think they should do.”151 Contending that power and assigned value contribute to the division of labour, they note that, in general, referring to specific labour as women’s work, denotes labour that is valued less, paid less, and allocated fewer resources.152
Donna Baines shows how caring work in Canada is both gendered and devalued, and as such, poses risks for women for various forms of workplace hostility.153 Her research locates risks posed to women in the workplace—harassment and physical violence—within a context of economic restructuring in relation to the gendered division of labour, and outlines the ways that policy in Canada is an important element to consider when understanding hostility in the workplace. Baines points to the downsizing of funding for public services and the restructuring
148 Tracy L. Adams, “Gender and Feminization in Health Care Professions, “Sociology Compass 4, no. 7 (2010): 454- 465; Tracy L. Adams, “Professionalization, Gender and Female-Dominated Professions: Dental Hygiene in Ontario,” CRSA/RCSA 40, no. 3 (2003): 267-289. 149 Adams, “Gender and Feminization,”461. 150 Rhonda Kathleen Croft and Penelope Anne Cash, “Deconstructing Contributing Factors to Bullying and Lateral Violence in Nursing Using a Postcolonial Feminist Lens,” Contemporary Nurse 42, no. 2 (2012): 226-242; Tuija Virkki, “The Art of Pacifying an Aggressive Client: ‘Feminine’ Skills and Preventing Violence in Care Work,” Gender, Work and Organization 15, no. 1 (2008): 79. 151 Pat Armstrong, Hugh Armstrong, and Krista Scott-Dixon, Critical to Care: The Invisible women in Health Services (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 88. 152 Ibid., 89. 153 Donna Baines, “Seven Kinds of Work – Only One Paid: Raced, Gendered and Restructured Work in Social Services, Atlantis 28, no. 2 (2004): 19-28; Donna Baines, “Staying with People Who Slap Us Around: Gender, Juggling Responsibilities and Violence in Paid (and Unpaid) Care Work,” Gender, Work and Organization 13, no. 2 (2006): 129-151.
37 of public sector work, which ultimately places higher work demands on women and draws on notions of the “endless capacity of women to provide care work in any context,” as contributing to hostile, stressful work environments where aggression is perpetuated and normalized.154 In her research looking at gender differences, Baines found that men and women were often impacted by workplace hostility in different ways: men were “partially insulated,” and exhibited less severe physical and psychological effects.155 She attributes these differences to social roles and gendered expectations around labour: “because of the gendering that accompanies men when they enter a female-dominated work ghetto and the gendering that is granted to men in these workplaces, they do not experience the same kind of or degree of occupational health risks.”156
Similarly, Kosny and MacEachen, who looked at non-profit sectors in Canada, noted in their research that caring work, mostly performed by women, was often “invisible,” and considered background work that required empathy and emotional labour—attributes considered natural for women.157 They found that incidents of hostility—bullying, physical violence, and sexual harassment—often went unacknowledged and, at times, were considered consistent with the nature of caring work.158 Importantly, Kosny and MacEachen attributed some of the negative impacts to the health and overall wellbeing of women, to a lack of available resources as a result of reduced funding and Ontario policies. Like Baines, Kosny and MacEachern demonstrate how conditions specific to Canada influence the ways that hostility is manifested, perpetuated, and experienced. Furthermore, these works, which examine various forms of workplace hostility
154 Baines, “Staying with People Who Slap Us Around,” 130. 155 Ibid., 129, 130, 144. 156 Ibid., 146. 157 Agnieska Kosny and Ellen MacEachen, “Gendered, Invisible Work in Non-Profit Social Service Organizations: Implications for Worker Health and Safety,” Gender, Work and Organization 17, no. 4 (2010): 259-260. 158 Ibid.
38 within the broader context of social and economic factors, reveal how social roles and policy place women at increased risk and ultimately hinder their ability to seek assistance.
Recent scholarship has sought to draw attention to the ways that policy, specifically around funding and resources, has contributed to high rates of violence (including non-physical forms) in the Ontario health sector. Moreover, such research draws on gender expectations to highlight the normalization of violence in care work, to position violence in care work as a women’s issue, and to validate the need to focus, through policy and otherwise, on the prevalence of violence in care work. In her research published by the Ontario Nurses Association
(ONA), Salimah Valiani points to underfunding as the core basis for threats to the well-being of health care workers (including through various forms of violence), as nurses are understaffed, overworked, and over-strained by inadequate resources and unrealistic regimentation through micro-management and a focus on the bottom-line.159 Employing a tool she calls The Cycle of
Sacrifice, Valiani outlines the ways that health care workers (nurses in particular) are underappreciated and, on a systemic and individual level, are not respected: “the labour of RNs is more expected than respected – appreciated in theory but not in practice.”160 The Cycle of
Sacrifice begins with understaffing, and moves through phases of over-work, stress, burnout and injury, sick leave, controls to minimize sick leave, and additional stress leading to detrimental impacts—the manifestation of the devaluing of caring work in Ontario.161 Valiani connects the devaluing of health care work itself, and the resultant lack of resources afforded to ensure health
159 Salimah Valiani, Valuing the Invaluable: Rethinking and Respecting Caring Work in Canada (Toronto: Ontario Nurses Association [ONA], 2011); Salimah Valiani, Easy to Take for Granted: The Role of the Public Sector & Carework in Wealth Creation (Toronto: ONA, 2012); Salimah Valiani, Fixing the Fiscal House: Alternative Macroeconomic Solutions for Ontario (Toronto: ONA, 2012); Salimah Valiani, The Cycle of Sacrifice: Nurses’ Health and the Ontario Health System. (Toronto: ONA, 2013). 160 Valiani, The Cycle of Sacrifice,” 2 -16. 161 Ibid., 2.
39 care is safe and healthy for workers, with the gendered nature of caring labour and society’s expectations of women as caregivers.162
In the context of increased demands on care workers, Syed et al., employ a feminist political economy framework to highlight how “political, economic and social contexts” lead to inequalities that impact individual care workers, and that can be expressed as bullying behaviours through “work hierarchies, unequal social relations in the workplace, unequal social contact, and class, power, and privilege dynamics.”163 Banerjee et al., note that a reductionist approach to policy and management which seeks to enhance routine, order, standardization, and efficiency in care practices, can add strain in health care settings, where workers must provide patient care within increasingly rigid boundaries.164 They further argue that reductionist assumptions, which are related to neoliberal approaches to reducing costs through highly regulated practices (e.g., time allotted to respond to patient needs), result in reduced autonomy and work satisfaction for care workers who are required to provide “assembly line care” to vulnerable patients.165 Such constrained working conditions in Canadian health care settings have been noted to themselves constitute a “form of structural violence,” and to be harmful to the wellbeing of workers and of those receiving care.166
In discussing the ways that “pro-market principles” have led to restructuring and policy changes in health care, Andrea Campbell argues that greater responsibility for violence is
162 Ibid., 16; Valiani, Easy to take for Granted, 10-11. 163 I. Syed et al., “How Do Work Hierarchies and Strict Divisions of Labour Impact Care Workers’ Experiences of Health and Safety? Case Studies of Long Term Care in Toronto,” Journal of Nursing Home Research Sciences 2 (2016): 42, 47. 164 Albert Banerjee et al., “’Careworkers Don’t Have a Voice’: Epistemological Violence in Residential Care for Older People,” Journal of Aging Studies 33 (2015): 28-36. 165 Ibid., 32. 166 Albert Banerjee et al., “Structural Violence in Long-Term, Residential Care for Older People: Comparing Canada and Scandinavia,” Social Sciences & Medicine 74, no. 3 (2012): 2.
40 increasingly placed on the individual worker, as opposed to being located within the wider structural frameworks.167 She contends that violence in healthcare is “often normalized, individualized, and gendered,” where care is “naturalized” and devalued as women’s labour, and the origins of violence are overlooked.168 Importantly, Campbell notes that, while training individual workers is not unimportant, emphasis on individual and behavioural aspects renders the organizational, structural, and societal causes invisible, and contributes to the perpetuation of physical and non-physical forms of violence in health care.169
Oppressed group theory has been used by some researchers to explain high prevalence rates of bullying in the nursing profession.170 According to this theory, nurses, as workers in an oppressed profession, engage in hostile behaviours (also described as horizontal or lateral violence) against each other in response to limited autonomy and authority in the workplace.171
This theory has also been used to explain why women bully each other in other professions, such as in male-dominated workplaces. As previously noted, research indicates that women are more likely to bully other women than they are men, though this continues to be a relatively understudied phenomenon, particularly in Canada.172 Lutgen-Sandvik, Dickinson, and Foss connect this likelihood to stressful work environments where there is a scarcity of high-status positions available for women, and where there is continual reproduction of gender roles.173
167 Andrea Campbell, “Work Organization,” Care, and Occupational Health and Safety,” in Troubling Care: Critical Perspectives on Research and Practices, ed. Pat Armstrong and Susan Braedley (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2013), 89-94. 168 Ibid., 94. 169 Ibid., 94-95. 170 Susan Jo Roberts, “Developments of a Positive Professional Identity: Liberating Oneself from the Oppressor Within,” Advances in Nursing Science 22, no. 4 (2000): 71-82. 171 Croft and Cash, “Deconstructing Contributing Factors,” 228. 172 Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik, Elizabeth A. Dickinson, and Karen A. Foss, “Priming, Painting, Pulling, and Polishing: Constructing Woman-Bullying-Woman Identity at Work,” in Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012), 61. 173 Ibid., 69.
41
Other scholars, however, have argued that oppressed group theory is too narrow and singular in approach, and thus fails to explain many factors that contribute to bullying.174 A focus on lateral violence, argue Hutchinson et al., has resulted in too little emphasis on other power relations and on other organizational factors, such as the role of management, policy, and organizational structures.175
Emerging literature on the gendered nature of workplace bullying has looked at the ways that gender-neutral harassment and bullying policies do not reflect the rising evidence that workplace bullying is gendered. Hutchinson and Eveline argue that policies reflect the tendency to individualize the problem of workplace bullying, which in turn impacts the ways that organizations respond to the phenomenon.176 They argue that more research is needed to determine how policy might reflect the gendered nature of workplace bullying, but that researchers and policy architects are hesitant to seriously consider this approach.177 By individualizing and neutralizing workplace bullying in relation to gender, they argue, policies and programs implemented to deter and manage such incidences fail to represent and deal with the root of the issue—power inequalities.178 Partially drawing on Joan Acker’s early theory of gendered organizations, Hutchinson and Eveline demonstrate how workplace bullying is portrayed and acted on as a “gender-neutral problem,” and conclude that this approach, which disregards gender effects, exemplifies the ways that “gendered power relations of organisational processes and outcomes are accomplished.”179
174 Gerald A. Ferrell, “From Tall Poppies to Squashed Weeds: Why Don’t Nurses Pull Together More?” Journal of Advanced Nursing 35, no. 1 (2001): 32. 175 Hutchinson et al., “Workplace Bullying in Nursing: Towards a More Critical Organisational Perspective,” Nursing Inquiry 13, no. 2 (2006): 118-126. 176 Hutchinson and Eveline, “Workplace Bullying in the Australian Public Sector,” 47, 48. 177 Ibid., 56. 178 Ibid., 51. 179 Ibid., 58.
42
Acker’s theory of gendered organizations highlights how organizational practices function to both create (to some degree) and perpetuate gender social roles and identity, gendered divisions of labour, and inequality in status and pay for men and women.180 Acker notes that referring to an organization as gendered, “means that advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through and in terms of a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine.”181 She argues that associations of women’s natural affinity for domestic and caring labour ultimately serves to devalue this work, as women are not viewed as capable of meeting the demands of the “abstract job”—the job that is gender-neutral for the worker who “has no sexuality, no emotions, and does not procreate.”182 Male power is legitimated, and women’s subordination reinforced, argues
Acker, through organization policy, language, and imagery, which is constructed around the notion that the job is neutral and separate from the worker: “use of such abstract systems continually reproduces the underlying gender assumptions and the subordinated or excluded place of women.”183
In Canadian research, there is little exploration of the interconnections between gender, labour, organizations, and workplace bullying, and the potential policy implications of this relationship. Indeed, studies in Canada that do look at the ways that organizations manage workplace bullying often do not incorporate a discussion of gender at all. For example, in examining the ways that organizational representatives respond to complaints of workplace bullying in Calgary, Patricia Ferris found that, in terms of negative responses, organizations
180 Joan Acker, “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations,” Gender and Society 4, no. 2 (1990): 140. 181 Ibid., 146. 182 Ibid., 151, 152 183 Ibid., 154.
43 often responded in one of three ways: ignoring or normalizing the behaviour, misunderstanding the situation and putting it down to personal conflict, and blaming the victim.184 While this study has important implications for how organizations act in response to complaints of workplace bullying, further research might build on this and similar studies to determine how organizational policies and responses are related to gender and other relations of power, and if women and men experience differing responses when complaining of workplace bullying.
Some research that highlights the gendered nature of organizations has looked at the ways that union grievances have demonstrated gendered language and practice in labour arbitration processes involving cases of sexual harassment. Unquestionably, unions have played very important roles in actively bringing awareness and creating change, both legally and socially, to the issue of sexual harassment and, in more recent years, bullying and personal harassment in the workplace.185 In the 1980s, Susan Attenborough stated that as increasing numbers of women became involved in organized union movements, they actively sought solutions through such approaches as education and collective bargaining to confront the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace.186 She described sexual harassment as an issue for unions because of its socially constructed nature which represented a threat within the workplace; women, she stated, were socialized based on traditional gender roles to be passive, attractive, and
“responsible for controlling sexual situations.”187 Much of this rings familiar with descriptions of hostile behaviours in health care settings, where women are expected to be caring and nurturing
184 Patricia Ferris, “A Preliminary Typology of Organisational Response to Allegations of Workplace Bullying: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil,” British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32, no. 4 (2004): 390-392. 185 Derek Chechak and Rick Csiernik, “Canadian Perspectives on Conceptualizing and Responding to Workplace violence,” Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 29 (2014): 59. 186 Susan Attenborough, “Sexual Harassment: An Issue for Unions,” in Union Sisters: Women in the Labour Movement, ed. Linda Briskin and Lynda Yanz (Toronto: Women’s Educational Press, 1983), 136. 187 Ibid., 136-137.
44 and better able to predict and manage aggression in health care. But despite the fact that unions in Canada, as noted by John Godard, claim to support “social unionism,” in that they pursue
“social democratic reforms which serve all working people,”188 it has been argued that unions originated as, and continue to be ordered on unequal gendered lines, as outlined in research by
Julie White, published in 1993:
Sexism within unions is no more resolved than it is within society generally. During my interviews many examples were given of incidents involving sexism and harassment. Women complain of not being taken seriously, of their contributions being disregarded, that women’s issues are considered unimportant, and that there is a lack of accommodation for women’s other responsibilities.189
Recent research demonstrates that, despite women’s rapidly increasing involvement in unions, sexism within Canadian unions continues: the legacy of the traditionally male-dominated union is evident in gender-biased organizing and arbitral processes.190
As unions are legally bound to represent all members, conflicts can arise when one member is in dispute with another: “the victim wants union protection, but so does the alleged harasser.”191 Analysis of labour arbitrations involving cases of sexual harassment have effectively demonstrated how union member conflicts often favour men through language and policy which reflect gender norms, and which rest on and maintain imbalances of power.192 Sue
Hart’s analysis of labour arbitrations exemplifies the ways that union grievances can lead to role conflicts that utilize gendered arbitral principles to defend male perpetrators, and that ultimately
188 John Godard, Industrial Relations, the Economy, and Society, 3rd ed. (Concord: Captus Press, 2005), 175. 189Julie White, Sisters & Solidarity: Women and Unions in Canada (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1993), 143. 190 Sue Hart, “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment: Looking at the Assessment of Mitigating Factors through a Feminist Lens,” Journal of Workplace Rights 15, no.1 (2010-2011): 83-110; Charlotte Yates, “Challenging Misconceptions about Organizing Women into Unions,” Gender, Work and Organization 13, no. 6 (2006): 565-584. 191 White, Sisters & Solidarity, 145. 192 See Cynthia F. Cohen and Murray E. Cohen, “Defending your Life: When Women Complain about Sexual Harassment.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 7, no. 3 (1994): 235-242.
45 disadvantage women.193 By examining 13 labour arbitrations involving discharge cases where male employees were found to have sexually harassed female coworkers of the same union, Hart looked at the ways that mitigating factors are used to defend harassers, and how these factors are inherently gendered. She concludes that the rights of women to a harassment-free workplace were undermined through the successful uses of defences that often hinted at a ‘blame-the- victim’ mentality, minimized (or ignored) the detrimental impacts of harassment to women, dismissed gender power inequalities, drew on gender roles, and that denied culpability of male harassers.194 Hart shows how labour arbitrations in Canada involving sexual harassment cases can have both gendered procedures and gendered outcomes when accepted social gender roles are employed in the decision making process.
Overall, existing literature shows that labour arbitration processes have typically treated violence as inherent to the workplace, particularly in the context of male-dominated workplaces and the arrival of a capitalist system in North America—the context of class struggles and rising labour organizing efforts, where conflict was expected and, at times, deemed necessary.195 While gender has been examined in relation to early examples of workplace violence, more attention has been given in scholarship to the ways that violence, aggression, and roughness in North
American workplaces has traditionally been connected to constructions and representations of masculinity.196 Early examples of aggression toward women in the unionized workplace have largely been addressed in relation to sexual harassment, such as mentions of women in the early
193 Hart, “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment,” 106. 194 Ibid., 104-106. 195 For example see, Joan Sangster, “Just Horseplay?: Masculinity and Workplace Grievances in Fordist Canada, 1947-70s; Stephen Meyer, “Work, Play, and Power: Masculine Culture on the Automotive Shop Floor, 1930-1960,” in Boys and Their Toys? ed. Roger Horowitz, 13-32 (New York: Routledge, 2001); Jeremy Milloy, “’Chrysler Pulled the Trigger’’: Competing Understandings of Workplace Violence During the 1970s and Radical Legal Practice,” Labour/Le Travail 74 (2014): 51-88. 196 Ibid.
46 auto trade being coerced to perform “sexual favours” for their, or their husbands’ bosses in order to gain “favoritism” (which often simply meant greater job security).197 Prior to the 1990s, workplace aggression research in North America placed greater emphasis on physical violence, until tragic workplace incidents helped to shed light on the importance of acknowledging and addressing psychological and emotional forms of aggression—incidents that ultimately served as impetuses for changes in legislation, as will be discussed further in Chapter 2.198 Thus, physical violence was increasingly understood to represent the “tip of the iceberg,” with non-physical aggression discovered to be far more common than physical aggression.199
Conclusion
As this chapter outlined, despite increasing evidence that workplace bullying has gendered elements, and is embedded in social power relationships, there is a persistent emphasis on bullying as an identity-neutral and individual problem. An enduring focus on finding practical and immediate measures to prevent and manage workplace bullying through training and managerial practices, continues to disassociate the phenomenon from historical constructions of social identity and persisting structural power inequalities. Consequently, policy has both reflected and enabled this narrow approach by neutralizing and individualizing the perpetration of bullying in the workplace. This thesis responds to recent calls for more research into the relationship between gender, workplace bullying, and policy. It asks how gender is a factor in union grievances involving unresolved situations of workplace bullying in Ontario health care
197 Pamela Sugiman, Labour’s Dilemma: The Gender Politics of Auto Workers in Canada, 1937-1979 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 1994), 12. 198 Chechak and Csiernik, “Canadian Perspectives,” 59, 60; Keashly and Jagatic, “North American Perspectives,” 41, 42. 199 Robert A. Baron and Joel H. Neuman, “Workplace Aggression—The Iceberg Beneath the Tip of Workplace Violence: Evidence on its Forms, Frequency, and Targets,” Public Administration Quarterly 21, no. 4 (Winter, 1998): 448.
47 facilities—an as yet unexplored question in Ontario labour arbitration analyses—and contributes to literature on workplace bullying in Canada by situating bullying and related policy within broader power structures. To provide a backdrop for this analysis, the following chapter explains the policy environment in relation to workplace bullying and harassment, and outlines relevant legislation, the legal obligations of employers and unions to protect employees, and the processes and procedures involved in settling union disputes.
48
Chapter 2
Workplace Bullying in Ontario: The Policy Environment
Violence in the workplace is not a new issue. Indeed, as noted by Jeremy Milloy, despite heightened recognition throughout the 1980s and 1990s, “violence at work existed long before that time.”200 After a series of violent acts were discovered to be have been preceded by many years of harassment, or bullying, in North America during the 1980s and 1990s, research began to increasingly focus on the role of psychological and emotional hostility in acts of violence.201
There was increased discussion on how physical violence within the workplace was one small part of a larger, more widespread and pervasive issue—harassment and bullying.202 In Canada, the role of psychological hostility in the workplace was of increasing importance toward the late
1990s and early 2000s, and this was reflected in research, public awareness, and public policy.203
The purpose of this chapter is to present a context within which incidents of workplace bullying are currently dealt with in Ontario, and to highlight pertinent policy topics that will later be drawn upon and referred to in subsequent chapters. This chapter provides an outline of relevant legislation and the roles that employers, employees and unions play in maintaining a work environment free of bullying. Current Ontario legislation puts the greatest onus on
200 Jeremy Milloy, “’Chrysler Pulled the Trigger’: Competing Understandings of Workplace Violence During the 1970s and Radical Legal Practice, “Labour/LeTravail 74 (2014): 51. 201 Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic, “By Any Other Name: American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (London: Taylor & Francis, 2003), 34; Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic, “North American Perspectives on Hostile Behaviors and Bullying at Work,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 41, 42. 202 Robert A. Baron and Joel H. Neuman, “Workplace Violence and Workplace Aggression: Evidence on Their Relative Frequency and Potential Causes,” Aggressive Behavior 22 (1996): 163. 203 Derek Chechak and Rick Csiernik, “Canadian Perspectives on Conceptualizing and Responding to Workplace Violence,” Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 29 (2014): 58-60.
49 employers to ensure the safety of workers, and mandates that employers develop policies and programs to deter and respond to violence and harassment (which includes workplace bullying).
As this thesis is particularly focused on incidents of bullying, this chapter introduces the options available to workers who feel that employers have not effectively managed situations involving workplace bullying. It concludes with a discussion of those options specifically available to unionized employees, and an outline of what happens when a written complaint (grievance) reaches arbitration—the point at which this thesis is most concerned.
Examples stimulating changes in Ontario legislation include those in three Ontario workplaces, namely, the violent death of Theresa Vince, an employee of Sears Canada in
Chatham, who was murdered in 1996 by a supervisor who had stalked and harassed her for a long time prior;204 the 1999 killing of four OC Transportation employees in Ottawa, by Pierre
Lebrun, a previous employee who had been harassed for years by coworkers and supervisors; and the 2005 murder of Lori Dupont, a nurse in Windsor, whose former partner and fellow employee, Marc Daniels, stabbed her to death.205 In each of these situations, there were indications that the workers’ safety (psychological and/or physical) was as at risk and, while extreme, these examples serve as useful illustrations of the ways that a lack of appropriate legislation, workplace policies and supportive programs, can foster toxic work environments that leave some employees feeling powerless to defend themselves and unable to cope.
Pierre Lebrun, for example, had made complaints of ongoing harassment to his supervisors and, later, had filed a grievance with his union; however, little was done to improve
204 Chechak and Csiernik, “Canadian Perspectives,” 60; Jacquie Carr et al., Workplace Harassment and Violence Report (London: Centre for Research on Violence Against Women, Western University, 2004), 3. 205 Chechak and Csiernik, “Canadian Perspectives,” 60; Jennifer McLaughlin, “The Anger Within,” OH & S Canada 16, no. 8 (December, 2000): 30-36.
50 his workplace experience.206 Before shooting four former coworkers and then himself, Lebrun had drafted a note naming four individuals (none of whom were ultimately shot by Lebrun) whom he wanted to make “pay dearly;” a subsequent inquest revealed that Lebrun, who noticeably stuttered, had long been the victim of harassment in the workplace.207 The coroner’s jury at the inquest outlined 77 recommendations, including, among many others related to the ways that employers should act to protect employees, that OC Transportation develop a policy on anti-harassment, as well as a recommendation that the definition of violence in the workplace be extended to include non-physical, or psychological, forms of aggression.208 Similarly, as noted by Elaine Newman, the death of Lori Dupont was significant for drawing attention to the importance of recognizing and dealing with early signs of violence, which often include bullying and harassment.209 Newman notes, “there had been signs of obvious trouble,” which included among other troubling signs, Daniels’ public harassment of Dupont and disruptive behaviour in the workplace.210 Importantly, this particular case brought to light, in a very unfortunate way, the importance of early awareness and intervention. Of the 65 recommendations made by the
Coroner’s jury, some explicitly dealt with the need to legislate the requirements for awareness strategies in the workplace.211
Cases such as that of Lebrun and Dupont have brought greater recognition and attention in the media, sparking new research regarding the harmful effects of harassment in the workplace, as well as the ways that intimate partner violence can be brought into the
206 McLaughlin, “The Anger Within,” 34. 207 Ibid. 208 Ibid. 209 Elaine Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 for Employers, Unions and Employees (Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012), xxiv. 210 Ibid. 211 Ibid.
51 workplace.212 These efforts were bolstered by union campaigns (including by the Canadian
Nurses Association and the Ontario Public Sector Employees Union, among others) to increase awareness of how bullying and harassment, like physical violence, are risks to worker safety and wellbeing.213 Subsequent changes to legislation and, as a result, workplace policies and initiatives, have reflected this increased recognition of the impacts of non-physical aggression, as outlined in a subsequent section of this chapter. David Yamada notes that there is increasingly global recognition of the harmful impacts of bullying in the workplace, and that Canada is amongst those countries at the forefront of acting to prevent and deal with harassment, including bullying, with most provinces (including Ontario) incorporating harassment provisions in relevant occupational health and safety legislation.214
Bullying in Ontario workplaces: Legislation and policy
In Ontario, the rights and responsibilities of employers, supervisors, workers, and unions, are set out in a number of sources: the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Occupational
Health and Safety Act, and collective agreements. The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code), was enacted following the Second World War, when concerns around racial discrimination and persecution were of increasing public concern.215 David Doorey notes that during this period, “a broad international consensus emerged in favour of greater state intervention in the form of human rights statutes to protect people against injustices, persecution, and discrimination.”216
212 Keashly and Jagatic. “By Any Other Name,” 34-35. 213 Chechak and Csiernik, “Canadian Perspectives,” 59. 214 David C. Yamada, “Workplace Bullying and the Law: Emerging Global Responses,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Development in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011), 470-473. 215 David J. Doorey, The Law of Work: Common Law and the Regulation of Work (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2016), 330. 216 Ibid.
52
The grounds protected under the Code continue to expand, reflecting the changing “social values over time.”217 For example, “sex” was incorporated into the Code in response to the women’s rights movement during the 1960s and 1970s.218 Currently, the Code states that all employees have a right to freedom from harassment based on the following grounds: “race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.”219 The Code defines harassment as “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.”220 Sexual harassment, on the other hand, is illegal sex-based discrimination.221 Sexual harassment includes harassment that is gender-based (e.g. involving bullying or harassing behaviours that enforce traditional notions of gender and sexuality), and that is not necessarily sexually motivated.222 This thesis, however, is specifically focused on situations conceptualized as bullying. They may be a threat to the health and wellbeing of targets, but they are not overtly defined or pursued as violations of the Code or as gender-based or sexual in nature. While only a few jurisdictions in Canada have occupational health and safety legislation relating specifically to workplace bullying, most have legislation regarding violence and harassment in the workplace.223 In Ontario, the Occupational Health and
Safety Act (OHSA) sets out the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees relating to violence and harassment in the workplace.
217 Ibid. 218 Ibid., 331. 219 Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19. 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid. Sexual harassment is similarly defined by the Code as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.” 222 Ontario, Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment, Ontario Human Rights Commission, May 2013, 8. 223 Canada, “Bullying in the Workplace,” Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/bullying.html#_1_2.
53
Since 1914, workers in Ontario have been able to seek compensation for workplace injuries; however, occupational health and safety legislation only came into effect in the 1970s, after workers (throughout the 1960s) increasingly demanded government action regarding long- time safety concerns.224 The focus of the OHSA is on “promoting a safe and healthy workplace and preventing work-related accidents and diseases.”225 Prior to recent changes, prevention of workplace violence fell under an employer’s general duty to ensure a worker’s health and safety by taking every reasonable precaution.226 In response to violent deaths in Ontario workplaces
(particularly that of Lori Dupont), and consequent inquest recommendations, Bill 168 was introduced in 2009 to amend sections of the OHSA dealing with workplace violence and harassment.227 Specifically, Bill 168 expanded the definition of workplace harassment to include grounds that are not protected under the Code, making the definition broad enough to include such behaviour as bullying; offensive comments about race, culture, gender or sexuality; harassing communications through phone, email, etc.; stalking; or behaviours or comments meant to embarrass or offend.228 In addition, Bill 168 set out new responsibilities for employers to prepare a workplace harassment policy that incorporates procedures on reporting, investigating, and dealing with harassment, and to develop and maintain a program to implement the policy and provide relevant information to employees. Bill 168 received royal assent in
December, 2009, became law on June 15, 2010, and is now known as section 32 of the OHSA.229
224 Doorey, The Law of Work, 318. 225 Kathryn J. Filsinger, Employment Law for Business Professionals and Human Resources Professionals, 3rd Edition. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2015), 222. 226 Ibid., 241. 227 Ibid. 228 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 5; Ontario, Legislative Assembly, “An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with Respect to Violence and Harassment in the Workplace and Other Matters,” Bill 168, 39th Legislature, 1st Session, 2009, [Toronto]: The Assembly, 2009, (Assented to Dec. 15, 2009). 229 Amendments to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety will come into effect September 8, 2016, as per Bill 132, which include incorporating the definition of workplace sexual harassment into the definition of workplace harassment as set out in the OHSA. These changes are discussed in the Conclusion of this thesis.
54
Under the OHSA, employers have the greatest responsibility to take precautions to protect employees. Employers are responsible for implementing and annually reviewing appropriate policies and programs, providing adequate information and instruction, hiring competent supervisors, and working with the Joint Health and Safety Committee to ensure a safe workplace. Supervisors must ensure worker compliance with the OHSA, provide advice to workers, and take precautions for the safety of workers, while workers are required to comply with the OHSA, report concerns and incidents, and refrain from behaviour that could endanger themselves or other workers. While violence and harassment policies can be drafted as one document, there is a clear distinction between the two forms of hostility: “any behaviour that would meet the definition of workplace violence would not be considered to be workplace harassment.”230 As stated in a guidebook for understanding the law around violence and harassment in the workplace, the Ontario Ministry of Labour recognizes that hostile behaviours can occur on a continuum, where harassment can escalate to, or, in some instances provoke, acts or threats of violence.231 Thus, it is crucial that hostile behaviours are immediately recognized and dealt with.232 While Bill 168 represents an important step toward acknowledging the importance of deterring harassment in the workplace, the absolute distinction between violence and harassment in the OHSA can be problematic, as requirements and responsibilities differ for these categories of workplace hazards in meaningful ways.
In contrast to the definition of workplace harassment, the OHSA defines workplace violence as “the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker…an attempt to exercise physical force
230 Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety Branch, Workplace Violence and Harassment: Understanding the Law ( Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010), 4 231Ibid., 4 232 Ibid.
55 against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker…,[or] a statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.”233 As with harassment, the OHSA requires employers to implement a policy and program with respect to violence. However, there are key differences that have implications for the prevention of harassment. Importantly, the OHSA does not require employers to assess the risk of workplace harassment, as it does with respect to workplace violence. As such, measures and procedures put into place to prevent and manage harassment are not necessarily based on an assessment of the known risks for specific or similar work environments, as it would be with other forms of violence. The OHSA states the importance of assessing the risk of violence based on a consideration of the “nature of workplace,” the “type of worker conditions,” and the
“circumstances of the workplace” that are common in similar work settings. Moreover, under the
OHSA, workers (excluding those in specific workplaces, such as health care), who are in fear of danger (through violence or other workplace hazards) can refuse to work; however, harassment is not a grounds for work refusals in any work setting. Responses to harassment are to be set out in the workplace harassment policy and program.
The OHSA stipulates that workplace harassment policies should demonstrate the employers’ commitment to ensuring a harassment-free workplace, acknowledge the various sources of harassment (e.g., coworkers, supervisors, clients, patients, visitors, etc.), set out roles and responsibilities of various parties, and be signed and dated by management. The required harassment program must include reporting measures and procedures, complaint investigation and response procedures, and any other prescribed elements under the act.234 Employers are
233 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 1. 234 Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Workplace Violence and Harassment, 24.
56 required under the act to provide workers with “appropriate information and instruction” on the policy and the program, and to ensure that workers know reporting and investigation procedures, and are aware of responses (possible outcomes) of complaints.235 The OHSA recognizes that workers may need further, job-specific information, and that some workers (e.g., supervisors) may require additional training relevant to job position. Under the OHSA, employers must, within the required health and safety policy, set out the creation of a joint health and safety committee (JHSC); the JHSC is in the role of investigating, inspecting, advising, and generally working with the employer and Health and Safety Representative to ensure the health and safety of workers.236 With respect to violence, the JHSC can act as another means to recognize and respond to risk. Employers can consult with the committee when assessing risk, and are required to report to the JHSC any critical injuries or deaths, or instances of violence that result in the need for medical attention.237 Instances of harassment are not required to be reported to the
JHSC. For work places that fall under Health Care and Residential Facilities Regulations of the
OHSA (Reg. 67/93), the employer is required to consult with the JHSC when establishing and implementing health and safety measures and procedures around, among other physical risks, safe work practices and safe working conditions. Broadly, this could encompass risks of violence and harassment, though these are not explicitly stated.
While the OHSA requires that the definition of harassment as set out in workplace harassment policies be consistent with that of the act (that it be broad and inclusive of grounds beyond those outlined in The Code), it does not outline what to include in the definition of harassment, such as examples of what constitutes harassment. It does not require specific
235 Ibid. 236 Ibid., 26. 237 Ibid., 24.
57 training or awareness programs, or that information and training be ongoing. Furthermore, the
OHSA does not outline how those accused of harassment should be punished or managed, or whether/how targets of harassment should be compensated. As noted, harassment policies in particular are not required to be reflective of assessment results or to consider patterns of harassment: “an employer who is concerned with the potential for harassment may choose to include an audit of the risk of harassment, but there is no obligation to do so.”238 In many ways, employers must determine appropriate prevention and response strategies for their workplace.
(See Appendix A and Appendix B for an example of a workplace harassment policy and program as provided by the Ontario Ministry of Labour.)
To summarize, under section 32 of the OHSA, all employers in Ontario, regardless of organization size, must prepare a policy on workplace harassment, and develop and maintain a program to implement the policy and ensure that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities, and understand the ways that harassment is reported and dealt with in a particular workplace.239 In addition to creating and implementing a policy and program to prevent and manage workplace harassment, employers must also be in compliance with human rights legislation, collective agreements, and standards of conduct under common law.240 As such, workers who are targets of bullying in the workplace may, depending on the specific behaviours, and on the workplace, seek redress through alternate (or additional) means, such as making a claim under the Code, filing a wrongful dismissal lawsuit or, if a member of a labour union, filing a union grievance.241
238 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 54 239 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 1. 240 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 124. 241 Ibid., 121-134.
58
Complaints of bullying and the role of unions
In unionized workplaces, it is important that workplace harassment policies, as required under the OHSA, are in compliance with the provisions set out in relevant collective agreement(s).242 The collective agreement is the “first, most detailed, and most informative source of the duties and responsibilities of the employer and the trade union.”243 Trade unions, in cooperation with employers and workers, are responsible for ensuring workers are safe from harassment based on human rights grounds, whether the collective agreement explicitly states this or not,244 and while many collective agreements specifically address harassment, employers are obligated to promote a work environment that is healthy and safe and, thus, harassment- free.245 Where a complaint of harassment is made (by and/or against a member), the process that must be followed is set out in workplace harassment policies and in the collective agreement. An employer is obligated to thoroughly and fairly investigate the complaint.246 The degree to which the union can advocate for a member (e.g., through involvement in investigation, representation during discussions that could result in discipline, presence in disciplinary meetings) depends on the collective agreement, though most collective agreements set out the rights of workers to have a union representative present during disciplinary meetings and discussions which could result in disciplinary action.247 An employer should be aware of the rights of unionized employees and respond accordingly.248 As the OHSA does not set out disciplinary actions, employers must decide how employees are disciplined in cases of harassment. Employees who do not feel that an
242 The collective agreement is a contract that sets out negotiated employment terms and conditions for parties. John Godard, Industrial Relations, the Economy, and Society, 3rd ed. (Concord: Captus Press, 2005), 467. 243 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 29 244 Ibid. 245 Godard, Industrial Relations, 239. 246 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 82 247 Ibid., 107-110 248 Ibid., 110.
59 employer has managed a complaint of harassment appropriately (as a complainant or as an accused) can file a grievance: “a written complaint alleging a contravention of the collective agreement.”249
The specific process of initiating a grievance is detailed in the collective agreement, but usually involves three progressive steps: an informal attempt by an aggrieved worker and union representative to settle the dispute by speaking with a supervisor, the submission of a written grievance (complaint) to a supervisor (or designated person), and a meeting between the union representative and senior management.250 If the parties cannot settle the dispute through the grievance process, the grievance can be taken to arbitration. Though the union can decide, at its discretion, whether to pursue a grievance,251 it officially has a “duty of fair representation,” meaning that it cannot “treat any of its members in a way that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”252 In the event that the union must decide which member to support (i.e., where there is a conflict between members), such decision must be followed by a thorough and fair investigation and must be in keeping with the union’s duty to provide fair representation.253
Obligations of ‘fair’ representation, however, are often complicated by concerns around time, cost, potential unrest, and, of course, the likelihood of a favourable outcome.254 And whether or not a particular grievance is likely to have a favourable outcome, can greatly depend on, among other factors, “arbitral jurisprudence:” the precedent that has been set in previous arbitration
249 Ontario Ministry of Labour, “Arbitration: FAQ,” Ministry of Labour, http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/lr/faqs/lr_faq4.php 250 Ibid.; Godard, Industrial Relations, 357. 251 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 77- 78. 252 Godard, Industrial Relations, 302. 253 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 77-78. 254 Daniel Drache and Harry Glasbeek, The Changing Workplace: Reshaping of Canada’s Industrial Relations System (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1992), 144-145.
60 decisions.255 Accordingly, decisions, processes, and outcomes of representation may reflect gender biases that are imbedded within a system historically shaped through gender ideologies, including around notions of men’s aggression.256
Every collective agreement in Canada must include provisions for dispute resolution through arbitration, in the event that resolution cannot be achieved otherwise.257Arbitration is “a quasi-judicial process in which a disinterested third-party (an arbitrator or arbitration board) hears evidence presented by both the union and the employer on issues in dispute, and hands down a binding decision.”258 The powers of an arbitrator (or arbitration board, as the case may be), are set out in section 48 of the Labour Relations Act, and include, for example, the authority to commence and hold hearings, require specific documents and testimonies, summon witnesses, and include/exclude evidence at its discretion, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a court of law, and render a binding decision.259 During proceedings, “due process” is followed, and each side has the opportunity to present their side of the dispute.260 John Godard notes that the process is often “highly legalistic,” and thus both sides are commonly represented by a lawyer.261 In evaluating evidence and making a final and binding decision, the arbitrator is limited by the terms of the collective agreement, though interpretation of such terms, and the decision as to whether such terms have been violated, is in the arbitrator’s discretion.262 In cases
255 Ibid., 144; Larry Haiven, “Hegemony and the Workplace: The Role of Arbitration,” in Regulating Labour: The State, Neo-Conservatism and Industrial Relations, ed. Larry Haiven, Stephen McBride, and John Shields (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1990), 84. 256 Joan Sangster, “Just Horseplay?: Masculinity and Workplace Grievances in Fordist Canada, 1947-70s,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 26, no. 2 (2014): 360-361 257 Godard, Industrial Relations, 357. 258 Ontario Ministry of Labour, “Arbitration: FAQ.” 259 Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A., Sec. 48. 260 Godard, Industrial Relations, 358. 261 Ibid. 262 Ibid.
61 involving harassment, or, as is relevant to this thesis, bullying, the arbitrator must determine if the employer’s response was appropriate.263
Though this will be discussed in following chapters in more detail, as relevant to specific grievance arbitrations involving claims of unfair discipline, arbitrators commonly consider the following factors when determining if an employer’s response is appropriate: the griever’s disciplinary history/record, length of employment and level of seniority; the parties involved and whether the behaviour entailed premeditation or immediate response; the severity of actions and whether there was provocation; whether the griever accepts responsibility and shows contrition, and whether the griever has offered an apology; the griever’s individual circumstances (age, economic state, health, potential impacts of discipline); whether the workplace had and maintained clear and consistent policies, and if the employer has been consistent in handling similar situations; and whether or not the griever can be reintegrated into the specific work environment.264 With respect to employers’ responses, Newman notes the following: “An employer’s response to misconduct need not only be reasonable and proportional—it must be consistently applied to all members of the bargaining unit. This is a basic rule of arbitration law.”265 Newman further points out that, excluding extremely serious conduct, progressive discipline should be viewed as the standard approach to discipline.266 That is, warnings and consequences should increase in severity with each incident.267
In cases of discipline, an arbitrator must determine if the employer has just cause to discipline the employee, if there are any mitigating factors, if the discipline was appropriate and
263 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 107. 264 Ibid., 110-113. 265 Ibid., 113. 266 Ibid., 115. 267 Godard, Industrial Relations, 360.
62 fair and, if not, what discipline, if any, would be appropriate.268 In addition, in making decisions and weighing the evidence, arbitrators consider, as already noted, previous arbitral decisions, as well as relevant employment law.269 For cases of dismissal, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate just cause, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” to terminate the griever’s employment.”270 In grievances involving complaints involving other forms of discipline, or those involving claims that employers have failed to maintain a harassment-free (bully-free) work environment, the burden of proof is often on the party filing the grievance,271 though, as Olivo and McKeracher note, “an employer cannot discipline or discharge an employee on a whim or an arbitrary or capricious basis.”272 The arbitrator must determine the validity of the claim and, in finding it valid (often based on a balance of probabilities), can make orders to provide remedy, including, among other things, reinstatement, a change to working conditions, monetary compensation, and punitive damages.273 As already stated, the decision of the arbitrator is final and binding.
Conclusion
This chapter has provided a framework for which incidents of workplace bullying are handled in Ontario, and has outlined some of the ways that events have influenced how bullying is managed and responded to in Ontario workplaces. In Ontario, workplace bullying is considered a form of workplace harassment, and is positioned as an occupational health and
268 Sue Hart, “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment: Looking at the Assessment of Mitigating Factors through a Feminist Lens,” Journal of Workplace Rights 15, no.1 (2010-2011): 88-89; Godard, Industrial Relations, 359. 269 Godard, Industrial Relations, 360. 270 Ibid. 271 Ibid., 358. 272 Laurence Olivo and Peter McKeracher, Labour Relations: The Unionized Workplace (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2005), 176. 273 Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment, 128.
63 safety issue, covered under the OHSA. Employers, employees and unions all play an important role in maintaining a work environment free of bullying. Subsequent chapters will draw on the themes presented in this chapter. While discussing examinations of union grievances that deal with situations of workplace bullying, I will delve further into relevant legislation and policy that specifically relates to the grievances being analyzed.
64
Chapter 3
Assumed Risk: Gender, Policy and Workplace Bullying in Ontario Health Care Grievances
As Ortwin Renn notes, “Today’s society seems to be preoccupied with the notion of risk.”274 While risk is not a new concept for human existence (danger has always been present),
“the language of danger,” contends Mary Douglas, has become “the language of risk,” which is accompanied by scientific and “objective” approaches to danger avoidance—approaches that are increasingly tied up into notions of liability and blame.275 However, a lack of uncertainty for outcomes is inherent to the concept of risk, and thus assumptions are a fundamental aspect in efforts to predict and manage risk.276 Risk, as noted by Renn, is “both a social construction and a representation of reality,” as what constitutes risk—the possibility that something will occur to consequently impact something valued by humans—and the level to which we are willing to tolerate risk, is shaped by beliefs, values, and perceptions, which can differ across groups.277 As such, ideas of risk and harm can reflect societal values and norms.
This chapter outlines the ways that policy is ultimately utilized by employers, employees and unions to demonstrate an assumption of risk in order to mitigate harm. And, while not attempting to devalue the potential of policy to deter bullying and provide a clear path to assistance for targets, this chapter shows that policy implementation and interpretation also have the potential to minimize harm and obscure power inequalities, particularly around gender. This chapter looks at how management and union responses to bullying demonstrate an emphasis on
274 Ortwin Renn, “Three Decades of Risk Research: Accomplishments and New Challenges,” Journal of Risk Research 1, no. 1 (1998): 49-71. 275 Mary Douglas, Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge, 1992), 14. 276 Terje Aven and Ortwin Renn, Risk Management and Governance: Concepts, Guidelines and Applications (Stavanger: Springer, 2010), 3; Renn, “Three Decades,” 50. 277 Renn, “Three Decades,” 51, 60.
65 policy, programs, and procedures which ultimately removes (or ignores) social gender roles that are both reflected in and perpetuated by bullying, especially in the work environment of health care, gendered as many workplaces are, though in specific ways. An analysis of 25 grievances
(15 filed by women, and 10 filed by men) reveals that gendered assumptions of risk impact the overall perception and handling of bullying in health care, while policy is used to apply and justify these underlying expectations of risk in care work. Consistent with a persistent trend toward individualizing workplace bullying in existing research, application of policy actively removes gender from discussion, though gender is a factor in how bullying in health care is perpetrated, perceived, and handled. Results of this analysis reveal that hostility in health care is an assumed risk, and that the handling of bullying in health care is consistent with trends to generalize and individualize hostility in the workplace—to remove bullying from broader social, political and economic contexts, and attach blame and accountability to one or two ‘bad apples’ within the work environment.
Managing risk and playing it safe in Ontario health care
Research on workplace bullying has shown that clear policies and active programs foster more positive work environments, and can serve as both deterrents for bullying and as useful guides for how bullying is reported and responded to in the workplace.278 Chapter 2 outlined how, under section 32 of Ontario’s Occupation Health and Safety Act (OHSA), employers in
Ontario are required to prepare a policy on workplace harassment, and develop and maintain a program to implement the policy: employees must be made aware of their rights and responsibilities under the policy, and understand the process of reporting and managing
278 Al-Karim Samnani and Parbudyal Singh, “20 Years of Workplace Bullying Research: A Review of the Antecedents and Consequences of Bullying in the Workplace,” Aggressive and Violent Behaviour 17 (2012): 585.
66 harassment in the workplace.279 As discussed, in unionized work settings, employers must also be in compliance with relevant collective agreements, which often feature language to protect members from harassment in the workplace.280 Policies and programs benefit employers as well, as they enable management to respond to cases of bullying and educate employees on appropriate and respectful conduct. Moreover, policies and programs facilitate a process of documentation for employers to demonstrate steps of appropriate warnings and progressive discipline in response to known unacceptable conduct. This is especially important in a unionized work environment, where evidence of progressive discipline can become critical in cases of alleged unjust discipline and/or discharge from employment. While clear policies and programs have the potential to protect both employers and employees from issues arising in relation to workplace bullying, analysis of relevant grievances shows that such policies and programs also have the potential to disguise underlying power imbalances, and, thereby, delimit the way that risk and harm are viewed and responded to.
Requirements for workplace harassment policies and programs represent a step forward in recognizing the seriousness of non-physical hostility in the workplace, and the detrimental impacts that it can have on individuals as well as organizations. In addition, they provide a means for the employer to demonstrate compliance with requirements, such as by giving appropriate notification to the perpetrators that their workplace conduct is unacceptable, and providing information and tools to targets regarding reporting and investigation procedures.
Consistently, both men’s and women’s grievances demonstrate an emphasis during arbitration on the ‘appropriate’ process of prevention (through clear policies) and response to incidents of
279 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 1. 280 Elaine Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 for Employers, Unions and Employees (Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012), 29.
67 bullying behaviours in the workplace. Where behaviour has taken the form of bullying— negative behaviours that are persistent, harmful, and involve an imbalance of power281— employers are eager to prove that they followed protocol or were simply not made aware that intervention was needed, and, therefore, did everything that was required given their knowledge of the situation. While those accused of bullying want to demonstrate that their actions were not in fact bullying or harmful, or that they were not aware of the potential impacts (to the target or to themselves) of engaging in the conduct under scrutiny, targets of bullying want to show that actions towards them caused harm, and were not dealt with by management in a way that might have prevented or mitigated the harm. During the arbitration process, employers, unions, and arbitration boards look to research, legislation and policy to determine if bullying has occurred and, if it has, whether incidents of bullying were properly managed. Findings of this analysis reveal that a focus on process often serves to ignore or deny underlying gender-related factors, and arguments around ‘awareness’ function to mask underlying causes of bullying in health care work settings.
Unions and arbitration boards look to harassment policies and programs to establish fault, and rely on adherence to legislated requirements to deny culpability. In Peel (Regional
Municipality) Department of Health Sciences v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Public
Health Sector), Local 966 (Dillon Grievance), the grievor, a public health nurse with Peel
Region’s Health Department, grieved the termination of her employment for purportedly bullying her coworkers.282 In a procedural dispute, the union sought to exclude evidence showing
281 Ståle Einarsen and Anders Skogstad, “Bullying at Work: Epidemiological Findings in Public and Private Organizations,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5, no. 2 (1996), 187. 282 Peel (Regional Municipality) Department of Health Sciences v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Public Health Sector), Local 966 (Dillon Grievance), 2012 O.L.A.A. No. 355 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: Albertyn, Rae, and Vorster), LexisNexis Academic.
68 that the grievor had previously engaged in bullying behaviours. The union argued that, in accordance with the collective agreement, the grievor could not be punished for incidents dating back three and five years prior. The employer, however, argued that previous incidents led to investigations, as per policy, and that such investigations resulted in extensive workplace training focused on appropriate workplace conduct (teamwork, respect, bullying awareness, communication, etc.). As with other greivances discussed in this chapter, the employer wanted to show that the misconduct continued despite warnings and training, and thus to demonstrate that procedure was followed: the grievor was made aware that her behaviour was not acceptable, and efforts had been made to assist the grievor and the workplace in general. Where an employer cannot show that such procedure was followed, favour is placed on the grievor (as exemplified in grievances detailed below).
The arbitration board ultimately agreed that the evidence of prior misconduct was useful to show “a pattern of continuing inappropriate conduct.”283 Here, the grievor had a history of complaints made against her for bullying behaviour, and policy and programming was not successful in having an impact on her misconduct. As a result, her employment was terminated.
In cases of bullying, time is a necessary point of discussion, as persistent and prolonged harmful behaviours are often considered part of the definition of bullying, as many grievances outline.
While the preliminary decision discussed here does not go into detail about the bullying behaviours engaged in, both men’s and women’s grievances show that grievors who are made aware through policy and programming, and appropriate progressive discipline, are given less leniency. Grievances also show that this is increasingly the case since Bill 168 came into effect.
283 Ibid., 2.
69
As I have noted, when Bill 168 was introduced in 2009 to amend sections of the OHSA dealing with workplace violence and harassment, it expanded the definition of workplace harassment to include as well as go beyond grounds that are protected under the Ontario Human
Rights Code (the Code). As also noted, the definition of workplace harassment in the OHSA includes bullying and negative behaviour relating to race, gender, sexuality, and other grounds protected under the Code, as well as seemingly ambiguous forms of harassment.284 Bill 168, therefore, has given additional language to frame and label what has occurred in the workplace by expanding the scope of harassment. Many grievances provide copies of the relevant clauses in collective agreements and harassment policies to show that grievors were aware that their actions were against policy, and many specifically use language set out in Bill 168 and workplace bullying research to demonstrate this awareness. Clear language indicating what behaviours are not acceptable has proven to be useful in allowing employers to discipline such behaviours, and also to show, at the point of arbitration, that grievors engaged in such behaviours while knowing the risks of discipline, and while aware that they were breaching policy as required under the
OHSA, whether or not there was an obvious intent to cause harm.
Prior to Bill 168, the Code was often looked at to determine if harassment had occurred, and harassment that did not fit under one of the protected grounds (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, etc.) was more difficult to prove and therefore discipline, as alleged violations of the Code were considered more serious, thus requiring a higher standard of proof. However, though harassment in Bill 168 is broadened in scope and inclusive of grounds protected in the Code, as well as
284 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, “An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with Respect to Violence and Harassment in the Workplace and Other Matters,” Bill 168, 39th Legislature, 1st Session, 2009, [Toronto]: The Assembly, 2009, (Assented to Dec. 15, 2009).
70 seemingly ambiguous harassment, grievances reveal an apparent hesitancy to incorporate this spectrum of harassment when dealing with bullying as an occupational health and safety issue.
Though the definition of bullying includes an element of real or supposed power imbalances, grievances reveal that there is often a narrow scope of power addressed and recognised (i.e., organizational authority), and, as such, workplace bullying is frequently neutralized and isolated from other, grounds-based, forms of harassment. While research has influenced legislation and policy and helped to raise awareness and acknowledgement of the harmful impacts of bullying in the workplace, bullying has become a more discrete concept, increasingly removed from other forms of power abuses, such as sexual and gender harassment.
Bullying that potentially overlaps with gendered-harassment, for example, is often treated as being beyond the scope of harassment under the OHSA. Tuija Virkki suggests that framing various forms of occupational violence as issues of health and safety can contribute to a failure to consider gendered expectations as contributing factors.285 Typical approaches to occupational hazards, she contends, look to prevalence rates, impacts, costs, and ways to mitigate these, often failing to analyze broader societal inequalities, such as gender, particularly in relation to expectations of women as natural care givers.286 This is consistent with trends in workplace bullying research, which tend to focus on the interrelation between organizational and individual factors, while often neglecting to incorporate discussions of broader systemic issues.287
Grievances reveal that, while attempting to understand and make decisions with respect to workplace disputes, arbitrators are reluctant to view gender as a factor at all in bullying and
285 Tuija Virkki, “Gender, Care, and the Normalization of Violence: Similarities between Occupational Violence and Intimate Partner Violence in Finland,” NORA—Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies 15, no. 4 (2007): 221-222. 286 Ibid., 221-223. 287 Al-Karim Samnani, “Embracing New Directions in Workplace Bullying Research: A Paradigmatic Approach,” Journal of Management Inquiry 22, no. 1 (2013): 26.
71 intimidation allegations. As the next example demonstrates, this separation maintains, and possibly increases, the difficulties of bringing to light gendered causes and factors in bullying incidents that appear on their face to be ambiguous.
In Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Lefkowitz Grievance), the issue of gender as a contributing factor in the alleged hostile behaviours is ultimately disregarded by the arbitrator as being beyond the scope of the dispute.288 The grievance, put forth in 2011 and decided in 2015, was initiated by a registered nurse working in Owen Sound Jail. She claimed that her rights under Bill 168, the Code, and the relevant collective agreement had been violated.289 While alleging that the employer failed to protect the grievor from harm, the union cited gender as a factor in the toxic work environment that culminated in the verbal abuse directed at the grievor by her supervisor (hereafter, Mr. B) and by a member of the public, whom
Mr. B had negligently permitted into the jail. In a preliminary objection, the employer disputed the admissibility of evidence that demonstrated Mr. B’s past sexist behaviours. The union sought monetary damages for “stress, embarrassment and humiliation suffered by the grievor and for the violation of her rights,” and asked further that Mr. B be required to seek help with respect to his
“treatment of women.”290
By demonstrating that staff and management were well aware of Mr. B’s lengthy history of exhibiting a violent temper and verbal outbursts, and engaging in inappropriate conduct toward women (including sexual behaviour), the union wanted to refute the employer’s argument that the alleged verbal abuse was a one-time event. The employer argued that such past conduct
288 Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Lefkowitz Grievance), 2015 O.G.S.B.A. No. 17 (Ontario Grievance Settlement Board) (Arbitrator: Briggs), Lexis Nexis Academic. 289 Ibid. 290 Ibid.
72 was not relevant, as it did not specifically relate to the grievor, and had not been grieved (and this evidence would be difficult to locate). Importantly, the employer argued that Human Rights
Code violations had not been listed on the face of the grievance, and it was therefore unknown to the employer that gender would be a matter in the dispute. The arbitrator agreed to hear the union’s evidence for “historical context,” reserving the right to make a decision later as to the admission and weight of the evidence in final submissions. However, upon hearing the evidence, the arbitrator made the following comments: “After much consideration, I am of the view that the evidence of prior incidents should not be admitted."291
The arbitrator went on to explain that the union asserted the evidence was important for three necessary questions to be answered by the arbitration board: if gender played a role in the treatment of the grievor, if the work environment was toxic for female employees, and whether the employer was negligent in its lack of response to Mr. B’s past misconduct. The arbitrator expressed disagreement with this assertion:
According to the evidence and documents before this Board there was no reference to either gender as a contributing factor or of a poisoned work environment until the Union’s particulars were given to the Employer. There is no reference to the Article 3 [of the Collective Agreement] or the Human Rights Code on the face of the grievance and given that other statutes and Collective Agreement provisions were referenced, I cannot allow the Union to significantly expand the scope of the dispute at the hearing room doorstep.292
Despite that “harassment” under Bill 168 was inclusive of gender-related harassment, and violations under Bill 168 had been listed on the face of the grievance, there is a clear distinction made here between what will be viewed as a human rights issue, and what will be considered a health and safety issue. While this makes sense from a procedural perspective, it says a lot about
291 Ibid. 292 Ibid.
73 the difficulties of discussing gender in cases where gender is not overtly or singularly at issue (it is not sexual or gendered harassment in isolation), especially as the arbitration board made this clear statement upon hearing both parties’ submissions: “Contrary to the contention of the Union in its opening statement, I am of the view that this is not a case about gender. Instead, the matter at hand is more aptly characterized as a “bad boss” case.”293 Here, the supervisor’s behaviour is individualized (he is simply not considered a good boss), and thus removed from the context of an overall permissive attitude of hostility toward women in this workplace. The particulars of this grievance will be detailed in Chapter 4, where deliberate attempts to neutralize and individualize bullying are discussed. Here, it is significant to note that this example represents a pattern in grievances to maintain discrete forms of harassment—those based on protected human rights grounds (and more difficult to prove), and those that deal with more general bullying and intimidating behaviours.
Although Bill 168 is intended to include issues around gender, the labour arbitration awards examined here demonstrate that parties are hesitant to include it as an issue if it is not being looked at under the Code. This is especially problematic when gender is a less obvious and overlapping factor in the treatment of a target. Though this point will be further addressed in the concluding chapter for this thesis, a move in research and policy practice toward examining workplace bullying in relation to other power imbalances may expand our understanding of the causes of bullying, and therefore our approaches in responding to it. Emerging research argues that it is necessary to consider identity and the intersection of identity constructs in connection with a variety of forms of workplace aggression and within a variety of work settings, as workplace bullying often appears ambivalent, and is not overtly discriminatory or based on
293 Ibid.
74 social identity constructs, including gender.294 “Modern discrimination,” as noted by Kabat-Farr and Cortina, involves “selective incivility” that can go undetected, or “fly under the radar and persist without challenge, representing a disguised form of dysfunction in many contexts of work.”295 The neutralizing of bullying in health care will be further discussed in Chapter 4, but it is useful here to point out that this neutralizing is made possible by policy, and by the legislation and research that inform the way that policy is implemented. As can be seen in the following section, gender norms work to shape our assumptions around bullying behaviours, and consequently lead to the differential application of policy. Policy, in turn, creates and perpetuates a narrative of reducing potential harm, but that harm is often not about potential targets, but more about reducing possible harm to the organization itself.
In examining workplace bullying policy in Australian public sector workplaces,
Hutchinson and Eveline note that framing workplace bullying as an occupational health and safety issue often results in the assumption that only “the most obvious demonstrations of hierarchical power, such as a boss bullying a worker, are relevant,” thereby ignoring more subtle imbalances of power relating to such factors as gender, environment, race, etc.296 They further note that harm within an occupational health and safety framework is treated as physical injury, where injuries to the individual “can be prevented by adopting an orderly, rational and systematic approach to the identification of potential risks and eliminating them.”297 As demonstrated in the grievances, policy and programs are treated as both prevention and response
294 Dana Kabat-Farr and Lilia M. Cortina, “Selective Incivility: Gender, Race, and the Discriminatory Workplace,” in Gender, Race, and the Discriminatory Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012), 107. 295 Ibid. 296 Jacquie Hutchinson and Joan Eveline, “Workplace Bullying Policy in the Australian Public Sector: Why Has Gender Been Ignored?” The Australian Journal of Public Administration 69, no. 1 (2010): 53. 297 Ibid.
75 methods, and following them demonstrates an accepted assumption and handling of risk. As discussed in the following section, embedded gender norms impact how risk is assumed and managed.
Gender and assumed risk in health care
Research on workplace bullying has focused on gaining a better understanding of the phenomenon in order to prevent and adequately respond to harmful behaviours in the workplace.
Times of reorganization, financial cutbacks, and employee layoffs, are frequently noted in research as creating conditions conducive to workplace hostility.298 Restructuring can result in displacement, decreased role clarity, and uncertainty, among other factors found to contribute to the creation of toxic work settings.299 In a health care environment, such changes are made within a setting that is focused on caring for vulnerable individuals, and discussions of displacement and uncertainty are complicated by attempts to balance worker needs with adequate patient/client care. In a health care context, a focus on hostility as the direct symptom of restructuring serves to disguise the ways that both reorganization and bullying in health care often reflect a devaluing of caring work.
The grievance of a registered nurse (RN), dismissed from her employment at an Ontario hospital for “harassment, bullying and unprofessional conduct” gives an example of how a focus on policy and procedure often works to obscure the devaluing of care work which can be reflected in attempts to cut spending.300 Evidence presented in Peterborough Regional Health
Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Withers Grievance) indicates that the grievor (hereafter,
298Denise Salin, “Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating, and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment,” Human Relations 56, no. 10 (2003), 1216. 299 Ibid. 300 Peterborough Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Withers Grievance), 2012 O.L.A.A. No. 251 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Starkman). LexisNexis Academic.
76
Withers) engaged in bullying behaviours towards newly hired registered practical nurses (RPNs): rolling her eyes and waving her arms dismissively, shouting, ignoring and isolating, among other examples that have been identified throughout literature as classic workplace bullying behaviours that are demeaning and intimidating.301 Fellow RNs, and even patients, attested to
Withers’ bullying behaviours toward the RPNs. As was a familiar topic in all grievances, and as will be discussed later in this chapter, the fact that these actions took place in a health care setting with vulnerable patients, was considered to exacerbate the potential harm caused by
Withers. The arbitrator in this case allowed the grievance for discipline and discharge in part, stating that punishment was justified, but discharge was too severe.
The arbitrator concluded that there was a lack of progressive discipline; the toxic environment could not solely be attributed to Withers, though, the arbitrator noted, there was no evidence of a conspiracy. He also pointed to a distinct lack of guidelines and supervision for integrating RPNs into the Unit. The arbitrator noted that, while reinstatement was not appropriate, given that Withers failed to admit and demonstrate contrition for her wrongdoing, the hospital should pay damages. On the surface, this is a simple case of an RN who bullied newly hired RPNs, but who was not properly warned that her behaviour was unacceptable.
Hospital management failed to appropriately integrate RPNs and, thereby, contributed to a toxic environment, putting the RPNs at risk of bullying behaviours, and Withers participated in bullying for which she expressed no remorse. But, in taking a closer look at this and similar grievances, more can be deduced about the assumptions of risk in relation to gender and the devaluing of caring labour.
301 Ibid.
77
In the above described scenario, in an effort to reduce costs, twenty per cent of RNs in the hospital’s hemodialysis unit were replaced by RPNs “who earn less money and have a narrower scope of practice than RNs.”302 In total, six nurses had been laid off. Nurses in the unit expressed concern about the displacement of their colleagues, the qualifications of the RPNs, and the lack of clear guidelines for the six week orientation period, during which RNs were to mentor newly hired RPNs. Management admitted being aware “of a general anxiety in bringing RPNs onto the unit,” and that many RNs were less than helpful during the transition period.303 As such, entering RPNs were warned that they may not experience a warm welcome, but that any abuse would not be tolerated, and should be reported immediately. Management claimed that an awareness of risk led to the swift handling of the problem—Withers’ bullying behaviours towards RPNs—and argued that Withers was aware of the hospital’s policies on harassment and its zero tolerance approach to disrespectful behaviour. While the arbitration board considered the lack of appropriate and clear policy for the integration of the nurses a factor in the overall toxic environment, the first line of the decision reveals much about the way that policy and awareness are often considered first and foremost: “The Employer has a Workplace Harassment
Policy….”304 The decision then goes on to highlight relevant clauses within the policy— disrespectful behaviour, workplace harassment, workplace bullying—and uses these clauses to demonstrate that Withers engaged in bullying behaviours, knowing that they were prohibited. As previously discussed, workplace bullying literature has shown that restructuring leads to displacement and a lack of role clarity, which can lead to a toxic work environment ripe for
302 Ibid., 3 303 Ibid., 4 304 Ibid.
78 hostile and bullying behaviours. However, within a health care context, there are other factors at play that this policy-focused approach ultimately ignores, and in many ways, disguises.
As contended by Donna Baines, caring work, as gendered and devalued, increases risks for women.305 Baines, who positions risk of harassment and physical violence in gendered labour within the context of economic restructuring, notes that policy plays a role in workplace hostility—increased demands and stress due to cost-cutting efforts ultimately place women (who fill the majority of care positions) at greater risk.306 Therefore, looking at workplace bullying in gendered workspaces without considering gender as a factor, potentially obscures root causes of bullying behaviours, and, consequently, normalizes risk. Virkki notes that, though her early focus was specifically on “women-dominated occupations,” such as nursing, her initial research on occupational violence did not incorporate an analysis of gender.307 She explains that this omission in her early work, and in other research on occupational violence, reflects a persistent presumption of gender neutrality and equality, and a continued positioning of the issue of violence in the workplace as one of “occupational health.”308 Hostility in health care is attached to the occupation, but is often considered separate from the gender norms that are reflected in the hostility. In her interviews with care workers in Finland (nurses, support workers, etc.), Virkki noted a common tendency for care workers to remain silent about violence (verbal and physical) when perpetrated by patients and residents, as such occurrences become “mundane” in an environment of high standards of care and expectations that workers are able to predict, prevent,
305 Donna Baines, “Seven Kinds of Work – Only One Paid: Raced, Gendered and Restructured Work in Social Services, Atlantis 28, no. 2 (2004): 19-28; Donna Baines, “Staying with People Who Slap Us Around: Gender, Juggling Responsibilities and Violence in Paid (and Unpaid) Care Work,” Gender, Work and Organization 13, no. 2 (2006): 129-151. 306 Baines, “Staying with People Who Slap Us Around,” 130. 307 Virkki, “Gender, Care, and the Normalization of Violence,” 220-221. 308 Ibid., 221
79 and resolve violence and hostility. 309 She notes that “violence gets normalized as an inevitable part of the job.”310 A care worker’s ability to manage such situations, and to control their emotions for the benefit of the patient/resident, can be seen as a testament to their skill and suitability for the position and their “commitment to care.”311 This, points out Andrea Campbell, also veils the role that underfunding and a lack of resources plays in nurturing a stressful work environment.312 Salimah Valiani attributes increasing danger in health care to the increasing demands of care workers in the face of decreasing support systems.313 This is especially the case, argue Banerjee et al., for long-term care workers, for almost half of whom in Canada, violence
(verbal and physical) is a daily experience. 314
Hutchinson and Jackson argue that it is important to consider the specific context of public sector institutions when analyzing workplace bullying in health care settings, as “in a number of countries, healthcare is publically funded.”315 Work settings are impacted by neoliberal approaches to organization and management, which increasingly focus on reducing costs through downsizing and restructuring.316 In several grievances, bullying occurred within the context of reorganization, where employees were required to work under different management, within different teams, and, at times, at different locations. In many cases, as in the
Withers Grievance explained above, workers witnessed how downsizing resulted in the
309 Ibid., 224. 310 Ibid. 311 Andrea Campbell, “Work Organization, Care, and Occupational Health and Safety,” in Troubling Care: Critical Perspectives on Research and Practices, ed. Pat Armstrong and Susan Braedley (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2013), 95. 312 Ibid. 313 Salimah Valiani, The Cycle of Sacrifice: Nurses’ Health and the Ontario Health System (Toronto: ONA, 2013), 3. 314 Albert Banerjee et al., “Out of Control”: Violence against Personal Support Workers in Long-term Care (Toronto: York University, 2008), 1-2. 315 Marie Hutchinson and Debra Jackson, “The Construction and Legitimation of Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector: Insight into Power Dynamics and Organizational Failures in Health and Social Care,” Nursing Inquiry 22, no. 1 (2015): 14-15. 316 Ibid., 13.
80 elimination of entire positions. In essence, there are competing forces of power, where there is a struggle to thrive in the face of ever-depleting resources. Wheeler, Halbeslon, and Shanine assert that workplace bullying is one response to insufficient resources: “…a lack of resources almost inevitably lead to workplace bullying.”317
Foucault’s observations on power are instructive here, as they highlight that power is more than just an individual’s or institution’s power over others, but rather, power is part of a larger system of various forms of power operating simultaneously, including through resistance.318 For Withers, acts of bullying might thus be considered acts of resistance to not only maintain her position in the workplace, but to preserve her higher position as an RN, which afforded her higher pay, status, and respect. Withers had previously been in the position of RPN before she completed the requirements to earn more money, and respect, in the position of RN.319
Part of her bullying behaviours toward the newly hired RPNs was to draw attention to their lack of training, education, and experience, in comparison to that of the RNs. Beyond being alarmed at the removal of RN positions, the grievor clearly viewed these changes as a reflection of a devaluing of the superior position of RN (her own positon). In several cases, she attempted to sabotage the work of the RPNs to reveal incompetence, and thereby secure her status and her position in the face of decreasing resources. As grievances revealed, gender is one factor (and the main factor examined in this thesis) that helps to determine the ways that these struggles are produced and manifested. Who bullies and is bullied (gender, position, etc.), the factors that produce hostile work environments, the means available to employees to respond to workplace
317 Anthony R. Wheeler, Jonathan R.B. Halbeslon, and Kristen Shanine,” Eating Their Cake and Everyone’s Else’s Care, Too: Resources as the Main Ingredient to Workplace Bullying,” Business Horizons 53 (2010): 558-559. 318 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction, Translated by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 92; Amy Allen, “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Feminists,” in Feminist Interpretations of Michel Foucault, ed. Susan J. Hekman (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State, 1996), 271. 319 Peterborough Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Withers Grievance).
81 hostility, and the ways that hostility are perceived and handled in specific work settings, can be connected in part to deeply rooted gender norms and expectations, particularly in care work settings.
Grievances analyzed here show the way that women are expected to deal with their own and other’s emotions better than men, and that, in many ways, risk is treated as just part of the job. This is exemplified in the grievance of a health care aide who grieved her dismissal for allegedly verbally intimidating a male resident in a nursing home.320 In White Eagle Nursing
Home v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1.on (M.A. Grievance), the grievor
(hereafter, M.A.) had been employed as a health care aide for “many years,” and was dismissed after she was seen by the administrator to be standing close to an elderly male resident, while shouting that he was an abusive and bad man.321 In a rare instance in grievances analyzed, a woman was described as demonstrating physical signs of anger. The grievance details how others witnessed M.A. taking an aggressive stance, observing that she appeared to be “nose-to- nose” with the resident while engaged in a shouting match with him: “More particularly, the grievor had her hands on her hips, she was leaning forward into the resident’s face and she had an angry look on her face.” As M.A. turned to respond to the administrator’s attempts to intervene, the resident slapped her across the face. To explain what led to the altercation, M.A. noted that, earlier, the resident had held up his cane to her in a threatening manner three times, after which M.A. attempted to move away in order to avoid being struck. She further explained that not long after, as she walked past him, the resident punched the side of M.A.’s head, and she moved away before he could hit her a second time. It was at this moment, claimed M.A., that the
320 White Eagle Nursing Home v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1.on (M.A. Grievance), 2006 O.L.A.A. No. 627 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Levinson). Lexis Nexis Academic. 321 Ibid.
82 administrator came into the dining room to witness her angry and defensive response. In the decision of the arbitration board, all circumstances surrounding the event appeared to be irrelevant (environment, work load, threat, capacity of resident, etc.). M.A. was found by the arbitration board to have been abusive and intimidating toward the resident, and her case was determined to be lacking in mitigating factors—she denied that her response to the resident was wrong and she had previously been disciplined for inappropriate behaviour towards a family member (demonstrating a lack of respect and repeated hostile behaviours).
The arbitration board’s decision made it clear that there was no hesitancy in upholding
M.A.’s dismissal, given her duty to control her emotions and her obligations as a caregiver, the severity of her misconduct, and her knowledge of relevant policy: “What the grievor ought to have done in the present circumstances is clear. Instead of engaging in the exchange with the resident, she ought to have disengaged and sought assistance. She ought to have controlled her emotions and actions. She did not. There was no legitimate purpose to her very serious culpable misconduct.”322 The arbitration board further noted the importance of M.A.’s lack of
“rehabilitative prospects,” by explaining that health care aides work independently (it was previously noted that each aide in this nursing home cares for eight or nine residents independently), and that there are higher standards of conduct in health care.
Almost all grievances analyzed cite higher standards of conduct in health care, and the need to focus on patient well-being and be ever-aware of the impact of conduct on vulnerable individuals in any care situation. At the same time, as will be discussed below, grievances demonstrate that these expectations are higher for women than for men. This is consistent with literature that points to the view of care work as women’s work, and the resulting devaluing of
322 Ibid., 3.
83 care work as women’s work. Higher standards of care for women are revealed in grievances through a trend to view women’s hostility as behaviour contrary to that of a nurturing and empathetic care giver. In other words, there is a greater tendency to normalize male hostility and associate women’s hostility with evidence of poor compatibility with health care in general.
While treating incidents of bullying as neutral hostility (not based on protected grounds), both men’s and women’s grievances reveal underlying gendered assumptions of risk that impact, and in some ways determine, how bullying behaviours are understood. When men engage in bullying, there is an apparent expectation that such behaviour will take on more physical forms of aggression. Women’s bullying behaviours that include outward signs of anger and aggression are looked on particularly unfavourably. Grievances reveal how this plays out in a health care context, where women’s bullying behaviours are more often discussed in relation to patient care
(as a reflection of caring and nurturing) than are men’s. Grievances show that men’s displays of anger toward other employees, such as a red face, shaking a finger, raising voices, and so on, are looked at as behaviours isolated to the incidents under scrutiny, whereas anger and intimidating behaviours, and even other forms of misconduct exhibited by women, are more likely to be viewed in the overall context of health care, and more likely to be considered signs of potential risks to patient and resident care, despite that patients were very rarely described in grievances as being targets of such behaviour.
For example, one male health care aide filed eight grievances, which were ultimately dealt with in one award, grieving discipline and dismissal from his job, and alleging harassment and unfair treatment by his supervisor.323 The grievor was ultimately discharged from his position for verbally abusing and intimidating his supervisor. The grievance provides abundant
323 Toronto (Metropolitan) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Kidd Grievance), 1998 O.L.A.A No. 195 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Marcotte). LexisNexis Academic.
84 details as to the grievor’s ongoing inability to attend work on time, or at all, though the union was quick to point out that there was no complaint with respect to the grievor’s ability to perform his duties as a health care aide. While the employer hinted that the grievor’s perpetual lateness and absenteeism could impact patient care, there was no mention of how this fact might translate into, or represent, a lack of caring abilities, or a deficiency in necessary empathy and compassion. Significantly, despite the fact that the grievor was accused of threatening and verbally abusing his female supervisor, and that the union and the board acknowledged that he is an “excitable person,” no connection is ever made between his capacity to work with vulnerable residents and his tendency to visibly display anger and frustration. This is similar to the grievance of a male RN, who was ultimately discharged from his employment due to several incidents of bullying and intimidation involving physical displays of anger and ongoing
“intimidating and threatening” behaviours towards fellow employees (including toward a female supervisor). As with the previously mentioned case, and as will be further described in Chapter
4, the grievor’s conduct and overall demeanor was never used to question his ability to perform as an RN, though work in this context was often one-on-one, in addition to requiring team work for the care and support of vulnerable people.324
Women’s grievances, on the other hand, frequently reveal how women’s behaviour in general (with coworkers, management, the public) is treated as an indication of suitability for caregiving, and as a reflection of women’s potential fitness to care; any indication of a lack of compassion is discussed in terms of how behaviours reflect an overall temperament incompatible with the ability to provide care or work in a caring environment, and this is regardless of her position (RN, RPN, personal support worker, dietary aid, etc.). For example, when one female
324 North Bay Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Sherritt Grievance), 2015 O.L.A.A. No. 171 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Newman). LexisNexis Academic.
85 health care aide grieved her dismissal for alleged bullying and intimidation of coworkers, the
Employer argued that the grievor’s behaviour was contrary to the mission and goals of the non- profit agency, which provides support to vulnerable residents, stating the following:
As a general rule, the staff often work independently and are not subject to direct supervision. At the same time, staff act as part of a team responsible for delivering resident care. Given these considerations, the employer seeks to recruit employees who can develop good relationships with clients and staff, and who possess empathy, sympathy and the physical ability to perform the work.325
Importantly, the grievor’s ability to provide care was not ultimately found to be lacking: “There appear to be no complaints or negative indications from residents or staff about the manner in which she delivers resident care.” The arbitration board concluded that a lack of evidence prohibited a finding that the grievor’s misconduct be translated, as per the employer’s wishes, to mean that the grievor should not be entrusted to provide care; however, this grievance is one example of a pattern of attempts by employers to view women’s hostility as direct reflections of their capacity to provide care to the vulnerable, and thereby question their ability to nurture and be empathetic. This happened whether or not the hostility was directed at a patient, resident, co- worker, or supervisor. There is an assumption of harm in health care, and this directly relates to expectations of women as nurturers and caregivers, and to the devaluing of care work as women’s work. 326
325 Re Rygiel Home and C.U.P.E., Local 3009, 1993 O.L.A.A. No. 1015 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Rose), LexisNexis Academic. 326 For other examples (in addition to those discussed in the body of this thesis) where suitability for health care context was questioned in cases of women’s alleged misconduct, see Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Burke Grievance), 2005, O.L.L.A. No. 454 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: R. Brown), LexisNexis Academic; Re McKellar General Hospital and S.E.I.U., Local 268, 1993 O.L.A.A. No. 835 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Victor Solomatenko), LexisNexis Academic; University Health Network v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Abraham Grievance), 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 58 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: F.M. Reilly), LexisNexis Academic; Sault Area Hospital v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 620 (Farrell Grievance), 2001 O.L.A.A. No. 887 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: M.K. Saltman, J.A. Pearce, and J. McManus), LexisNexis Academic.
86
Conclusion
The potential for clear policies and programs to deter and aid in the response to workplace bullying is positive; however, an analysis of grievances of men and women working within Ontario health care settings reveals that policies and programs can also act to obscure existing and underlying power imbalances, particularly around gender. Employers, employees and unions utilize policy to demonstrate an assumption of risk in order to mitigate harm. While changes to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act have served to better recognize harassment in the workplace beyond grounds which fall under the Human Rights Code, and to offer a means to prevent and manage bullying in the workplace, results of this analysis reveal that the handling of bullying in health care is consistent with trends to neutralize and individualize hostility in the workplace. As such, adjudications of bullying cases demonstrate an emphasis on policy, programs, and procedures that serve to hide social gender roles that are both reflected in and perpetuated by bullying, especially in the gendered work environment of health care. Gendered assumptions of risk shape the way that bullying is perceived and managed in health care, and the application of policy tends to normalize gendered risks in care while simultaneously removing gender as a point of discussion.
The next chapter takes a closer look at an increasingly decontextualized approach to workplace bullying, and outlines the ways that grievances reveal an ongoing trend toward viewing the workplace and workplace policies with an “assumption of neutrality.”327 It demonstrates the gendered implications of this assumption by juxtaposing deliberate attempts to
327 Virkki, “Gender, Care, and the Normalization of Violence,” 221.
87 neutralize and individualize hostility with actual workplace bullying incidents described in grievances, and thereby teasing out the underlying gendered elements.
88
Chapter 4
Gendered Expectations: Workplace Bullying Policy and the Neutralization of Harm in
Care Settings
Researchers using a gendered perspective to examine the phenomenon of workplace bullying often situate their efforts and findings within the view that social and organizational power itself is gendered: “because bullying is a social and organizational phenomenon, it is inherently gendered.”328 Loraleigh Keashly notes that, given rising evidence that gender matters, or plays a role in bullying in the workplace, the question left to answer is, “when and how it matters.”329 For Hutchinson and Eveline, the way that gender plays out in the implementation of
(gender-neutral) workplace policies within “profoundly gendered” organizational contexts is a key area that has been largely ignored (and actively denied) in both international research and practical efforts.330 Chapter 3 of this thesis discussed how assumptions of risk help to shape the way that bullying in the workplace, and particularly in health care, is anticipated and handled: despite notions of neutrality, grievances reveal that policy implementation and application in health care settings can have gendered elements which are rooted in social gender norms and expectations, especially around ideas of women as natural caregivers. Existing literature demonstrates that men’s aggression has historically been treated in grievances as part of the
“masculine culture” in male dominated workplaces.331 This chapter expands on these findings,
328 Loraleigh Keashly, “Workplace Bullying and Gender: It’s Complicated,” in Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, ed. Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012), 78, 79. 329 Ibid., 79. 330 Jacquie Hutchinson and Joan Eveline, “Workplace Bullying Policy in the Australian Public Sector: Why Has Gender Been Ignored?,” The Australian Journal of Public Administration 69, no. 1 (2010): 47. 331 Stephen Meyer, “Work, Play, and Power: Masculine Culture on the Automotive Shop Floor, 1930-1960,” inBoys and Their Toys?: Masculinity, Class, and Technology in America, ed. Roger Horowitz (New York: Routledge, 2001), 21; See also, Joan Sangster, “Just Horseplay?: Masculinity and Workplace Grievances in Fordist Canada, 1947- 1970s,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 26, no. 2 (2014): 330-364.
89 and those set out in Chapter 3, by outlining gender differences in behaviour and expectation with respect to bullying in health care, specifically around men’s aggression and negative attitudes toward women, and contrasting these differences with efforts by employers, union representatives, and arbitrators to generalize hostility in the workplace during the arbitration process.
Bullying behaviours and responses set out in the analyzed grievances signify embedded gender expectations, while the application of policies and procedures are predicated largely on ideas of gender sameness: as a consequence, they effectively work to simultaneously ignore and preserve gender power differences. An analysis of grievances revealed that both men’s and women’s experiences of workplace bullying (as targets or perpetrators) varied, but that to exert power over others in the workplace men more frequently utilized physical displays of anger, and often relied on existing gender power inequalities, as shown through typical sexist conduct toward women. Workplace policies that defined harassment and bullying using terms more consistent with physical violence and threats of physical violence, acted to blur the line between harassment and violence, and consequently minimized both the fear-evoking actions more commonly exhibited by men, and the responses of fear by targets of bullying. Furthermore, grievances showed that power imbalances, which lay at the core of bullying experiences, are both ignored and exacerbated when complaints of bullying are first treated as general workplace conflicts between two employees: targets were routinely asked to approach their aggressor, advised to take part in conflict resolution, required to continue to work with or near their aggressor, or themselves encouraged to transfer to another area of the workplace.
This chapter further demonstrates that policy and legal responses to bullying largely reflect and support accepted gender norms—men are more aggressive and women are more
90 nurturing—and thus work to perpetuate the power inequities that are at the heart of bullying in health care. I set out examples of gendered elements in workplace bullying incidents, and discuss the ways that responses act to neutralize actions, contexts, and power. It concludes with a call to reconsider current approaches to workplace bullying and harassment policies that fail to take into account gender power imbalances, and to further recognize the often similarly rooted nature of workplace bullying and sexual harassment in order to combat more covert forms of women’s discrimination in the workplace.
What do you expect? Gender, policy, and experiences of bullying in health care
Bullying in health care is clearly distinct from bullying in many other work settings, as it takes place in the context of risk not just for employees, but for vulnerable members of society, for whom employers and employees are obligated to provide support and consideration. As outlined in Chapter 3, responsibility and risk are gendered in this context, as there are higher expectations placed on women, which reflect gendered notions of care work as women’s work. A close reading of grievances revealed that men’s conduct as alleged bullies differed from that of women, particularly in the ways that bullying was carried out, perceived, and responded to.
While not explicitly stated in arbitration awards, aggressive behaviours were seemingly deemed more acceptable for men, consistent with embedded expectations of men and women: that men are essentially more aggressive, while women are essentially more nurturing. In essence, findings support the position that we are more apt to view men’s aggression as normal, just as we are more apt to view women’s inability to be caring and nurturing as abnormal (as discussed in
Chapter 3).
91
Women as alleged perpetrators of bullying more often engaged in less aggressive, intimidating, and physical behaviours to bully coworkers. Instead, grievances revealed that women were typically accused of using such bullying tactics as being overly critical, placing undue blame, meting out unfair discipline, and spreading gossip.332 Conversely, men more frequently engaged in behaviours that resulted in or could be taken as physical intimidation.
Several grievances mention men’s physical presence and demeanor as part of the bullying behaviours, such as being red-faced and angry, standing over others in a small space, and being in a position to impede a target’s ability to leave a room or area (e.g., as the operator of a vehicle or by standing in a doorway). Additionally, men more frequently expressed anger by damaging or being aggressive with objects, such as by kicking a chair, punching a wall, or slamming a table. In other words, men, more so then women, used their physical presence in bullying, and their bodies, therefore, to intimidate others. Many targets, both men and women, claimed that they felt intimidated, threatened, closed-in, and powerless after encountering these physical signs of anger and aggression. As will be further discussed, such comments raise the question as to what constitutes threat and violence, and whether, in some instances definitions have gendered implications. The grievance described below (the Sherrit Grievance) shows how feelings of
332 For example (in addition to grievances described in the body of this thesis), see Toronto (City) and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Stockley Grievance), 1999 O.L.L.A No. 446 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: D.K.L. Starkman), LexisNexis Academic; Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Burke Grievance, 2005 O.L.A.A. No. 454 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: R. Brown), Lexis Nexis Academic; Re McKellar General Hospital and S.E.I.U., Local 268. 1993 O.L.A.A. No. 835 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Victor Solomatenko), LexisNexis Academic; University Health Network v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Abraham Grievance) 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 58 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: F.M. Reilly), LexisNexis Academic; Sault Area Hospital v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 620 (Farrell Grievance), 2001 O.L.A.A. No. 887 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: M.K. Saltman, J.A. Pearce, and J. McManus), LexisNexis Academic.
92 intimidation are neutralized, while at the same time gender norms operate to both shape these experiences and determine the outcomes of workplace bullying.
In North Bay Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Sherritt Grievance), the grievor, a registered nurse (RN), claimed he was unjustly dismissed from his employment, though the arbitrator ultimately found him to have “committed the listed incidents of harassment,” which included angry, aggressive, and intimidating bullying behaviours toward several co-workers.333 As with other grievances, the arbitrator reviewed evidence for each incident with careful consideration in order to determine whether the grievor had engaged in alleged actions, if such actions indeed constituted bullying and harassing behaviours, and whether the employer had demonstrated just cause to terminate the grievor’s employment (e.g., by demonstrating progressive discipline). The arbitrator detailed the findings in the final award.
The actions of the grievor, the targets, and management provide useful demonstrations of how gender played an indirect role in the bullying actions in question. In the letter dismissing the grievor from employment, the employer named specific acts of bullying and intimidating behaviours involving three particular coworkers (one man and two women). While the grievor clearly engaged in intimidating behaviour that had apparent gendered elements, these elements are never touched on in descriptions of events or in the final award. Indeed, there is a clear effort to neutralize these incidents, as will be described below.
As noted, under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), every workplace in Ontario is required to have workplace violence and workplace harassment policies, and programs to implement these policies. Employers can access and use examples of workplace
333 North Bay Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Sherritt Grievance), 2015 O.L.A.A. No. 171 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Newman) LexisNexis Academic, 2.
93 harassment policies,334 but while employers are required to, at a minimum, define harassment using the language set out in the OHSA, they are able to use examples of harassing and unacceptable behaviour at their discretion.335 Workplace harassment policies, therefore, can (and often do) include language and examples that are specifically relevant to the workplace for which the policy was developed.336 In this case, the grievance clearly states that the grievor was aware of the relevant workplace policies, and that he had previously participated in programs and activities relating to respectful and appropriate conduct in his place of work.
The grievor (hereafter, Sherritt) was part of a “multidisciplinary team” that worked to
“provide services and care to outpatient clients with severe and persistent mental illness.”337
Each member of the team possessed particular and differing expertise, and thus teamwork and respect for colleague’s input and abilities were of critical importance. Though each team member was assigned “prime clients,” the entire team was responsible for all clients; each morning the team met to give and discuss reports and work assignments.338 The grievance outlines the definition of harassment as set out in the Hospital’s workplace harassment policy, which references the OHSA and the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code): “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known as unwelcome.”339
Additionally, the policy sets out general examples of intolerable behaviours that fall under this definition, as well as examples that particularly reflect the work environment: “bullying, stalking, verbal abuse or intimidation, psychological abuse, taunting, and sabotaging team
334 See Appendix A and Appendix B for examples. 335 Elaine Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 for Employers, Unions and Employees (Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012), 55, 69. 336 Ibid., 69. 337 North Bay Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Sherritt Grievance), 5. 338 Ibid. 339 Ibid., 4
94 efforts.”340 Other examples set out in the policy, and which the Hospital relied on in deciding to end Sherritt’s employment, include the following:
- “Making gestures that seek to intimidate.”
- “Provoking fear or diminishing an individual’s dignity or self worth.”
- “Bullying or belittling the person. Bullying is repeated intimidation or hurtful behavior
towards others and includes unjustified criticism, humiliation and abuse of authority.”
- “Preventing the person from personal expression: yelling, threatening, constantly
interrupting a person, prohibiting a person from speaking to others.”
- “Isolating the person: no longer talking to a person at all, denying a person’s presence,
distancing a person from others.”341
Additional relevant workplace policies that the employer alleged Sherritt breached (e.g., The
Joint Code of Conduct), were consistent with those referred to above, in that they similarly described harassing behaviour as involving threatening, abusive, and fear-inducing language and actions.342 Consistent with those set out in many other analyzed grievances, policies clearly and specifically set out behaviours that were considered abusive, such as “exaggerated tone of voice, screaming, yelling,” “coercion through intimidation,” and “threatening body language, facial expressions.”343 While examples provided support that Sherritt engaged in all of these behaviours, and show that he indeed bullied and intimidated coworkers, the arbitrator ultimately found that the employer had not made it clear to Sherritt that his behaviour was unacceptable, and had failed to apply progressive discipline. In this case, workplace policies were not
340 Ibid. 341 Ibid. 342 Ibid. 343 Ibid.
95 considered to be effectively implemented, a point which became the focus of this grievance. In the end, the arbitrator deemed termination of employment excessive, and instituted a 30-day suspension instead; however, Sherritt’s failure to admit wrongdoing and to demonstrate contrition suggested that a continued toxic work environment would be likely if Sherritt returned to the place of work, and therefore the arbitrator did not order his reinstatement. Importantly,
Sherritt’s extreme behaviours were minimized through policy language which implies a threshold for bullying and harassing behaviours that is more favourable to, or at least more consistent with, the expectations of men’s behaviour.
The union in this case argued that Sherritt’s behaviour was not serious enough to warrant severe discipline, and downplayed the magnitude of the behaviours and their impacts. This was consistent with all grievances analyzed, where unions and employers alternately trivialized or magnified behaviours and effects in an effort to protect and defend their side. Of significant note is the way that such arguments often rested on policy language that worked to define aggressive and fear-evoking behaviors as harassment. Here, Sherritt’s behaviour was outlined in the hospital’s harassment policy, and not, therefore, considered violence (the more serious charge).
Frequently, this overlap was seen in grievances where intimidation and evoking fear were listed as harassing behaviours, and not as violence, notwithstanding that the OHSA describes threatening behaviour, or behaviour that could reasonably be interpreted by the target to be a threat, as violence.344 This grievance demonstrates the ways that the line between violence and harassment is often blurred, and exemplifies how the role that gender plays in bullying incidents and outcomes is ultimately ignored by such neutralizing approaches. While Sherritt was alleged to have carried on in an intimidating and bullying manner towards several coworkers in general
344 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 1.
96
(e.g., during team meetings), three specific incidents detailed in the grievance exemplify how threatening behaviour is often normalized for men, and how management responses—applying policy that treats bullying as interpersonal conflict and minimizes threatening behaviour—can have gendered implications that are often silenced under the guise of maintaining equal and fair treatment (treating everyone the same).
The first incident involved a female supervisor (the team leader) who had approached
Sherritt with respect to an issue raised by a co-worker (a man with whom Sherritt had a longstanding strained working relationship). The supervisor noted that Sherritt became “very upset, red in the face, pointed his finger at her, yelled and stood up.”345 She further noted that “in her small office, he was very intimidating.” He expressed that he was being treated unfairly, and threatened to report the incident to the Ministry of Health. Sherritt used profane language, and his supervisor stated that while she did not fear that he would hurt her, she did experience fear of recrimination because of his threats to report the incident.
In making a decision about this particular occurrence, the arbitrator sided with the union, and concluded that yes, Sherritt had behaved in an angry and intimidating way, but that this was more in response to what he claimed were unsubstantiated allegations made by a co-worker with whom he had previous negative dealings, and not an attempt to evoke fear of physical danger.
The arbitrator concluded that Sherritt had indeed behaved inappropriately, but that it was “the content of his words that were threatening.”346 This finding raises the question as to whether or not this form of intimidation (threatening to file a report) can be separated from the fact that
Sherritt simultaneously used his body to show anger, and did so in the confines of the small office of his female supervisor. This was a point that was specifically noted by the supervisor,
345 North Bay Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Sherritt Grievance), 7. 346 Ibid, 9.
97 demonstrating that Sherritt’s threat to file a report was not the only means of intimidation. Given that several others had reported that Sherritt frequently used body language to denigrate others
(e.g, silencing others by rolling his eyes, raising his arms, or taking an aggressive stance), one might argue that these physical behaviours were intended to intimidate, as indeed they succeeded in doing. In addition, Sherritt was known to use tactics that reduced his target’s confidence in their abilities to perform at work. Threatening to complain or notify others of what he deemed poor quality performance was one way in which he ensured that others always complied with his ideas.
In a second example, Sherritt was accused of intimidating a female co-worker when he drove her home from a work-related event and pulled over in a waterfront parking lot to speak with her. Sherritt was angry that she had gone to management to discuss something that he felt should have first been brought to his attention. Again, he was described as becoming visibly angry: “he was red-faced, banged on the dash with his finger, and stated that she had betrayed him.”347 In her testimony, the co-worker here stated that “she felt overwhelmed and trapped and stopped listening and wanted out, and told him to take her back.” She described feeling “shell- shocked” and “violated.” Upon reporting the incident to management, she was encouraged to try conflict resolution, which suggested that the incident merely involved a dispute between employees.348 As in other grievances, impacts were potentially exacerbated when management encouraged conflict resolution in response to complaints of intimidation and bullying. This approach requires targets to interact with and even confront their aggressors, which may, in certain circumstances, be difficult for some, particularly women, in the face of a potential physical threat or ongoing intimidation. It also suggests equal responsibility. Here, the arbitrator
347 Ibid., 10. 348 Ibid.
98 found that Sherritt’s conduct constituted bullying and harassment as set out in the workplace harassment policy, and that his anger toward his co-worker was “clearly palpable, his comments were intended to be intimidating and hurtful, and they achieved their goal.” 349
A third example in this particular grievance involved a male co-worker, Herbert, who ultimately made the formal complaint of Sherritt’s ongoing bullying and intimidating conduct, leading to Sherritt’s dismissal. Herbert suffered severe, long-term personal and professional impacts as a result of Sherritt’s continuing bullying. His written complaint noted that he had lost confidence at work, and thus had lost the ability to properly and effectively carry out his work duties. Importantly, he stated that several efforts at conflict resolution, as suggested by management, had failed, and actually served to worsen the issue. As previously stated, treating cases of workplace bullying as ones of interpersonal conflict removes the element of power, and takes a neutral approach that fails to factor in that some targets may feel more vulnerable and fearful than others. Of particular note, Herbert was described in testimony by one co-worker as a sensitive individual who became increasingly withdrawn because of the Sherritt’s bullying:
She testified that Herbert is more sensitive and was not comfortable addressing groups, so she sometimes agreed to read his report for him. She recalled him asking her how to work with the grievor after he had been on the team for 3 months. [She] stated that the grievor often retorted to Herbert’s comments at meetings with something derogatory, and, over time, Herbert became less interactive with the team and kept more to himself. 350
For his part, Herbert noted that “he had a number of one-on one conversations with the Grievor during which he felt intimidated due to the Grievor’s tone of voice, aggressive stance, affect when angry, over talking, rolling his eyes, and passive aggressive behaviour.” He outlined several ways that Sherritt undermined and belittled him, and how this ultimately resulted in his
349 Ibid. 350 Ibid., 13.
99 inability to speak out in the workplace. He described Sherritt’s behaviour as controlling and demoralizing, and how he felt worthless as a result of it.
Others within the workplace attested to changes in Herbert’s behaviour, noting that he became quiet, withdrawn, and exhibited a loss of confidence, despite that he was a good clinician. Like examples named above, the incident that ultimately resulted in Herbert’s formal complaint took place in a small space and involved feelings of physical intimidation. It started when Sherritt critiqued Herbert’s approach to a particular client’s care: “the grievor came to
[Herbert] red-faced and leaning forward and said aggressively that in the future he needed to set firm limits with this client.”351 When Herbert first took his complaint to management, he felt that his concerns were not taken seriously, and he testified that he eventually had to show management literature on “serial bullying” to have them consider the incidents as a course of actions, as opposed to one isolated incident. The arbitrator found that Sherritt’s behaviour toward
Herbert constituted “coercion through intimidation and exclusionary behaviour which falls within the JCC’s [Joint Code of Conduct’s] list of Inappropriate Behaviour.”352
Evidence in this grievance clearly points to overt forms of aggressive and intimidating behaviour. Despite the fact that power is a defining element of workplace bullying, it is minimized—if not removed—from discussions of the engagement and impact of the outlined bullying behaviours. Instead, in this case, management initially dealt with complaints of bullying as individualized employee conflicts, ones that might benefit from conflict resolution. This speaks to the importance of management having an understanding of bullying as one form of harassment, and is an example of the ways that policy application could better acknowledge
351 Ibid. 352 Ibid.
100 power in bullying and intimidation by immediately treating complaints as potential abuses of power, as opposed to mere conflict. With respect to bullying in the RCMP, Ruth McKay notes:
When organizations try to address workplace bullying, there is an overemphasis on the agency (individual influence) component and insufficient recognition of the limiting role structure has on agency. For example, workplace bullying policies often suggest that the aggrieved employee confront the aggressor or make a formal complaint even if the organizational culture reinforces being tough and pushes an employee to just “suck it up.353
While McKay is specifically making reference to a strictly hierarchical organizational culture which favours attributes typically considered masculine—strength, bravery, toughness—her point that workplace context and culture need to be factored in when considering approaches to workplace bullying are important here.
Though it might be noted that it was Herbert’s complaint that was the impetus for the
Sherritt’s dismissal, and not the complaints of the women, it is also important to note that
Herbert suffered for one year before making a formal complaint of bullying, though he approached management several times regarding Sherritt’s behaviour, and despite that he had the same level of authority in the workplace as Sherritt. Herbert’s experiences speak to the variations of power relations that manifest through bullying and harassing behaviours, particularly with respect to relations of masculinities and maintaining gender norms more generally. Herbert’s nervous and quiet demeanor was not consistent with notions of hegemonic (or dominant) masculinity—that of the aggressive and highly visible leader, for example. 354 While gender power relations are often discussed in terms of men’s power over women (including throughout
353 Ruth B. McKay, “Confronting Workplace Bullying: Agency and Structure in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,” Administration & Society 46, no. 5 (2014): 560. 354 Margaret Hobbs and Carla Rice, ed., “Understanding Masculinities: The Work of Raewyn Connell,” in Gender and Women’s Studies in Canada: Critical Terrain (Toronto: Women’s Press, 2013), 171-172.
101 this thesis), grievances like that described here, reveal that gendered power relations are also about layers of privilege and power within gender constructions.355
While Herbert was described as a more timid individual, evidence also indicated that he had attempted to work the issue out himself and to find ways to improve his workplace situation without making a formal written complaint—common behaviour for male targets of bullying, according to O’Donnell and MacIntosh. In discussing men’s experiences of workplace bullying in a variety of work settings, O’Donnell and MacIntosh note that gendered expectations can make it difficult for some men to speak out and seek assistance: “Fear of being seen as weak, wimpy, or unable to handle work and WPB [workplace bullying] were described as barriers to seeking help.”356 A fear of being viewed as vulnerable, and “a desire to remain strong and maintain emotional control also limited seeking care.”357 Thus, consideration must be given to the ways that gender expectations can in many ways impact a worker’s ability to seek assistance.
Treating incidents of bullying as employee conflicts potentially work to promote individual efforts to work it out, or “suck it up,” perhaps leading to more serious impacts.
Descriptions of women’s and men’s behaviour as set in this section are not to suggest that physical aggression (or signs of anger) are inherent to sex (e.g., men’s biology), but rather that an expectation of violence and tolerance of physical aggression is gendered, and that policy reflects this. Gendered power imbalances are embedded in policies that appear, on their face, to be neutral, though they ultimately reflect the ways that we accept that men are aggressive, and expect that men will demonstrate anger by attempting to physically intimidate others. Such
355 For another example of men’s aggression toward other men, see Scarborough General Hospital v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1487 (Reid Grievance), 1998 O.L.A.A. No. 182 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: I. Springate, S.A. Bisset, and M. Voster), LexisNexis Academic. 356 Sue M. O’Donnell and Judith A. MacIntosh, “Gender and Workplace Bullying: Men’s Experiences of Surviving Bullying at Work,” Qualitative Health Research 26, no. 3 (2016): 363. 357 Ibid., 359.
102 accepted gender norms have negative implications for both men and women. The following section further explores the ways that workplace bullying behaviours are neutralized, and looks at the role of context in further shaping expectations of bullying behaviours and responses.
Bullying in context: Gendered workplaces and neutralized harm
In discussing literature that explores the gendered differences in workplace bullying,
Salin and Hoel frame gender “as a social category intimately associated with social power,” and highlight the role of “the gendered nature of the overall organisational life.”358 They rely on gender role socialization theory to describe the ways that men and women are socialized from a young age to behave in particular ways, thus resulting in behaviours (and occupations) that are divided and normalized according to ascribed gender roles.359 The grievances analyzed here reveal the ways that gender norms operate to shape experiences of bullying, while at the same time bullying is approached as an individual problem. Male aggression is at once normalized and punished as individualized misconduct. In St. Joseph’s Hospital and Canadian Union of Public
Employees, Local 786 (Steele Grievance), the grievor alleged unjust dimissal after his employment was terminated due to complaints of sexual harassment and personal harassment.360
While the arbitrator did not find sufficient evidence to uphold the claims of sexual harassment, allegations of personal harassment were upheld. Ultimately, the arbitrator reinstated the grievor with conditions, including that he not be scheduled with the alleged target of sexual harassment, that his performance be regularly reviewed, and that he be encouraged to seek behavioural counselling. While the arbitrator admonished the grievor for his conduct, the severity of his
358 Denise Salin and Helge Hoel, “Workplace Bullying as a Gendered Phenomenon,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 28, no. 3 (2013): 238. 359 Ibid., 239-240. 360 Hospital and Canadian Union of St. Joseph’s Public Employees, Local 786 (Steele Grievance), 1999 O.L.A.A. No. 586 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: D. Murray), LexisNexis Academic.
103 threatening and aggressive behaviours was all but ignored. Instead, the grievor was viewed more as an individual who cannot, and needs to learn how to, control his behaviour. The grievor’s actions and attitudes toward women were removed from the overall context of violence against women, women’s subordinate positions in the labour force, and the socialization of men to be more aggressive, assertive, and dominating.
The grievor (hereafter, Steele), a hospital porter, was described as exhibiting intimidating, rude and belligerent behaviours, and lacking in “social graces,” consistent with his
“reputation for bad manners.”361 In the context of Steele’s role as union steward, the arbitrator explicitly named his behaviour as being part of relations between union and management, but noted that “wise and mature union leaders know they catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” and that Steele may learn this someday.362 Steele’s discharge, however, was based on allegations of personal harassment (including bullying) brought forward by four women in the workplace (two nurses and two other staff members). He allegedly engaged in threatening and intimidating behaviour, such as demonstrating physical signs of anger, pulling hair, backing a co- worker up to a wall, and yelling. While accusing two women of gossiping about him, Steele visited their work area (located on a different floor than his own work area) on multiple occasions and behaved in a threatening manner: “he spoke to her as she was backed up against a wall…[he] kept advancing on her.”363 Targets of his behaviour described feeling fear during the hostile events, and nervous about the possibility of running into Steele again, as he had threatened them. One staff member, who had her hair pulled on two occasions by Steele as he passed by her, described some of his more subtle behaviours that she found intimidating: “on
361 Ibid., 6-7. 362 Ibid., 8. 363 Ibid., 9.
104 another occasion when she was working alone with [him] in the evening she felt afraid because
[he] would disconcertingly say her name and nothing else five six times in a row.”364
In the assessment of evidence and testimony, the arbitrator noted that Steele “clearly suffers from a lack of judgement about inter-personal conduct,” as Steele described his own behaviour as appropriate and necessary: “a little bit confrontational – a bit of the assertive side of me.”365 Steele referred to it as behaviour that he would engage in again if need be.366 In outlining the impact of Steele’s behaviour on the targets, the arbitrator responded to this notion by stating,
“This Award will ensure that if he does it will be at his peril.”367 In finding the sexual harassment allegations to be lacking in evidence, but the personal harassment allegations (described throughout as the lesser charge) to be adequately supported, the arbitrator reinstated Steele under the conditions outlined above. Here, there is no acknowledgement that such experiences are based in power, and that Steele’s efforts to “assert” himself rest on socialized roles, where men are expected to be dominant and aggressive in order to achieve the upper hand. Rather, the arbitrator seems to view the grievor’s conduct as almost expected, given his less than courteous manner and his overall “belligerent” attitude.368 Steele is described as an employee who, along with a group of other workers, causes “lots of issues,” through poor performance and a generally negative attitude.
Sincere remorse and a willingness to improve behaviour is often required for reinstatement. As several of the grievances already outlined in this thesis have shown, those found guilty of bullying and harassment, but who fail to demonstrate contrition, are unlikely to
364 Ibid. 365 Ibid. 366 Ibid. 367 Ibid. 368 While Steele is described as generally aggressive to co-workers, only examples of his aggression toward women are outlined in the grievance.
105 be placed back within the workplace, even when no just cause for dismissal is found. This case, however, is an exception, where despite the grievor’s highly aggressive behaviour, he was reinstated. While Steele admitted no wrong doing, the arbitrator’s descriptions of Steele’s demeanor suggest that the arbitrator did not believe Steele capable of understanding, or capable of engaging in behaviour that is better, and thus disciplined him less harshly. The arbitrator frequently referenced Steele’s inability to behave appropriately and exercise good judgement, suggesting a belief that Steele’s behaviour is merely what one might expect given his working class status—perhaps a vestige from the days of class and labour struggles, and constructions of
“rough masculine culture,” on the shop floor?369 Here, the arbitrator’s treatment of Steele’s crass language and bad behaviour (including evidence that Steel had alcohol on his breath during the alleged bullying), is reminiscent of notions that rough and aggressive behaviour was simply expected and part of working-class male culture, though this can only be speculated.370 Steele’s grievance stands out in this respect from others analyzed for this project. In other grievances, where just cause was lacking, but where the grievor denied culpability and demonstrated zero remorse, alternate forms of discipline were often applied in lieu of reinstatement, as contrition is generally considered crucial when assessing mitigating factors in misconduct.371
Of additional note, the arbitrator acknowledged the way that Steele’s behaviour could have impeded the care work that the women were responsible for. Indeed, the arbitrator seemed more surprised by this than by Steele’s intimidating actions. The arbitrator made a point of the fact that Steele, on two separate occasions, confronted the targets during his meal break, but that
“he could not be certain that the two people he chose to confront would also be on theirs at the
369 Meyer, “Work, Play, and Power,” 13. 370 Sangster, “Just Horseplay?,” 371 Sue Hart, “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment: Looking at the Assessment of Mitigating Factors Through a Feminist Lens,” Journal of Workplace Rights 15, no. 1 (2010-2011): 91-101.
106 same time or free to leave their duty of caring for their patients….”372 This, noted the arbitrator, spoke to Steele’s selfish nature. While patients were of important concern, on a few occasions the arbitrator framed the assessment and ultimate decision of the case within the care setting in a way that works to minimize Steele’s aggressive actions and the terror he evoked in his targets.
Moreover, while Steele intimidated targets by, among other actions, raising his voice, backing them into a wall, shaking his finger and threatening, “you better watch yourself,”373 the assessment of these actions is completely about the behaviour of Steele, and thus ignores the broader context of male aggression against women.
This particular grievance is just one example of the normalizing and obscuring of risks to women in the workplace by individualizing and downplaying aggression and bullying behaviours. As this arbitration took place prior to recent (2010) changes in the OHSA, which mandated that all workplaces implement violence and harassment policies and programs, one might presume that changes to the OHSA could now offer better protection to all employees, or offer more stringent solutions to aggressive behaviours. But, as previous and subsequent examples demonstrate, this is not necessarily the case. The grievance described below, which took place in a jail work setting, was first introduced in Chapter 3, and it is useful to demonstrate the way that context and intimidation can have gendered implications that are supported by policy application, despite more recent requirements under the OHSA.
Maarit Vartia notes that “prisons are clearly male-dominated workplaces, where a masculine culture prevails.”374 In her work looking at bullying in the RCMP, McKay refers to the numerous and increasing accusations of harassment and workplace bullying: “The number of
372 Hospital and Canadian Union of St. Joseph’s Public Employees, Local 786 (Steele Grievance), 10. 373 Ibid., 9. 374 Maarit Vartia, “Gender Differences in Workplace Bullying Among Prison Officers,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11, no. 1 (2002): 114.
107 cases and the extent of the cases suggest that harassment and bullying within the RCMP are systemic.”375 She further notes that “Institutional pressures, such as the organizational culture of an enforcement/policing organization, have until recently blocked out any awareness of concern.
RCMP employees must be tough to deal with criminals, so being tough is part of the job.”376 She points to the organization’s paramilitary approach as preserving a hierarchy that enables many abuses to go unchecked.377 Looking at the military in Australia, Koeszegi, Zedlacher and
Hudribusch draw a connection between military culture and men’s aggression toward women:
“Masculine norms and rites that place value on domineering behaviour provide distinction to members and legitimize the application of violence against deviants, especially women.”378 They further note that “multiple aspects reveal that (low-level) aggression [conforms] to military norms and is applied instrumentally during socialization processes in training centres to provide for conformity to organizational values and to prepare soldiers for (potential) combat.”379 The following grievance provides an example of how such masculine norms play out when in relation to the expectations of women, particularly as caregivers, in the ‘masculine’ workplace of a prison.
In Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Lefkowitz Grievance), the grievor, a registered nurse in an Ontario jail, alleged that she had been “verbally assaulted by an operational manager and also by a member of the public who was allowed access into the institution by the same operational
375 McKay, “Confronting Workplace Bullying,” 552. 376 Ibid., 554. 377 Ibid., 564. 378 Sabine T. Koeszegi, Eva Zedlacher, and Rene Hudribusch, “The War Against the Female Soldier: The Effects of Masculine Culture on Workplace Aggression,” Armed Forces & Society 40, no. 2 (2014): 232. 379 Ibid.
108 manager.”380 She claimed that her rights had been violated under the OHSA, the Code, and other workplace policies, including the collective agreement. She further contended that gender was a factor, as the operational manager, Mr. B, had a known history of misconduct toward women that resulted in a poisoned workplace for female employees. Ultimately, the arbitrator dismissed the notion that this case was about gender, and put it down to a “bad boss” case.381 This grievance further demonstrates the consistencies in analyzed grievances, where men’s hostility is neutralized and normalized and women’s fear minimized. Mr. B was alleged to have a history of negative and degrading (sexist) treatment and attitudes toward female staff, about which the employer knew, or ought to have known, and did nothing to correct. Though evidence of these allegations was not considered in the findings, events that are outlined in the grievance reveal that Mr. B intimidated and bullied the grievor in ways that reflect sexist attitudes, and highlight how such attitudes are manifested, supported, and perpetuated in the context of a nurse giving care in a correctional facility.
As noted, the grievor was in the position of nurse, and her duties included “assessment and triage of inmates upon admission; dealing with any immediate health issues upon admission;
[and] creating and implementing care plans to provide acute and chronic nursing care of inmates.”382 The grievor was one of four nurses employed at the correctional facility, and part of her job was to prepare and assist the physician who attended the facility once per week for
“doctor’s parade:” one and a half hours per week, during which patients/inmates could see the physician.383 The series of events in question began during the preparation for the doctor’s
380 Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Lefkowitz Grievance), 2015 O.G.S.B.A. No. 17 (Ontario Grievance Settlement Board) (Arbitrator: Briggs), LexisNexis Academic, 2. 381 Ibid., 22. 382 Ibid. 383 Ibid.
109 parade. The grievor was giving a report to the attending physician, a woman, when she heard and ignored the ringing telephone in her area, a practice, she explained, that was routine for nurses in the jail. Shortly thereafter, a correctional officer interrupted the grievor’s report to notify her that
Mr. B wanted her to report to a specific area of the jail immediately. Mr. B wanted her to meet with the father of an inmate who had recently been taken to the hospital. The grievor was hesitant to leave the physician alone, as this was not standard practice during doctor’s parade, and so she told the correctional officer that the visitor should go to the hospital to relay his information. Upon being notified of the grievor’s response, Mr. B went to the medical office, where the grievor and the physician were in preparation. He appeared very angry, and questioned why the grievor had not answered the phone or followed his orders. He noted that the inmate’s father had important information. He then guided the visitor into the office and closed the door, leaving the three—the visitor, the grievor, and the physician—alone in the small office. For security reasons, it was standard practice to leave the medical office door open throughout the duration of doctor’s parade. The grievor stated that she was frightened by the angry presence of the “outsider,” especially as he carried an attaché case, which she felt could possibly contain a weapon.
After the visitor calmed down and left, the grievor noted that Mr. B again confronted her regarding her refusal to follow his orders: “shortly after her return to the health care office Mr. B came into the room again and began to scream at her. He kept repeating that when he issued an order he expected that order to be followed.”384 He then told her that she was to report to his office following doctor’s parade. As it happened, doctor’s parade did not occur that day, as the physician claimed she was too upset to proceed after the incident. She told the grievor that “she
384 Ibid., 6.
110 had no idea nurses could be subjected to such abuse.” When the grievor reported to Mr. B’s office, she noted that “he began yelling and screaming at her again,” and continued to question her as to why she did not respond to his orders. She attempted to explain that the phone is never answered during that time and that, for reasons of confidentially, she did not feel it appropriate to speak to the inmate’s father: “there had been discussion amongst the nursing staff about this matter and she would not have contravened her professional responsibility.”385
The grievor was in tears when she left Mr. B’s office, where he had “continued to scream at her.”386 Despite being extremely upset, the grievor felt it necessary to continue with her work for the rest of the day: “She was shaking and had much difficulty finishing her tasks that day but felt professionally obligated to do so.”387 Throughout the series of events, Mr. B was observed kicking a chair, screaming at the grievor, and being both physically and verbally intimidating toward the grievor: “He pointed his finger at her and screamed at her through gritted teeth, He told her that when she was given an order she was to follow that order.”388 It was evident to witnesses that this behaviour frightened the grievor, though language used during the arbitration proceedings (by both the employer and the arbitrator) served to normalize and minimize such behaviour in the context of care work in a jail setting. Here, the grievor’s knowledge and professional training as a nurse were not respected—a reflection of the general devaluing of caring work—and she was made to feel that her ability to prioritize was limited in the jail environment. In a report of her experiences, the grievor noted that Mr. B should have been aware that written consent of an inmate is required by health professionals before any information is
385 Ibid. 386 Ibid. 387 Ibid. 388 Ibid., 5.
111 disclosed, and that she was placed into the position of liability.389 She further noted that, though she did not say at the time, in the midst of the verbal attacks, that “as a registered professional nurse, I am not obligated to follow an order if against CNO [College of Nurses of Ontario] regulations. This incident contravenes confidentiality, and raises important safety and ethical issues.”390
The grievor stated that Mr. B’s lack of control and abusive behaviour toward her impacted her greatly: “He yelled and humiliated her in front of a number of Correctional
Officers. She was affected deeply by his treatment of her.”391 She felt that her complaints to the employer were not responded to in a timely and effective manner, and that she was not given adequate information with respect to how the situation could be remedied, which only served to worsen the negative impacts.392 In a report of the incidents to the employer, the grievor had described Mr. B’s behavior as an “unabashed show of raw rage.” Despite this, the grievor continued to be required to work in a setting where she might run into her aggressor, which indeed, she did. She noted in a report, “Mr. B was on duty the following Monday and Tuesday mornings coinciding with [my] schedule. [I have] no alternative relief.”393 When attempting to understand why her concerns were not being addressed, the grievor found that the witnessing correctional officers were hesitant or slow in submitting reports of their own accounts of the incidents, and the grievor felt this was because there was an “old boy’s code” in the facility.394
389 Ibid., 7. 390 Ibid., 8, 12. It was later discovered that the visitor claiming to be the father of the inmate was actually of no blood relation, and was in fact alleged to be the “long-time sexual abuser” of the inmate. 391 Ibid., 6. 392 Ibid. 393 Ibid., 8. 394 Ibid., 9.
112
The grievor stated that she was “frightened and traumatized, and that she did not want to work near Mr. B, or even in the same building, but that her fears were not being taken seriously.”395
Similar to the experiences outlined in other grievances, the grievor’s feelings of intimidation, fear, and even trauma, were downplayed and normalized. Despite the extreme nature of these incidents, they were not treated as violence. And though the grievor expressed that she felt fear and trauma, she still encountered the perpetrator on subsequent shifts, which she noted contributed to the detrimental impact of the events on her wellbeing: “after the incident she felt progressively more vulnerable.”396 She experienced anxiety, among a variety of other systems, and sought counselling through the workplace’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). During the arbitration process, the employer further downplayed the severity of the events by arguing that it was the grievor’s history of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that was the real cause of her feelings of terror.397 Is it possible that women suffering from PTSD are seen as more susceptible than men suffering from the same condition?
While minimizing the impacts of Mr. B’s conduct, the employer also sought to excuse
Mr. B’s behaviour by referring to Mr. B’s general stressful position in the jail, and citing a particularly upsetting event that took place previously on the same day. Moreover, after highlighting the dangerous and unpredictable nature of the work setting, the employer questioned the grievor as to whether or not she understood that she was receiving an order:
“She was asked about whether she had understood that she was being given a direct order to attend at the sally-port. She said that it did not appear to her to be an urgent situation and she had to prioritize her work. Upon urging she agreed that she understood it was a demand but it was nothing that needed immediate attention such as a cardiac arrest.”398
395 Ibid. 396 Ibid. 397 Ibid. Evidence from the Grievor’s physician revealed that this was not indeed the case. 398 Ibid., 9-10
113
The implicated questions here are, if she had understood it to be an order, why did she not follow it, and what did she expect would happen if she did not? When the employer questioned a correctional officer who witnessed the events as to whether it was apparent that Mr. B had given the grievor an order, the correctional officer responded that yes, he had, and that “if it had been him he would have gone because when you are told to do something by a supervisor—you do it.”
The employer downplayed the violent nature of Mr. B’s conduct, the fear his actions evoked in the grievor, and the employer’s liability overall. The arbitrator reiterated:
The Employer doubted the grievor’s evidence that she was frightened of a physical threat from Mr. B. during this incident. He made no attempt to make contact with her. He did not threaten her. He was angry but the grievor’s perception and recall may have been somewhat tainted by her pre-existing PTSD.The evidence was that Mr. B. told the grievor that he gave her an order and he expected her to follow it. Such a comment from a manager – even if it was delivered in a raised voice – does not sound like a precursor to violence. 399 This is despite the fact that several witnesses attested to the terrifying behaviour of Mr. B. One correctional officer even noted the he “was confused and a bit scared” when Mr. B approached the health office, as he felt that Mr. B might even try to hit him.400
In response, the union argued that Mr. B’s behaviour could not be understood as anything but threatening. These were not behaviours that might reasonably be considered part of normal management practices, no matter the workplace setting:
the misconduct of Mr. B. took the form of two violent outbursts of temper. According to the evidence of a number of bargaining unit members, his behaviour was so intense and threatening that it produced apprehension of physical violence because Mr. B. was out of control. Indeed, it was suggested that his behaviour was so violent and threatening so as to come within the meaning of assault under the Criminal Code.401
399 Ibid., 21. 400 Ibid., 14. 401 Ibid., 19.
114
The union asserted that the actions of the employer following the incidents were insufficient, and led to the triggering of various symptoms for the greivor. 402 However, the employer responded that it “never condoned those actions,” and denied that it could have foreseen them coming.403
The employer argued that its own policies were followed—necessary meetings and suggestions of assistance through EAP. They said that there was no need to investigate, as Mr. B admitted he behaved unprofessionally, though not violently or threateningly. Because the arbitrator had removed the question of gender from the argument, the employer did not have to answer as to why Mr. B’s general treatment toward female employees was left unchecked, including his past behaviours and his seeming lack of respect in interrupting the grievor’s report to the female physician. (Might Mr. B have been so quick to interrupt if the physician had been a man?) As such, a case for an overall toxic work setting could not be made, making it easier to locate these actions within a single day—a one-off incident—and not as one part of a course of negative behaviours.
As previously noted, the arbitrator found that this was not a case related to gender, but rather one about a “bad boss.”404 The arbitrator found that the grievor was verbally abused and placed at risk when a visitor was allowed in the medical office, and agreed that the grievor’s failure to follow orders “infuriated” Mr. B and that Mr. B acted out of anger.405 With respect to the employer’s handling of the situation, the arbitrator noted the following:
“While it would have been preferable if every effort were made to ensure that the grievor not again see or work with Mr. B following this incident, I cannot find that the Employer ignored or
402 Ibid. 403 Ibid., 20. 404 Ibid., 22 405 Ibid.
115 failed to act on the grievor’s complaints within a reasonable period of time.”406 Essentially, the employer responded to the situation, and this response was consistent with workplace polices as required by contemporary legislation. What is missing here, however, is a recognition of the way that such policies fail to take into account the role of power in workplace bullying and intimidation. Here, the intimidation was decontextualized from interconnected factors of the place (prison setting), the work (position of care), and the people involved (men’s aggression toward women), while at the same time context was used to justify, or at least minimize, the actions and the impacts.
In discussing high rates of “internal violence” in health care in general, Ferma Engal notes, “whether people report being mistreated, bullied, badgered, harassed, teased or excluded by colleagues or other members of the multidisciplinary team, national and international reports show that this problem is as huge as it is widespread”.407 She contends that part of the problem is that violence in health care has long been thought of as “part of the job,” and argues that “the environment and organizational procedures incite frustration and hostility.”408 Studies have shown that health care work settings in general pose a risk to workers for mistreatment. For example, in response to rising awareness of hostility in health care settings, and a lack of literature that looks at the experiences of those who are not “clinical staff,” Harlos and Axelrod, demonstrated that “verbal abuse, work obstruction, and emotional neglect,” are forms of mistreatment (or bullying) that are also experienced by administrators (clerical staff, management, executives) within Canadian hospital settings.409 They argue that there is a need for
406 Ibid. 407Frema Engal, Taming the Beast: Getting Violence out of the Workplace, 2nd edition (Montreal: Ashwell Publishing, 2004), 219. 408Ibid, 219-220. 409 Karen P. Harlos and Lawrence J. Axelrod, “Investigating Hospital Administrators’ Experience of Workplace Mistreatment,” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 37, no. 4 (2005): 262.
116 policies to ensure positive and supportive work environments overall, starting by providing context support resources and site-wide training.410
Given that health care as a work setting poses risks for bullying overall, bully-related grievances of employees in health care settings were included in the analysis, even if alleged perpetrators and/or targets were not in positions of caring. As discussed throughout this thesis, the fact that mistreatment occurred in a health care setting was a point raised in deliberations about potential harm, regardless of setting (hospital, long-term care facility, jail, etc.). Negative behaviours in health care settings could, even vicariously, pose a risk for vulnerable patients/clients. This was a point of consideration in all grievances, regardless of the position of employees involved (e.g., nurse, personal support worker, kitchen staff, waste disposal worker, administrator). As also evidenced in grievances, potential harm was evaluated in a gendered manner, with higher expectations placed on women to maintain overall caring and nurturing conduct, lest their abilities as suitable employees in a care setting be questioned.
Power, context, and gender: Bullying in health care and the subordination of women
Catherine Mackinnon argued in 1979 that workplace sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination against women that reproduces and reinforces women’s “traditional and inferior role in the labor force,” further noting that “the structure of the world women occupy makes them systematically vulnerable to this form of abuse.”411 Thus, sexual harassment, which
Mackinnon broadly defines as “the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal behavior,” stems not from mere desire for sexual encounters, but rather it is based in power relationships and the desire to gain, maintain, and exert power: “Central to
410 Ibid., 269. 411 Catharine A. MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), 4.
117 the concept is the use of power derived from one social sphere to lever benefits or impose deprivations in another.”412 Writing one year earlier in Canada, Backhouse and Cohen stated,
“Sexual harassment is not an expression of sexual desire. Men who sexually harass are not behaving as lovers, but as bullies.”413 They further contend that sexual harassment is an
“assertion of power” meant to remind women of and keep women in positions of subordination.414
More recently, Lim and Cortina identified a relationship between “general incivility” (a form of interpersonal mistreatment that can be more subtle, appears to be unrelated to gender or other identity categories, and that contributes to toxic work settings) and sexual harassment, finding that sexual harassment often occurs in the context of generally hostile work settings for women.415 They state that their findings lend additional credence to arguments put forth by feminist scholars: “The association and co-occurrence between sexual harassment and general incivility fall in line with feminist theories of aggression, which argue that sexuality and dominance are interconnected.”416 They go on to speculate that perpetrators of both “sexualized and generalized” mistreatment are often likely to be one and the same, noting perpetrators are those who attempt to “debase women and reinforce or raise their own social advantage.”417 In other words, like sexual harassment, negative behaviours towards women in the workplace, including rudeness, failing to acknowledge contributions, excluding women from discussions,
412 Ibid., 1. 413 Constance Backhouse and Leah Cohen, The Secret Oppression: Sexual Harassment of Working Women (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1978), 42. 414 Ibid. 415 Sandy Lim and Lilia M. Cortina, “Interpersonal Mistreatment in the Workplace: The Interface and Impact of General Incivility and Sexual Harassment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 3 (2005): 483, 484, 492. 416 Ibid., 492. 417 Ibid.
118 and other actions (or inactions) that leave women feeling that they do not belong or are not valued employees, act as reminders and tools of subordination.
Kabat-Farr and Cortina argue that despite recent efforts to eliminate discrimination, such as sexism and racism, “selective incivility”—hostile behaviour based in hidden and unspoken biases and prejudices—continues to occur covertly.418 They state that this represents a form of
“modern discrimination,” where hostile behaviours are not ambiguous and objective, but rather signify targeted behaviours that rest on and perpetuate stereotypes and imbalances of power.419
In many ways, women’s experiences of bullying and intimidating behaviours as set out in analyzed grievances were in line with this argument. A close reading revealed undertones of sexist behaviours and intimidation of women that both relied on and reflected gender stereotypes, though such factors were not acknowledged during the processes, from initial complaint to final arbitration. As demonstrated in the example below, women’s experiences often exemplified the ways that bullying in the workplace is related to power, much like that described in literature on sexual harassment—that it is more about utilizing existing power structures to exert and maintain power over others.
In London Health Sciences v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sawin-
McCormack Grievance), the grievor, a female cytogenetic technologist in a hospital lab, complained of ongoing bullying and harassment perpetrated by her male supervisor, Dr. Xu.420
The grievor, who is classified as a registered technologist, is noted to be “at the highest rate of pay available to the classification,” with an impressive education and much experience in her
418 Dana Kabat-Farr and Lilia M. Cortina, ”Selective Incivility: Gender, Race, and the Discriminatory Workplace,” in Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012), 107. 419 Ibid., 109-110. 420 London Health Sciences v. Ontario Public Services Employees Union (Sawin-McCormack Grievance), 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 94 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: F.M. Reilly), Lexis Nexis Academic, 2.
119 field.421 According to the grievor, who started in the lab in 1998, she only began having problems at work after she returned from pregnancy leave in 2006, around which time Dr. Xu became employed as a supervisor in the same lab. She grieved the lack of action taken by the hospital to acknowledge and deal with the issues of bullying that she was experiencing, despite her numerous complaints. In particular, the grievor alleged that her supervisor was rude and condescending, continually questioning and over-monitoring her work, “sneering” at her, refusing to speak with her on the phone, and closing doors in her face. She noted that she felt he was particularly condescending to women. The grievor testified that his negative behaviour toward her became increasingly difficult to deal with, and that she received no assistance from management, causing her to go on stress leave in May 2007: “She stated that matters got worse around the summer of 2007, when [he] called her to her face a rebellious teenager and told her she was irrational and emotional.”422
When the grievor made complaints to management, not only did they fail to act, but they were in support of Dr. Xu, and suggested that the grievor consider relocating to another area: “It was stated by them that she was too emotional and irrational and [they] tried to convince her to transfer to other positions away from the laboratory into genetic counseling.”423 The hospital, however, did eventually conduct an investigation, completed in December, 2007, which found that the grievor’s supervisor was indeed inappropriate, and that the hospital was responsible for this ongoing behaviour. Among several recommendations relating to increased role clarity and improved complaint response procedures, the investigation report recommended that the perpetrator be “monitored and given cultural training and assistance.”424 As this is not explained
421 Ibid. 422 Ibid., 3 423 Ibid. 424 Ibid., 4
120 in the grievance, it can be surmised from his Chinese last name, that Dr. Xu’s negative behaviours were ascribed to his cultural background, and not put in the context of or deemed a reflection of broader struggles faced by women in the labour force. Instead, Dr. Xu’s sexist treatment toward the grievor appears to be minimized through racial assumptions that conflate sexist behaviours and cultural ‘otherness.’
Despite these recommendations, Dr. Xu was not actually required to attend any training, and problems of his differential treatment toward the grievor persisted. At the time of the arbitration proceedings, a new coordinator had recently been hired, and he ultimately presented ideas for change in the work place that satisfied the arbitrator that the grievor’s complaints would finally be dealt with in an effective manner. The grievance resulted in a settlement, with no damages awarded, and the parties agreed to work together to remedy the toxic work setting, as it was described in the grievance. The arbitrator made a series of directions, including that the supervisor participate in cultural or other training, if such training be deemed necessary by a third party assisting in resolution. The arbitrator further stated that “the Grievor is to be treated no differently than any other employee in the Department in all matters.”425 Despite clear evidence of gender reslations as an issue, this matter is ultimately presented as an issue of an overall toxic work setting manifested from inappropriate supervisory approaches (or, another case of a “bad boss”). In the end, the arbitrator was impressed by the new coordinator’s understanding of and commitment to “equality and fair treatment.” But even here there is no mention of how this experience relates to gender discrimination. The points that the grievor was returning from pregnancy leave, and that her supervisor put her down by describing her as
425 Ibid., 6
121 emotional, sensitive, and irrational—terms or ways of denigrating women commonly used to remind women of and keep women in reduced positions of power—are all but ignored.
Research on workplace bullying consistently identifies a relationship between organisational status and the likelihood of being bullied: while all individuals in the workplace are potentially at risk of bullying behaviours, workers are more likely than supervisors and managers to be bullied, and are more likely, in general, to be bullied by those in similar or higher authority positions.426 Interestingly, and consistent with research, women in the grievances analyzed here were not protected by their leadership roles and positions of authority or high status positions—women were targets of workplace bullying regardless of their occupational status. As already demonstrated throughout this thesis, men were alleged to engage in intimidating behaviour toward women of varying positions of power and levels of expertise within the workplace, and toward other men in subordinate positions, a trend that was not found with women who perpetrated bullying, where women generally bullied others (most often other women), of equal or of subordinate positions. In several grievances men bullied their female supervisors and managers, and often these bullying behaviours did not result in disciplinary action.
Scholarship on the relationship between bullying and leadership positions has shown that, in general, women in positions of authority or high status are more likely to be bullied than men in equal positions, and are more likely than men in similar roles to be bullied by workers in subordinate positions.427 Women in the workplace have been found to be more likely than men to
426 Helge Hoel, Cary L. Cooper, and Brian Faragher, “The Experience of Bullying in Great Britain: The Impact of Organizational Status,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10, no. 4 (2001): 443-465. 427 Ibid.; Ruth Simpson and Claire Cohen, “Dangerous Work: The Gendered Nature of Bullying in the Context of Higher Education,” Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 2 (2004): 170; Noreen Tehrani, “Bullying: A Source of Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32, no. 3 (2004): 360.
122 have decisions overruled and to be targets of verbal abuse.428 When women and men occupy the same position, women have different expectations placed on them that relate to underlying assumptions around women as helpers, and as more nurturing, loyal, and submissive.429 Gender as a factor in bullying, therefore, complicates common approaches to bullying that often focus on organizational positions as sole sources of perceived power differences that enable bullying. In general, where male employees were accused of bullying female supervisors or managers, gender power differences remained unrecognised, though such occurrences are expressions of women’s perceived subordinate position, even when holding leadership roles.430 Indeed, it appeared difficult to demonstrate bullying had occurred when the target had the organizational authority to discipline the perpetrator. As in the grievance described above, a woman’s expertise and authority did not deter some men from attempting to intimidate them, and in many cases women’s leadership roles were completely dismissed or ignored. The next example describes intimidating and bullying behaviours that also operate within gendered norms and expectations, but that are also similarly separated from the context of gendered power.
In Park Place Retirement Residence v. United Steel Workers Amalgamated Local 8327
(Francis Grievance), the grievor (hereafter, Francis), the former head cook in the retirement home, grieved a five-day suspension for sexual harassment of one co-worker, and the subsequent termination of his employment due to “complaints of bullying and harassment” made by other co-workers.431 The grievance was ultimately dismissed, as the arbitrator found that the employer
428 Simpson and Cohen, “Dangerous Work,” 170. 429 Barbara A. Gutek, Sex and the Workplace: The Impact of Sexual Behavior and Harassment on Women, Men, and Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1985); Jaime Lester, “Performing Gender in the Workplace: Gender Socialization, Power, and Identity Among Women Faculty Members,” Community College Review 35, no. 4 (2008): 278. 430 Hoel, Cooper, Faragher, “The Experience of Bullying,” 461; Simpson and Cohen, “Dangerous Work,” 170. 431 Park Place Retirement Residence v. United Steel Workers Amalgamated Local 8327 (Francis Grievance), 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 228 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Sydney Baxter), LexisNexis Academic, 1-2.
123 had attempted to progressively discipline Francis for “poor performance, lateness and sexual harassment,” but to no avail.432 Francis had continued to engage in harassing, intimidating, and retaliatory behaviours towards his coworkers.
Francis’ five-day suspension came after he had received two prior written warnings for his “demeaning, taunting and degrading treatment of colleagues” (as set out in the employer’s letter to Francis).433 The third instance allegedly involved retaliatory behaviours, including efforts to intimidate a co-worker who had made complaints against him of sexual harassment.
Francis urged another co-worker to call and convince her to retract the complaint; he made reference to his ability, as the bargaining unit president, to get others into trouble by speaking to someone “at the head of the union.”434 The co-worker who had initiated the complaint notified management and expressed that “she was worried that she might lose her job as a result of
Francis’ threat.”435 The employer viewed this as retaliatory conduct, which was noted to be explicitly forbidden in the initial letter of warning, and to contravene the Code.436 The employer noted that the co-worker who had been coerced to call the complainant expressed feelings of intimidation, and feared that Francis “would make her work life very difficult” if she did not do as he requested.437 In addition, the employer stated that Francis had abused his position as the bargaining unit president, and failed to support and maintain a harassment free work environment.438
432 Ibid., 5, 25, 26. 433 Ibid., 3 434 Ibid. 435 Ibid. 436 Ibid. 437 Ibid., 4. 438 Ibid.
124
The grievance outlines how Francis also abused his position of power as the head cook in the kitchen, as his behaviour was notably more aggressive and intimidating when he was promoted to that position. The arbitrator noted “In my view, the Grievor’s troubles began when he became Head Cook. It is at this point in time that he was not only the Union Unit Chair but as he put it in his testimony the “boss” of the kitchen.”439 The arbitrator further stated, “I am convinced that when the Grievor was promoted to Head Cook he became, to coin an old phrase,
‘too big for his boots.’ It is my view that the Grievor believed that he could do whatever he pleased, in the kitchen, with impunity.”440 Several staff felt that Francis’ approach to food preparation was unsanitary and unsafe for residents, though they felt they could not address the behaviour, as he was in a position of authority.441 The employer argued that while efforts had been made to improve his behaviour, such efforts had failed, as Francis continued to deny responsibility and to engage in poor conduct that ultimately put residents and other staff at risk of harm. Another element of power which is not adequately addressed, however, is the way that, in his bullying conduct, Francis utilized accepted gender norms and expectations to exert dominance over his female coworkers, as exemplified by his derogatory treatment of women overall, where bullying tactics and sexual harassing behaviours often overlapped.
In addition to other misconduct, such as proper food handling and lateness, Francis was accused of insolent, insubordinate, and intimidating conduct toward fellow employees, and an examination of these examples reveals the way that women were particularly subjected to negative treatment by Francis. While Francis attempted to use his position and status to ensure complaints of sexual harassment were withdrawn, his other attempts to intimidate staff, including
439 Ibid., 25. 440 Ibid. 441 Ibid., 15-17.
125 women in positions of authority, are important to consider when looking at the gendered nature of his bullying behaviour. For example, one female co-worker testified that “the Grievor constantly makes it hard for her to serve the residents properly and he frequently makes inappropriate remarks in her presence,” including sexual remarks, among other harassing comments and behaviour.442 In another example, a different female co-worker was ordering food for a resident, and when Francis pretended not to hear her, he was told by his female manager who witnessed the interactions that he must have heard the dietary aide’s request, as it had been repeated at least six times. Francis then told the manager to mind her own business.443 The manager in this instance noted that “the Grievor’s tone was disrespectful and rude,” a view that was corroborated by another manager present at the time.
Francis’ behaviour toward women overall reflects sexist attitudes, and demonstrates clear efforts to exert power and dominance. In another example, just prior to the incident of sexual harassment outlined the first written warning, a dietary aide requested that Francis clean spilled soup found on the floor of the walk-in fridge, as she was busy serving residents at that time. He responded by saying that it was not his job to clean the spilled soup. After this event, Francis engaged in sexually harassing and intimidating behaviour toward the dietary aide, including insinuating that he was looking at sexual images on a phone. He began following her and tried to force her to engage in a conversation with him, stating that she had to speak to him, as he was head cook. He stood very close to her and stared at her for a lengthy period of time without speaking—behaviours that made the dietary aide feel uncomfortable to the point that she left work without notifying anyone.444 In contrast, when a male staff member (whom Francis had
442 Ibid., 15. 443 Ibid. 444 Ibid., 14.
126 authority over) confronted Francis on various occasions about his unsanitary and unsafe practices in the kitchen, Francis merely denied, brushed off, or became defensive about the accusations.
Francis did not subject the male staff member to the same degrading and intimidating behaviours that he did the women. He employed gendered means of intimidation to quash any attempts of female employees (including managers) to question, correct, or direct his behaviour.
Despite this, gender was only acknowledged throughout the process as a factor when the harassment was termed ‘sexual harassment.’ Similar to many grievances analyzed (including those described in this chapter), connections are not sufficiently made between the sexual harassment of one co-worker, and Francis’ general disregard and poor treatment of women in the workplace. A reluctance to call into question some perpetrators’ general derogatory treatment of women, and to draw a connection between sexual harassment and seemingly neutral bullying toward women, was a common observation throughout the grievance analysis process. Such a hesitancy can also be found in relevant approaches to research and literature.
Citing a hesitancy among scholars, particularly feminist scholars, to eliminate the distinction between sexual harassment and bullying, Carol Jones refers to the view that the sexual nature of sexual harassment is rooted in the overall oppression of women: “Sexual harassment is held to be distinctive because of the sexual element and the fact that it has its foundation in women’s oppression within patriarchal environments. It is an abuse of gender power that affects women collectively, rather than in a case of bullying, an abuse of organisational power that affects workers individually.”445 Yet, findings outlined in this thesis reveal that men’s bullying behaviour toward women is often similarly rooted in women’s oppression, and that gender plays a significant role in workplace bullying, particularly in
445 Carol Jones, “Drawing Boundaries: Exploring the Relationship Between Sexual Harassment, Gender and Bullying,” Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (2006), 148.
127 gendered health care settings. While a distinction between sexual harassment and women’s experiences of bullying should not be eliminated, an increased recognition of the common underlying elements—the abuse of gendered power—would help to draw attention to the ways that discrimination in the workplace manifests in various ways, and that by examining bullying in the workplace solely as a uniform and neutral organizational phenomenon, this continued abuse of power remains obscured.
Conclusion
The role that gender relations plays in workplace bullying is intimately tied to how gender and gender expectations are socially constructed, and how this construction interacts in specific workplace contexts. Building on Chapter 3, which outlined gendered assumptions of risk and the experience of workplace bullying in health care, this chapter demonstrated the ways that gendered expectations inform workplace harassment and bullying policies, and thereby impact responses from management through to arbitral decisions. While aggressive behaviours toward women rest on and perpetuate gender power inequalities, policies implemented to deal with such behaviours work to preserve these inequalities by masking or denying their existence. Policies that define harassment and bullying in terms that might also be used to describe violence, both reflect and normalize assumptions of men’s aggression, while responses to intimidation that encourage targets to seek conflict resolution, or require targets to continue working in the area of their aggressor, fail to acknowledge underlying power imbalances and act to exacerbate negative impacts.
An analysis of grievances revealed that responses to bullying largely recreate and reinforce accepted gender norms, and that gendered power imbalances are embedded in policies that appear neutral. Such policies are inherently inadequate in that they ultimately reflect
128 widespread acceptance of masculinity as “aggressive,” and the idea that men will demonstrate anger by attempting to physically intimidate others. Findings also indicated that aggression toward women often overlapped with sexual harassment, despite that these grievances were specifically about bullying and intimidation that was not found to be gender-based. Though several instances showed that men who bullied women also engaged in sexually harassing behaviours, connections were not made between sexual harassment and the general mistreatment of women in the workplace. As will be touched on in the conclusion of this thesis, recent changes to the OHSA incorporate the definition of sexual harassment into the definition of workplace harassment. As changes will come into effect September 8, 2016, it is yet to be determined if such amendments will result in greater recognition of the connection between sexual harassment and more generalized mistreatment towards women in the workplace, or if they will simply result in the continuation, or increase, of individualized and neutralized approaches to bullying which deny elements of gendered power. While sexual harassment should remain a discrete form of harassment, and should not be melded in with general notions of workplace hostility, there needs to be an increased understanding that, like sexual harassment, bullying is rooted in power disparities, and the manifestation of these disparities often contributes to the overall disadvantage of women in the workplace.
129
Conclusion: Policy Implications and Moving Forward
This thesis makes evident that policy in Ontario, as it relates to workplace bullying, reflects and preserves socially constructed notions of gender, and thus works to perpetuate inequalities in the workplace. This research yielded two important findings with respect to the relationship between gender, policy, and bullying in the workplace: assumptions around gender are imbedded in ideas and approaches to risk in health care, and gender power relations are both utilized and silenced through neutralizing and individualizing approaches to bullying.
Consequently, power inequalities, which are at the root of bullying experiences are both ignored and preserved.
Through an analysis of 25 labour arbitration awards relating to workplace bullying in
Ontario health care settings, this thesis supports existing research that reveals gendered elements in bullying in the workplace, and the gendered nature of and dangers within health care work settings. There are increasing efforts to understand, prevent, and manage violence in Ontario health care workplaces in response to clear evidence of the risks of ignoring increasing levels of violence. However, approaches too frequently neglect the significance of non-physical aggression, as both evidence of toxic work settings and as a precursor to physical violence.
Research has shown that non-physical aggression in health care is more common than physical violence; it can have serious negative impacts to targets, bystanders, and organizations, and it frequently precedes acts of physical violence.446 Given increasing awareness and current efforts
446 Albert Banerjee et al., “Out of Control”: Violence Against Personal Support Workers in Long-Term Care (Toronto: York University, 2008); Sarah-Geneviéve Trépanier, Claude Fernet, and Stéphanie Austing, “Workplace Psychological Harassment in Canadian Nurses: A Decriptive Study,” Journal of Health Psychology 18, no. 3 (2012): 383-396; Sping Wang, Laureen Hayes, and Linda O’Brien-Pallas. A Review and Evaluation of Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in the Health Sector: Final Report (Hamilton: Nursing Health Services Research Unit, 2008).
130 to reduce the risks of workplace violence and prevent harm to all those labouring in these workplaces, a deeper understanding of underlying factors behind bullying is timely.
This thesis has demonstrated that risks of aggression in health care are assumed to be, and are often treated as just ‘part of the job,’ an assumption that has gendered implications. The way that policy is implemented and applied to deter and manage bullying in the workplace both reflects and relies on gender norms and expectations around women as nurturers and men as aggressive. Bullying perpetrated by women, therefore, is viewed as inconsistent with their natural affinities, while men’s aggressive behaviours, in combination with other forms of bullying, is downplayed and viewed as consistent with expectations of masculinity. These responses are reflected in research and policy that treats bullying in the workplace as individual and gender neutral misconduct, as opposed to behaviour that is rooted in, or at least that utilizes, existing imbalances of power. The following paragraphs suggest possible ways to build on the research presented here in order to gain increased awareness and acknowledgement of the relationship between workplace bullying, gender, and policy. Ways to move forward are proposed through two interconnected means: policy and research.
Under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), employers are obligated to assess potential risks of violence, and take into consideration sector-specific and workplace- specific risks when developing and implementing workplace violence policies and programs.447
The Ontario Ministry of Labour notes that employers are required to “proactively assess the risk of workplace violence that may arise from the nature of the workplace, type of work or conditions of work, and reassess the risk of workplace violence as often as necessary to ensure
447 Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O. 1. S. 32.
131 that the related policy and program continue to protect workers from workplace violence.”448 In contrast, the OHSA does not require that employers complete a risk analysis for workplace harassment, and, therefore, that policies and programs for harassment in the workplace reflect known risks in a particular sector or workplace.449 Given that non-physical hostile behaviours are more common, and that they often precede physical violence, consideration should be given to the potential benefits of requiring a risk assessment for workplace harassment policies. Policies and programs could be specifically tailored to combat and respond to known risks of harassment and bullying in health care contexts.
The grievances examined here revealed that hostile behaviours, in particular those exhibited by men, were often downplayed, and that there was frequently considerable overlap between behaviour seen as violent and that thought to constitute harassment or bullying. This speaks to the need for more consistent and precise language in defining violence and harassment.
Currently, policies for workplace violence and workplace harassment as required by the OHSA can be combined—an employer can decide if separate or combined policies is the best approach.450 However, as discussed in Chapter 2, violence and harassment are discrete categories according to the OHSA: behaviour that is considered violence cannot also be treated in policy responses as harassment. If violence and harassment continue to be considered separate forms of hostility in the workplace, policies should be very specific about what constitutes violence
(including threats of violence), and what constitutes harassment (bullying could be specifically mentioned), especially if policies for violence and harassment form one document. Clearer
448 Ontario. Ministry of Labour, Safe At Work Ontario, “Violence and Harassment in Health Care Workplaces,” Ontario Ministry of Labour, https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/sawo/pubs/fs_violencehealthcare.php. 449 Ibid. 450 Elaine Newman, Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 for Employers, Unions and Employees (Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012), 56.
132 language may help to reduce the likelihood of minimizing threatening and aggressive behaviours.
Additionally, consideration should be given to enabling employees to refuse to work in the event that they are being harassed (or bullied), especially in cases where they are required to be in contact with their alleged harasser following a complaint, and where the behaviour is detrimental to their health and wellbeing. With respect to labour arbitration processes, consideration should also be given to investigating the applicability of progressive discipline in cases of workplace bullying. Researchers have, for example, questioned the rationality of requiring progressive discipline in cases of sexual harassment, as this approach often subverts efforts to recognize power relations in cases of harassment and exacerbates negative impacts.451
Policy approaches to harassment need to be interrogated overall, and questioned as to their applicability for dealing with behaviours that are related to ongoing, harmful behaviours that result from abuses of power.
Ontario has recently initiated a Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care
Leadership Table in an effort to both better understand and manage risks of violence (among other safety risks) in health care.452 Initiatives involve proactive and reactive inspections to promote and ensure compliance with health and safety requirements, and to raise awareness of potential dangers.453 In current proposed approaches, there is little focus on the role of non- physical violence, and on the need for additional research to understand systemic causes of violence in health care. Research could be enhanced in this area to round out investigations,
451 Sue Hart, “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment: Looking at the Assessment of Mitigating Factors through a Feminist Lens.” Journal of Workplace Rights 15, no. 1 (2010-2011): 83-110. 452 Ontario. Ministry of Labour. “Ontario Taking Action to Better Protect Health Care Workers: Province Creating Leadership Table on Workplace Violence Prevention,” Ontario Newsroom, Ontario, August 12 2015. https://news.ontario.ca/mol/en/2015/08/ontario-taking-action-to-better-protect-health-care-workers.html. 453 Ibid.
133 including through the incorporation of inquiries into the relationship between gender, violence, and the health care work setting, and the impact of policy application in relation to these factors.
Further examinations could look at how embedded gender norms inform approaches to legislation, policy construction, and management of issues in the workplace, and combine attention to gender with research that explores the intersection of gender with other forms of power and inequality. Moreover, investigations of risks in health care could take into consideration the political and economic environment that ultimately contributes to the negative experiences of individual care workers—workers who are predominantly women. Factors such as monetary cutbacks, increased workloads, privatization, and an inflexible emphasis on efficiency and standardization should be considered when looking at violence in health care, particularly in relation to gender and the devaluing of labour in the care context.
Approaches in sexual harassment scholarship could be utilized to emphasize the role of power in bullying experiences, and the sometimes discriminatory impacts that result from seemingly neutral bullying. While still maintaining a distinction between sexual harassment and other forms of harassment, this is one way to acknowledge underlying power relations that go beyond organizational power. In March, 2015, Ontario introduced “It’s Never Okay: An Action
Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment,” in an effort to raise awareness, increase action, and, ultimately, work to stop sexual violence and harassment in Ontario.454 Recognizing that sexual violence and harassment are based within pervasive gender inequalities, the Action Plan commits to working to end sexual violence and harassment through measures that involve both immediate action and long-term processes that get at the root of the problem, including raising public awareness, providing more training for frontline workers, offering better support
454 Ontario, “It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment.” Ontario (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015), 2.
134 processes for survivors, and implementing new legislation to make workplaces and education facilities safer.455 By committing to further understand the root causes in order to better prevent and respond to sexual violence and harassment, the Action Plan seems to be opening the door in
Ontario for increased research, more actively involved citizens and agencies, greater awareness and understanding of gender inequalities overall, and, importantly, more supportive and effective means for victims to report sexual violence and harassment.
On September 8, 2016, amendments to the OHSA will come in to effect which will see the definition and means of preventing and dealing with sexual harassment included in section 32 of the OHSA. Sexual harassment will thus be specifically recognized, like other forms of harassment, as a threat to the health and safety of workers in Ontario. It is possible that specifically setting out sexual harassment as a form of harassment under the OHSA might act to further obscure the role of gendered power imbalances in apparently neutral bullying and harassment. On the other hand, this change might also represent an opportunity to better understand all forms of hostility toward women in the workplace, including workplace bullying.
Approaches to research could incorporate bullying as an additional area of investigation into women’s experiences of hostility in the workplace, and could specifically look at the relationship between sexual harassment, bullying, and other forms of hostility in health care. Furthermore, it may be one step toward altering how some occupational health and safety issues are conceptualized and managed. That is, health and safety issues around harassment could be understood as complex issues requiring greater consideration of social relations and power inequities. While maintaining that sexual harassment is a distinct form of discrimination, there are, as Simpson and Cohen contend, some good reasons to recognize commonalities: “by
455 Ibid., 7.
135 recognizing the possibility of interrelationships between harassment and bullying, we can draw on the more extensive harassment literature, as well as on the more limited work on bullying, for potential frameworks and conceptual developments.”456 Simpson and Cohen argue that bullying, while not conceptualized as being related to gender, “cannot be divorced from gender, and that such behaviour needs to be seen in a gendered context,” as sexual harassment is.457
Results in this thesis are limited in that they are focused predominantly on gender as a factor, and not on other factors that can contribute to experiences in the workplace, such as race, class, sexual identity, age, citizenship, family status, and so on. The research outlined here reflects an effort to determine if workplace bullying that is seemingly neutral, or treated as general harassment, could indeed be related to gender norms and expectations. Future research could build on these findings to incorporate an analysis that looks at additional or other factors, perhaps utilizing an intersectional approach to examine how other relations of power intersect to create various experiences. As defined by Patricia Collins, intersectionality is an approach that acknowledges intersecting forms of oppression (e.g. race, gender, class),458 and as such could be a useful lens for gaining a more complex understanding of various factors that shape workplace bullying experiences.
In addition, it must be noted that not all workers who provide care in Ontario are unionized. Those not unionized may have a limited ability to seek assistance and recourse in the face of unresolved issues of bullying in the workplace. A unionized employee has access to representation and assistance from the union, and does not have to incur costs associated with
456 Ruth Simpson and Claire Cohen, “Dangerous Work: The Gendered Nature of Bullying in the Context of Higher Education,” Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 2 (2004): 165-166. 457 Ibid., 163. 458 Patricia Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Rutledge, 2000), 18.
136 bringing a dispute to the point of arbitration.459 Thus, ways of mitigating workplace issues, such as bullying, can be more difficult for employees who must make a complaint under the OHSA, for example. This is especially problematic for health care workers who work in the home of clients/patients, as they are afforded less protection460 and are at increased risks of aggressive behaviours.461 Furthermore, results of this study are limited in that they reflect grievances initiated by those who brought their complaints forward. As a result, grievances do not provide a broad understanding of who does/does not report bullying and why, or of how those who do not make a complaint (in unionized or non-unionized work settings) experienced bullying in the workplace. Violence in health care is notoriously underreported,462 which speaks to the need to also consider incidents that are not brought forward, and why. Grievances available for analysis, furthermore, do not reflect all complaints made, as most concerns are dealt with before they reach the point of labour arbitration—approximately 15 percent of grievances reach arbitration.463 Finally, while grievances analyzed do not deal with a broad range of issues, such as human rights violations, further analysis could build on these findings by looking at how human rights issues are dealt with in grievances in comparison to those treated as general harassment. Despite these named limitations, the research outlined in this thesis offers new
459 Laurence Olivo and Peter McKeracher, Labour Relations: The Unionized Workplace (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2005), 163. 460 The OHSA does not apply to labour that is performed by the owner, occupant, or servant of the owner or occupant in a private residence. See OHSA, sec. 3 (1). As such, domestic workers are not protected by the OHSA. This is cause for worry, note Leah Vosko et al., “given the precarious and vulnerable situation of such workers.” Leah F. Vosko et al., “New Approaches to Enforcement and Compliance with Labour Regulatory Standards: The Case of Ontario, Canada,” Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy Research Paper No. 31 (2011), 41. 461 Julian Barling, A. Gail Rogers, and E. Kevin Kelloway,”Behind Closed Doors: In-Home Workers’ Experience of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Violence,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6, no. 3 (2001): 255-269. 462 Albert Banerjee et al., “Out of Control”: Violence against Personal Support Workers in Long-Term Care (Toronto: York University, 2008). 463 John Godard, Industrial Relations, the Economy, and Society, 3rd edition (Concord: Captus Press, 2005), 370.
137 insight into the ways that policy and workplace bullying incidents in Ontario health care reflect broader social issues around gender power relations.
As awareness of efforts to combat the dangers in Ontario health care rises, and as initiatives emerge to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace overall, more research that examines the relationship between policy, workplace inequalities, and relations of power is necessary. This thesis represents one step toward bringing awareness to the ways that policy, which is in place to prevent harm in the workplace, ultimately reinforces existing power disparities. It calls into question current approaches to bullying and harassment in the workplace, and asks how policy might better respond to root causes of workplace bullying in Ontario.
Though some suggestions are outlined above, to answer this question, a greater focus on the role of power relations in experiences of workplace bullying is very much needed.
138
Bibliography
Acker, Joan. Class Questions: Feminist Answers. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
——. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society 4, no. 2 (1990): 139-158.
——. “Women, Work, & Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 40, no. 5 (1996): 596-597.
Acker, Joan, and Donald R. Van Houten. “Differential Recruitment and Control: The Structuring of Organizations.” In Gendering Organizational Anaylsis, edited by Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred, 15-30. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992.
Adams, Tracy L. “Gender and Feminization in Health Care Professions.” Sociology Compass 4, no. 7 (2010): 454-465.
——. “Professionalization, Gender and Female-dominated Professions: Dental Hygiene in Ontario.” CRSA/RCSA 40, no. 3 (2003): 267-289.
Allen, Amy. “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Feminists.” In Feminist Interpretations of Michael Foucault, edited by Susan J. Hekman, 265-281. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State, 1996.
Alvesson, Mats, and Yvonne Due Billing. Understanding Gender and Organizations. London: Sage Publications, 1997.
Armstrong, Pat, and Hugh Armstrong. Theorizing Women’s Work. Toronto: Garamond Press, 1990.
Armstrong, Pat, Hugh Armstrong, and Krista Scott-Dixon. Critical to Care: The Invisible Women in Health Services. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008.
Attenborough, Susan. “Sexual Harassment: An Issue for Unions.” In Union Sisters: Women In the Labour Movement, edited by Linda Briskin and Lynda Yanz, 136-143. Toronto: The Women’s Press, 1983.
Aven, Terje, and Ortwin Renn. Risk Management and Governances: Concepts, Guidelines and Applications. Stavanger: Springer, 2010.
Bacchi, Carol Lee. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage Publications, 1999.
Backhouse, Constance, and Leah Cohen. The Secret Oppression: Sexual Harassment of Working Women. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1978.
139
Baillien, Elfi, Inge Neyens, Hans De Witte, and Nele De Cuyper. “A Qualitative Study on the Development of Workplace Bullying: Towards a Three Way Model.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19 (2009): 1-16.
Baines, Donna. “Seven Kinds of Work – Only One Paid: Raced, Gendered and Restructured Work in Social Services.” Atlantis 28, no. 2 (2004): 19-28.
——. “Staying with People Who Slap Us Around: Gender, Juggling Responsibilities And Violence in Paid (and Unpaid) Care Work. Gender, Work and Organization 13, no. 2 (2006): 129-151.
Banerjee, Albert, Pat Armstrong, Tamara Dal, Hugh Armstrong, and Susan Braedley. “’Careworkers Don’t Have a Voice’: Epistemological Violence in Residential Care for Older People.” Journal of Aging Studies 33 (2015): 28-36.
Banerjee, Albert, Tamara Daly, Hugh Armstrong, Pat Armstrong, Stirling Lafrance, and Marta Szebehely. “Out of Control”: Violence against Personal Support Workers in Long-Term Care. Toronto: York University, 2008.
Banerjee, Albert, Tamara Daly, Pat Armstrong, Marta Szebehely, Hugh Armstrong, and Stirling LaFrance. “Structural Violence in Long-Term, Residential Care for Older People: Comparing Canada and Scandinavia.” Social Sciences & Medicine 74, no. 3 (2012): 390-398.
Barling, Julian, A. Gail Rogers, and E. Kevin Kelloway. “Behind Closed Doors: In-Home Workers Experience of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Violence.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6, no. 3 (2001), 255-269.
Baron, Robert A., and Joel H. Neuman. “Workplace Aggression—The Iceberg Beneath the Tip Of Workplace Violence: Evidence on its Forms, Frequency, and Targets.” Public Administration Quarterly 21, no. 4 (Winter, 1998): 446-464.
——. “Workplace Violence and Workplace Aggression: Evidence of Their Relative Frequency and Potential Causes.” Aggressive Behavior 22 (1996): 161-173.
Brodsky, Carroll M. The Harassed Worker. Toronto: DC Heath and Company, 1976.
Bromley, Victoria L. Feminisms Matter: Debates, Theories, Activism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012.
Campbell, Andrea. “Work Organization, Care, and Occupational Health and Safety.” In Troubling Care: Critical Perspectives on Research and Practices, edited by Pat Armstrong and Susan Braedlley, 89-100. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2013.
140
Canada. “Bullying in the Workplace.” Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/bullying.html#_1_2.
Carr, Jacquie, Audrey Huntley, Barbara MacQuarrie, and Sandy Welsh. Workplace Harassment and Violence Report. London: Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, Western University, 2004.
Chechak, Derek, and Rick Csiernik. “Canadian Perspectives on Conceptualizing and Responding to Workplace Violence.” Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 29 (2014): 55-72.
Cohen, Cynthia F., and Murray E. Cohen. “Defending Your Life: When Women Complain About Sexual Harassment.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 7, no. 3 (1994): 235-242.
Collins, Patricia. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Rutledge, 2000).
Collinson, David L., and Jeff Hearn. “Breaking the Silence: On Men, Masculinities and Managements.” In Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements, edited by David L. Collinson and Jeff Hearn, 1-24. London: Sage Publications, 1996.
Cossman, Brenda, and Judy Fudge. “Introduction: Privatization, Law, and the Challenge to Feminism.” In Privatization, Law, and the Challenge to Feminism, ed. Brenda Cossman And Judy Fudge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.
Creese, Gillian, and Daiva Stasiulis. “Introduction: Intersections of Gender, Race, Class and Sexuality.” Studies in Political Economy 51 (Fall 1996): 5-14.
Croft, Rhonda Kathleen, and Penelope Anne Cash. “Deconstructing Contributing Factors to Bullying and Lateral Violence in Nursing Using a Postcolonial Feminist Lens.” Contemporary Nurse 42, no. 2 (2012): 226-242.
Dieter, Zapf, Jordi Escartín, Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, and Maarit Vartia. “Empirical Findings on Prevalence and Risk Groups of Bullying in the Workplace.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011.
Doorey, David J. The Law of Work: Common Law and the Regulation of Work. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2016.
Douglas, Mary. Risks and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge, 1992.
Drache, Daniel, and Harry Glasbeek. The Changing Workplace: Reshaping Canada’s Industrial Relations System. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1992.
141
Duffy, Maureen. “Preventing Workplace Mobbing and Bullying with Effective Organizational Consultation, Policies, and Legislation.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, no. 3 (2009): 242-262.
Eagly, Alice H., and Valerie J. Steffen. “Gender Stereotypes Stem From the Distribution of Women and Men into Social Roles.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, no. 4 (1984): 735-754.
Einarsen, Ståle, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper. “The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work: The European Tradition.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 3-39. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011.
Einarsen, Ståle, and Eva Gemzoe Mikkelsen. “Individual Effects of Exposure to Bullying at Work.” In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 127-144. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003.
Einarsen, Ståle, Bjørn Inge Raknes, and Stig Berge Matthiesen. “Bullying and Harassment at Work and Their Relationships to Work Environment Quality: An Exploratory Study.” European Work and Organizational Psychologists 4, no. 4 (1994): 381-401.
Einarsen, Ståle, and Anders Skogstad. “Bullying at Work: Epidemiological Findings in Public and Private Organizations.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5, no. 2 (1996): 185-201.
Elliot, Pamela P. “Violence in Healthcare: What Nursing Managers Need to Know.” Nursing Management 28, no. 12 (1997): 38-41.
Engel, Frema. Taming the Beast: Getting Violence Out of the Workplace. 2nd Edition. Montreal: Ashwell Publishing, 2004.
Farrell, Gerald A. “From Tall Poppies to Squashed Weeds: Why Don’t Nurses Pull Together More?: Journal of Advanced Nursing 35, no. 1 (2001): 26-33.
Ferris, Patricia. “A Preliminary Typology of Organisational Response to Allegations of Workplace Bullying: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.” British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32, no. 4 (2004): 389-395.
——. “The Role of Consulting Psychologist in the Prevention, Detection, and Correction of Bullying and Mobbing in the Workplace,” Consulting Psychologist Journal: Practice and Research 61, no. 3 (2009): 169-189.
142
Filsinger, Kathryn J. Employment Law for Business and Human Resources Professionals, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2015.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.
Fudge, Judy. “Rungs on the Labour Law Ladder: Using Gender to Challenge Hierarchy.” Saskatchewan Law Review 60, no. 2 (1996): 237-264.
Godard, John. Industrial Relations, the Economy, and Society. 3rd ed. Concord: Captus Press, 2005.
Gutek, Barbara A. Sex and the Workplace: The Impact of Sexual Behavior and Harassment on Women, Men, and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1985.
Haiven, Larry. “Hegemony and the Workplace: The Role of Arbitration.” In Regulation Labour: The State, Neo-Conservatism and Industrial Relations, edited by Larry Haiven, Stephen McBride, and John Shields, 79-117. Toronto: Garamond Press, 1990.
Harlos, Karen P., and Lawrence J. Axelrod. “Investigating Hospital Administrators’ Experience of Workplace Mistreatment.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 37, no. 4 (2005): 262-272.
Hart, Sue. “Labour Arbitrations and Coworker Sexual Harassment: Looking at the Assessment Of Mitigating Factors through a Feminist Lens.” Journal of Workplace Rights 15, no. 1 (2010-2011): 83-110.
Hearn, Jeff, and P. Wendy Parkin. “Gender and Organizations: A Selective Review and Critique of a Neglected Area.” In Gendering Organizational Analysis, edited by Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred, 46-66. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992.
Hobbs, Margaret, and Carla Rice, ed. “Understanding Masculinities: The Work of Raewyn Connell. In Gender and Women’s Studies in Canada: Critical Terrain, 171-172. Toronto: Women’s Press, 2013.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Twentieth Anniversary Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Hoel, Helge, Cary L. Cooper, and Brian Faragher. “The Experience of Bullying in Great Britain: The Impact of Organizational Status.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10, no. 4 (2001): 443-465.
Hoel, Helge, and Ståle Einarsen. “Investigating Complaints of Bullying and Harassment.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 341-357. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 201.
143
Hoel, Helge, Ståle Einarsen, and Cary L. Cooper. “Organisational Effects of Bullying.” In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and practice, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 145-162. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003.
Howard, Judith A., Barbara Risman, and Joey Sprague. “Series Editors’ Foreword.” In Class Questions: Feminist Answers, by Joan Acker, ix-xiii. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
Hutchinson, Jacquie, and Joan Eveline. “Workplace Bullying Policy in the Australian Public Sector: Why Has Gender Been Ignored?” The Australian Journal of Public Administration 69, no. 1 (2010): 47-60.
Hutchinson, Marie, and Debra Jackson. “The Construction and Legitimation of Workplace In the Public Sector: Insights into Power Dynamics and Organisational Failures in Health and Social Care.” Nursing Inquiry 22, no. 1 (2015): 13-26.
Hutchinson, Marie, Margaret Vickers, Debra Jackson, and Lesley Wilkes. “Workplace Bullying in Nursing: Towards a More Critical Organisational Perspective.” Nursing Inquiry 13, no. 2 (2006: 118-126.
Jones, Carol. “Drawing Boundaries: Exploring the Relationship between Sexual Harassment, Gender and Bullying.” Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (2006): 147-158.
Kabat-Farr, Dana, and Lilia M. Cortina. “Selective Incivility: Gender, Race, and the Discriminatory Workplace.” In Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy, 107-119. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012.
Keashly, Loraleigh. “Workplace Bullying and Gender: It’s Complicated.” In Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy, 78-95. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012.
Keashly, Loraleigh, and Karen Jagatic. “By Any Other Name: American Perspectives on Workplace Bullying.” In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 31-61. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003.
——. “North American Perspectives on Hostile Behaviors and Bullying at Work.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf and Cary L. Cooper, 41-71. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011.
144
Kelly, Liz. Surviving Sexual Violence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.
Koeszegi, Sabine T., Eva Zedlacher, and Rene Hudribusch. “The War Against the Female Soldier? The Effects of Masculine Culture on Workplace Aggression.” Armed Forces & Society 40, no. 2 (2014): 226-251.
Kosny, Agnieska, and Ellen MacEachen, “Gendered, Invisible Work in Non-Profit Social Service Organizations: Implications for Worker Health and Safety.” Gender, Work and Organization 17, no. 4 (2010): 359-380.
Lee, Deborah. “A Feminist Study of Men’s and Women’s Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Sexual Harassment.” PhD diss., University of Warwick, 1998.
Lester, Jamie. “Performing Gender in the Workplace: Gender Socialization, Power, and Identity Among Women Faculty Members.” Community College Review 35, no. 4 (2008): 277- 305.
Lewis, Duncan, Sabir Giga, and Helge Hoel. “Discrimination and Bullying.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 267-281. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2012.
Leymann, Heinz. “Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces.” Violence and Victims 5, No.2 (1990): 119-126.
Leymann, Heinz, and Annelie Gustafsson. “Mobbing at Work and the Development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 5, no. 2 (1996): 251-275.
Lim, Sandy, and Lillia M. Cortina. “Interpersonal Mistreatment in the Workplace: The Interface and Impact of General Incivility and Sexual Harassment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 3 (2005): 483-496.
Lutgen-Sandvik, Elizabeth A. Dickinson, and Karen A. Foss. “Priming, Painting, Peeling and Polishing: Constructing and Deconstructing the Woman-Bullying-Woman Identity at Work.” In Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy, 61-77. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012.
MacIntosh, Judith, Judith Wuest, Marilyn Merritt Gray, and Sarah Aldous. “Effects of Workplace Bullying on How Women Work.” Western Journal of Nursing Research 32, no. 7 (2010): 910-931.
MacIntosh, Judith, Judith Wuest, Marilyn Merritt Gray, and Marcella Cronkite.” Workplace Bullying in Health Care Affects the Meaning of Work.” Qualitative Health Research 20, no. 8 (2010), 1128-1141.
145
MacKinnon, Catherine A. Sexual Harassment of Working Women. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
McDermott, Elizabeth. “Surviving in Dangerous Places: Lesbian Identity Performances in the Workplace, Social Class and Psychological Health.” Feminism & Psychology 16, no. 2 (2006): 193-211.
McKay, Ruth. “Confronting Workplace Bullying: Agency and Structure in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Administration & Society, 46, no. 5 (2014): 548-572.
McLaughlin, Jennifer. “The Anger Within.” OH & S Canada 16, no. 8 (December 2000): 30-36.
Meyer, Stephen. Work, Play, and Power: Masculine Culture on the Automotive Shop Floor, 1930-1960. In Boys and Their Toys?: Masculinity, Class, and Technology in America, edited by Roger Horowitz, 13-32. New York: Routledge, 2001.
Milloy, Jeremy. “’Chrysler Pulled The Trigger’: Competing Understanding of Workplace Violence During the 1970s and Radical Legal Practice.” Labour/Le Travail 74 (2014): 51-88.
Namie, Gary, and Ruth Namie. The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job. 2nd ed. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2009.
Newman, Elaine. Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Guide to Ontario’s Bill 168 for Employers, Unions, and Employees. Toronto: Lancaster House, 2012.
Nielsen, Morten Birkeland, Guy Notelaers, and Ståle Einarsen. “Measuring Exposure to Workplace Bullying,” in Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 149-174. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011.
O’Brien-Pallas, Linda, Gail Tomblin Murphy, Heather Laschinger, Sara White, Sping Wang, and Cheryl McCulloch. Canadian Survey of Nurses from Three Occupational Groups. Ottawa: Nursing Study Corporation, 2004.
O’Donnell, Sue M., and Judith A. MacIntosh. “Gender and Workplace Bullying: Men’s Experiences of Surviving Bullying at Work.” Qualitative Health Research 26, no. 3 (2016): 351-366.
O’Donnell, Sue, Judith MacIntosh, and Judith Wuest. “A Theoretical Understanding of Sickness Absence among Women Who Have Experienced Workplace Bullying.” Qualitative Health Research 20, no. 4 (2010): 439-452.
Olivo, Laurence, and Peter McKeracher. Labour Relations: The Unionized Workplace. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2005.
146
Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19.
Ontario. “It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment.” Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015.
Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A.
Ontario. Legislative Assembly. “An Act to Amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with Respect to Violence and Harassment in the Workplace and Other Matters.” Bill 168, 39th Legislature, 1st Session, 2009. [Toronto]: The Assembly, 2009. (Assented to Dec. 15, 2009).
Ontario. Ministry of Labour. “Arbitration: FAQ.” Ministry of Labour. http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/lr/faqs/lr_faq4.php.
Ontario. Ministry of Labour. Occupational Health and Safety Branch. Health Care Sector Plan Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Labour, June 2015.
Ontario. Ministry of Labour. Occupational Health and Safety Branch. Workplace Violence and Harassment: Understanding the Law. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010.
Ontario. Ministry of Labour. “Ontario Taking Action to Better Protect Health Care Workers: Province Creating Leadership Table on Workplace Violence Prevention.” Ontario Newsroom. Ontario. August 12 2015. https://news.ontario.ca/mol/en/2015/08/ontario- taking-action-to-better-protect-health-care-workers.html.
Ontario. Ministry of Labour. Safe At Work Ontario. “Violence and Harassment in Health Care Workplaces.” Ontario Ministry of Labour. https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/sawo/pubs/fs_violencehealthcare.php.
Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0 .1.
Ontario. Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2013.
Ontario. Public Services Health & Safety Association. Bullying in the Workplace: A Handbook for the Workplace. Toronto: Public Services Health & Safety Association (PSHSA), 2010.
Ontario. Public Services Health & Safety Association. Fast Facts: Hazards in Health Care Workplaces. Toronto: Public Services Health & Safety Association, 2013.
Osborne, Rachel L. “The Continuum of Violence Against Women in Canadian Universities: Toward a New Understanding of the Chilly Campus Climate.” Women’s Studies International Forum 18, nos. 5/6 (1995): 637-646.
147
Rahman, Momin, and Stevi Jackson. Gender and Sexuality: Sociological Approaches. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010.
Raver, Tara L., and Lisa H. Nishii. “Once, Twice, or Three Times as Harmful? Ethnic Harassment, Gender Harassment, and Generalized Workplace Harassment.” Journal Of Applied Psychology 95, no. 2 (2010).
Rayner, Charlotte, and Duncan Lewis. “Managing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Policies.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 327-340.
Renn, Ortwin. “Three Decades of Risk Research: Accomplishments and New Challenges.” Journal of Risk Research 1, no. 1 (1998): 49-71.
Richardson, Brian K., and Juandalynn Taylor. “Sexual Harassment at the Intersection of Race and Gender: A Theoretical Model of the Sexual Harassment Experiences of Women of Color.” Western Journal of Communication 73, no. 3 (2009): 248-272.
Roberts, Susan Jo. “Developments of a Positive Professional Identity: Liberating Oneself from Oppressor Within.” Advances in Nursing Science 22, no. 4 (2000): 71-82.
Salin, Denise. “Prevalence and Forms of Bullying Among Business Professionals: A Comparison of Two Different Strategies for Measuring Bullying.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10, no. 4 (2001): 425-441.
——. “Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating, and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment.” Human Relations 56, no. 10 (2003): 1213-1232.
Salin, Denise, and Helge Hoel. “Organisational Causes of Workplace Bullying.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 227-243. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011.
——. “Workplace Bullying as a Gendered Phenomenon.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 28, no. 3 (2013): 235-251.
Samnani, Al-Karim. “Embracing New Directions in Workplace Bullying Research: A Paradigmatic Approach.” Journal of Management Inquiry 22, no. 1 (2013): 26-36.
Samnani, Al-Karim, and Parbudyal Singh. “20 Years of Workplace Bullying Research: A Review of the Antecedents and Consequences of Bullying in the Workplace.” Aggression and Violent Behaviour 17 (2012): 581-589.
148
Sangster, Joan. “Just Horseplay?: Masculinity and Workplace Grievances in Fordist Canada, 1947-70s.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 26, no. 2 (2014): 330-364.
Simpson, Ruth, and Claire Cohen. “Dangerous Work: The Gendered Nature of Bullying in the Context of Higher Education.” Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 2 (2004): 163-186.
Spector, Paul E. “Gender Differences in Aggression and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.” In Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, edited by Suzy Fox and Terri R. Lituchy, 29-42. Cheltanham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012.
Stanko, Elizabeth A. “Keeping Women in and out of Line: Sexual Harassment and Occupational Segregation.” In Gender Segregation at Work, edited by Sylvia Walby, 91-99. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988.
Stock, Susan R., and France Tissot. “Are There Health Effects of Harassment in the Workplace? A Gender-sensitive Study of the Relationship between Work and Neck Pain.” Ergonomics 55, no. 2 (2012): 147-159.
Sugiman, Pamela. Labour Dilemma: The Gender Politics of Auto Workers in Canada, 1937-1979. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.
Syed, I., T. Daly, P. Armstrong, R. Lowndes, M. Chadoin, and V. Naidoo. “How Do Work Hierarchies and Strict Divisions of Labour Impact Care Workers’ Experiences of Health and Safety? Case Studies of Long Term Care in Toronto.” Journal of Nursing Home Research Sciences 2 (2016): 41-49.
Tehrani, Noreen. “Bullying: A Source of Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32, no. 3 (2004): 357-366.
Trépanier, Sarah-Geneviéve, Claude Fernet, and Stéphanie Austin. “Workplace Psychological Harassment in Canadian Nurses: A Descriptive Study.” Journal of Health Psychology 18, no. 3 (2012): 383-396.
Valiani, Salimah. Easy to Take for Granted: The Role of the Public Sector & Care work in Wealth Creation. Toronto: Ontario Nurses Association, 2012.
——. The Cycle of Sacrifice: Nurses’ Health and the Ontario Health Care System. Toronto: Ontario Nurses Association, 2013.
——. Fixing the Fiscal House: Alternative Macroeconomic Solutions for Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Nurses Association, 2012.
——. Valuing the Invaluable: Rethinking and Respecting Caring Work in Canada. Toronto: Ontario Nurses Association. 2011.
149
Vartia, Maarit. “Gender Differences in Workplace Bullying Among Prison Officers.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11, no. 1 (2002): 113-126.
Virkki, Tuija, “The Art of Pacifying an Aggressive Client: ‘Feminine ‘ Skills and Preventing Violence in Caring Work.” Gender, Work and Organization 15, no. 1 (2008): 72-87.
——. “Gender, Care, and the Normalization of Violence: Similarities between Occupational Violence and Intimate Partner Violence in Finland.” NORA—Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies 15, no. 4 (2007): 220-232.
Vosko, Leah F., Erick Tucker, Mark P. Thomas, and Mary Gellatly. “New Approaches to Enforcement and Compliance with Labour Regulatory Standards: The Case of Ontario, Canada.” Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy Research Paper No. 31, 2011.
Wang, Sping, Laureen Hayes, and Linda O’Brien-Pallas. A Review and Evaluation of Workplace Violence Prevention Programs in the Health Sector: Final Report. Hamilton: Nursing Health Services Research Unit, 2008.
Wartenberg, Thomas E. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.
Wheeler, Anthony R., Jonathan R.B. Halbesleben, and Kristen Shanine. “Eating Their Cake and Everyone Else’s, Too: Resources as the Main Ingredient to Workplace Bullying.” Business Horizons 53 (2010): 553-560.
White, Julie. Sisters and Solidarity: Women and Unions in Canada. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1993.
Yamada, David C. “Workplace Bullying and the Law: Emerging Global Responses.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 469-484. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011.
Yates, Charlotte. “Challenging Misconceptions about Organizing Women into Unions.” Gender, Work and Organization 13, no. 6 (2006): 565-584.
Zapf, Dieter, Jordi Escartín, Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, and Maarit Vartia. “Empirical Findings On the Prevalence and Risk Groups of Bullying in the Workplace.” In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd Edition, edited by Ståle Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, and Cary L. Cooper, 75-105. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011.
150
Labour Arbitration Awards
Humber River Regional Hospital v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn., Local 068 (Shiravand Grievance). 2011 O.L.A.A. No. 33 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Frank M. Reilly). LexisNexis Academic.
London Health Sciences v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sawin-McCormack Grievance). 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 94 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: F.M. Reilly). LexisNexis Academic.
Niagara (Regional Municipality) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1263 (Turpin Grievance). 2011 O.L.A.A. No. 141 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Robert J. Herman). LexisNexis Academic.
North Bay Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Sherritt Grievance). 2015 O.L.A.A. No. 171 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Newman). LexisNexis Academic.
Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Lefkowitz Grievance). 2015 O.G.S.B.A. No. 17 (Ontario Grievance Settlement Board) (Arbitrator: Briggs). LexisNexis Academic.
Park Place Retirement Residence v. United Steel Workers Amalgamated Local 8327 (Francis Grievance). 2010 O.L.A.A. 228 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Sydney Baxter). LexisNexis Academic.
Peel (Regional Municipality) Department of Health Sciences v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Public Health Sector), Local 966 (Dillon Grievance). 2012 O.L.A.A. No. 355 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: Albertyn, Rae, and Vorster). LexisNexis Academic. Peterborough Regional Health Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (Withers Grievance). 2012 O.L.A.A. No. 251 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Starkman). LexisNexis Academic.
Re Guelph General Hospital and C.U.P.E., Local 57. 1995 O.L.A.A. No. 404 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Robert D. Howe). LexisNexis Academic.
Re McKellar General Hospital and S.E.I.U., Local 268. 1993 O.L.A.A. No. 835 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Victor Solomatenko). LexisNexis Academic.
Re Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph of Hotel Dieu of Kingston and O.P.S.E.U., Loc. 465. 1995 O.L.A.A. No. 88 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: C.G. Simmons). LexisNexis Academic.
Re Rygiel home and C.U.P.E., Local 3009. 1993 O.L.A.A. No. 1015 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Rose). LexisNexis Academic.
Re Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Sunnybrook Hospital Employee’s Union, Local 777. 1995 O.L.A.A. No. 1045 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Robert D. Howe). LexisNexis Academic.
151
Sault Area Hospital v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 620 (Farrell Grievance). 2001 O.L.A.A. No. 887 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: M.K. Saltman, J.A. Pearce, and J. McManus). LexisNexis Academic.
Salvation Army, Centre of Hope v. Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.), Local 2, Brewery, General, and Professional Workers Union (Paterno Grievance). 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 373 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: F.M. Reilly). LexisNexis Academic.
Scarborough General Hospital v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1487 (Reid Grievance). 1998 O.L.A.A. No. 182 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: I. Springate, S.A. Bisset, and M. Voster). LexisNexis Academic.
St. Joseph’s Healthcare (Hamilton) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 786 (Berkmortel Grievance). 2005 O.L.A.A. No. 511 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: K.M. Burkett, R. Carroll, and M. Vorster). LexisNexis Academic.
St. Joseph’s Hospital Full Time Laboratory v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 206 (Mobarak Grievance). 2005 O.L.A.A. No. 621 (ON LA) (Arbitration Panel: P. Knopf, R.E. Carroll, and E.E. Seymour). LexisNexis Academic.
St. Joseph’s Hospital and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 786 (Steele Grievance). 1999 O.L.A.A. No. 586 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: D. Murray). LexisNexis Academic.
Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Beckford Grievance). 2015 O.L.A.A. No. 231 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Dana Randall). LexisNexis Academic.
Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Burke Grievance). 2005 O.L.A.A. No. 454 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: R. Brown). Lexis Nexis Academic.
Toronto (City) and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Stockley Grievance). 1999 O.L.A.A No. 446 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: D.K.L. Starkman). LexisNexis Academic.
Toronto (Metropolitan) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Kidd Grievance). 1998 O.L.A.A. No. 195 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Marcotte). LexisNexis Academic.
University Health Network v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Abraham Grievance). 2010 O.L.A.A. No. 58 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: F.M. Reilly). LexisNexis Academic.
White Eagle Nursing Home v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1.on (M.A. Grievance). 2006 O.L.A.A. No. 627 (ON LA) (Arbitrator: Levinson). LexisNexis Academic.
152
Appendix A: Example of Workplace Harassment Policy (Ontario Ministry of Labour) The management of (insert company name) is committed to providing a work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity.
Workplace harassment will not be tolerated from any person in the workplace (The workplace may wish to list the sources of workplace harassment). Everyone in the workplace must be dedicated to preventing workplace harassment. Managers, supervisors, and workers are expected to uphold this policy, and will be held accountable by the employer (If the policy applies to other people in the workplace, they should also be listed).
Workplace harassment means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace -- a comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome (The workplace may wish to list examples of unacceptable behaviour).
Harassment may also relate to a form of discrimination as set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code, but it does not have to (The workplace may wish to include information about what constitutes discriminatory harassment under Ontario’s Human Rights Code).
This policy is not intended to limit or constrain the reasonable exercise of management functions in the workplace (The workplace may wish to include examples of work functions that would generally not be considered workplace harassment).
Workers are encouraged to report any incidents of workplace harassment (The workplace may wish to provide more information about how to report incidents and may wish to emphasize there will be no negative consequences for reports made in good faith).
Management will investigate and deal with all concerns, complaints, or incidents of workplace harassment in a fair and timely manner while respecting workers’ privacy as much as possible (The workplace may wish to provide more information about how incidents of harassment will be investigated and/or dealt with).
Nothing in this policy prevents or discourages a worker from filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on a matter related to Ontario’s Human Rights Code within one year of the last alleged incident. A worker also retains the right to exercise any other legal avenues that may be available.
Signed: President / CEO Date:
The workplace violence policy should be consulted whenever there are concerns about violence in the workplace.464
464 Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety Branch, Workplace Violence and Harassment: Understanding the Law (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010), 34. Example here is as it appears in Ministry document (including bold/highlighted portions)
153
Appendix B: Example of Workplace Harassment Program (Ontario Ministry of Labour) The following are examples of measures and procedures employers may wish to consider when developing a workplace harassment program. [Section 32.0.6]
Measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace harassment to the employer or supervisor may include information about: how, when and to whom a worker should report incidents; forms or other reporting mechanisms; roles and responsibilities of employers, supervisors, workers and others in the incident reporting process.
Measures and procedures for how the employer will investigate and deal with incidents and complaints of workplace harassment may include information about: how and when investigations will be conducted; what will be included in the investigation; roles and responsibilities of employers, supervisors, workers and others; follow-up to the investigation (description of actions and timeframe); recordkeeping requirements.
An employer may wish to have a more extensive workplace harassment program, which could include workplace harassment awareness training or an Employee Assistance Program (EAP).465
465 Ontario, Ministry of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety Branch, Workplace Violence and Harassment: Understanding the Law (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010), 35. Example here is as it appears in Ministry document (including bold/highlighted portions)
154
Appendix C: Grievances Analyzed
Grievance Grievor Arbitrator/ Year Key words/ M/F Panel Themes Involved Occupation Humber River Regional Male Frank M. 2011 Discipline and discharge Hospital v. Ontario Nurses’ Reilly Assn., Local 068 (Shiravand Nurse Dishonesty Grievance). Harassment (claimed by grievor) O.L.A.A. No. 33 (ON LA) London Health Sciences v. Female F.M. Reilly 2010 Discipline and discharge Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Sawin- Cytogenic Harassment, intimidation, and McCormack Grievance). Technologist bullying (claimed by grievor) O.L.A.A. No. 94 (ON LA) Niagara (Regional Female Robert J. 2011 Discipline and discharge Municipality) v. Canadian Herman Union of Public Employees, Personal Misconduct/pranks Local 1263 (Turpin Grievance). services O.L.A.A. No. 141 (ON LA) worker
North Bay Regional Health Male Margo R. 2015 Discipline and discharge Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. Newman (Sherritt Grievance). Registered Harassment and bullying O.L.A.A. No. 171 (ON LA) nurse Ontario Public Service Female Felicity D. 2015 Verbal assault, intimidation, Employees Union v. Ontario Briggs bullying, violence, sexist conduct (Ministry of Community Safety Registered (claimed by grievor) and Correctional Services) nurse (Lefkowitz Grievance). O.G.S.B.A. No. 17 (Ontario Grievance Settlement Board)
Park Place Retirement Male Sydney Baxter 2010 Discipline and discharge Residence v. United Steel Workers Amalgamated Local Head cook Harassment, bullying, sexual 8327 (Francis Grievance). harassment O.L.A.A. 228 (ON LA) Peel (Regional Municipality) Female Christopher 2012 Discipline and discharge Department of Health Sciences Albertyn Evidence – admissibility and v. Canadian Union of Public Nurse weight Employees (Public Health Angela E. Rae Sector), Local 966 (Dillon Misconduct, bullying Grievance). Menno O.L.A.A. No. 355 (ON LA) Vorster Peterborough Regional Health Female David K.L. 2012 Discipline and discharge Centre v. Ontario Nurses’ Assn. Starkman (Withers Grievance). Registered Harassment, intimidation, O.L.A.A. No. 251 (ON LA) nurse bullying, misconduct Re Guelph General Hospital Female Robert D. 1995 Discipline and discharge and C.U.P.E., Local 57. Howe O.L.A.A. No. 404 (ON LA) Dietary aide Harassment, misrepresentation
155
Re McKellar General Hospital Female Victor 1993 Discipline and discharge and S.E.I.U., Local 268. Solomatenko O.L.A.A. No. 835 (ON LA) Housekeeping Misconduct, harassment (claimed aide by grievor) Re Religious Hospitallers of Male C.G. Simmons 1995 Harassment, discrimination St. Joseph of Hotel Dieu of (claimed by grievor) Kingston and O.P.S.E.U., Loc. Counsellor 465. O.L.A.A. No. 88 (ON LA) Re Rygiel Home and C.U.P.E., Female Joseph B. 1993 Discharge Local 3009. Rose O.L.A.A. No. 1015 (ON LA) Occupational Insubordination, intimidation care giver Re Sunnybrook Health Science Male Robert D. 1995 Harassment and discrimination Centre and Sunnybrook Howe (claimed by grievor) Hospital Employee’s Union, Cleaner/waste Local 777. handler O.L.A.A. No. 1045 (ON LA) Sault Area Hospitals v. Ontario Female M.K. Saltman 2001 Discharge Public Services Employees Union, Local 620 (Farrell Phlebotomist J.A. Pearce Failure to accommodate (claimed Grievance). by grievor) O.L.A.A. No. 887 (ON LA) J. McManus Harassment (grievor accused), harassment (claimed by grievor)
Salvation Army, Centre of Hope Male F.M. Reilly 2010 Discipline and discharge v. Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U), Support Insubordination, misconduct, Local 2, Brewery, General, and worker harassment, intimidation Professional Workers Union (Paterno Grievance). O.L.A.A. No. 373 (ON LA) Scarborough General Hospital Male I. Springate 1998 Discharge v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1487 (Reid Porter S.A. Bisset Harassment, intimidation Grievance). O.L.A.A. No. 182 (ON LA) M. Vorster St. Joseph’s Healthcare Female K.M. Burkett 2005 Intimidation, interference and (Hamilton) v. Canadian Union coercion (claimed by grievor) of Public Employees, Local 786 Registered R. Carroll (Berkmortel Grievance). nurse O.L.A.A. No. 511 (ON LA) M. Vorster St. Joseph’s Hospital Full Time Female P. Knopf 2005 Harassment and bullying (claimed Laboratory v. Ontario Public by grievor) Service Employees Union, Local Social worker R.E. Carroll 206 (Mobarak Grievance). O.L.A.A. No. 621 (ON LA) E.E. Seymore St. Joseph’s Hospital and Male D. Murray 1999 Discharge Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 786 (Steele Porter Personal harassment, sexual Grievance). harassment O.L.A.A. No. 586 (ON LA) Toronto (City) v. Canadian Male Dana Randall 2015 Discharge Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Beckford Grievance). Personal care Misconduct, intimidation O.L.A.A. No. 231 (ON LA) aide
156
Toronto (City) v. Canadian Female R. Brown 2005 Discipline and discharge Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (Burke Grievance). Personal care Harassment (claimed by grievor) O.L.A.A. No. 454 (ON LA) aide Toronto (City) and Canadian Female D.K.L. 1999 Harassment (claimed by grievor) Union of Public Employees, Starkman Local 79 (Stockley Grievance). Health care O.L.A.A. No. 446 (ON LA) aide Toronto (Metropolitan) v. Male W.A. 1998 Discipline and discharge Canadian Union of Public Marcotte Employees, Local 79 (Kidd Health care Harassment and intimidation Grievance). aide (grievor accused) O.L.A.A. No. 195 (ON LA) Harassment (claimed by grievor) University Health Network v. Female F.M. Reilly 2010 Discipline and discharge Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Abraham Laboratory Harassment, bullying, Grievance). technician intimidation (grievor accused) O.L.A.A. No. 58 (ON LA) Harassment and intimidation (claimed by grievor) White Eagle Nursing Home v. Female R.L. Levinson 2006 Discipline and discharge Service Employees Union, Local 1.on (M.A. Grievance). Health care Harassment and intimidation O.L.A.A. No. 627 (ON LA) aide