Home > Resource Centre > Publications > Publication

Since June 1, 2004, An Act respecting labour standards has provided that every employee has a right to a work environment free from psychological harassment and has obliged employers to take reasonable action to prevent such harassment and, whenever they become aware of such behaviour, to put a stop to it. The Commission des normes du travail (CNT) must investigate all complaints with due dispatch. It may refuse to take action or, if no settlement is reached, it may defer the case to the Commission des relations du travail* (CRT), which will hold a hearing and render a final decision. The employee will be represented before the CRT by a lawyer of the CNT.

The CRT's interpretation of the new provisions was much anticipated, even though other tribunals, such as grievance arbitrators and the Commission des lésions professionnelles, have handed down several decisions dealing with psychological harassment.

Although these provisions have been in force for over two years, the CRT has so far only handed down two decisions following complaints of psychological harassment: Ganley c. 9321-8014 Québec Inc. (Subway Sandwiches & Salades), 2006 QCCRT 0020, January 13, 2006, Commissioner Michel Denis,* and Bourque c. Centre de santé des Etchemins, 2006 QCCRT 0104, February 23, 2006, Commissioner Bernard Marceau.*

In the Ganley case, the Complainant had been hired as a clerk and later became the manager of the establishment. The evidence showed that the owner of the restaurant shouted at her several times in front of patrons, criticized her sexual orientation and refused to speak to her. The CRT concluded that the Complainant was the victim of psychological harassment since the comments and actions of the owner of the establishment were hostile and repeated and constituted vexatious behaviour that affected the Complainant's dignity and psychological integrity. The complaint was therefore allowed. The employer, who was not present at the hearing of the case, later asked for this decision to be reviewed.

In the Bourque case, the Complainant was an executive secretary in a health care institution. She alleged that she had been psychologically harassed since the appointment of her new boss, the Director of Human, Financial and Information Resources. The evidence showed that the Complainant had an attendance problem that she could not seem to correct despite several warnings. Her boss required her to strictly respect her work schedule and to obtain prior authorization for overtime work. The CRT concluded that the Complainant showed no willingness to respect her obligations as an employee and that she even admitted that she was unable to function in such a rigid environment. The employer's requirement that the schedule be respected was legitimate and the Complainant was personally responsible for the situation which led to progressive discipline. The tolerance shown by the previous management did not give her an acquired right and she had to respect management's authority in accordance with the obligations arising from her employment contract. The evidence showed a continuous exchange of correspondence between the Complainant and her boss, three disciplinary suspensions and an attempt at mediation by an external consultant.

The CRT decided that the Complainant had not established that she had been the victim of harassment. The employer had the right to make the demands being contested by the Complainant and although the Complainant was made aware of the problem, she still had a hard time respecting her work schedule. The CRT noted that while there was a work conflict between the Complainant and her boss and in fact, the Complainant herself had acknowledged that there was a personality conflict between them, none of the employer's actions, verbal comments or gestures constituted psychological harassment or vexatious behaviour that could affect the Complainant's dignity. Consequently, the psychological harassment complaint was dismissed. It is worth mentioning that the Complainant represented herself before the CRT since the CNT had refused to take action following the complaint.

In addition to these two decisions, an interlocutory decision was handed down on February 7, 2006 by Commissioner Vignola in Marois c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2006 QCCRT 0067.* In this case it was decided that the executive who was accused of harassing the Complainant could not intervene personally before the CRT since his interest was the same as that of the employer, against whom the proceedings were instituted pursuant to An Act respecting labour standards. Therefore, it was decided that the president of the organization could not intervene personally to defend his honour and reputation, since these are not a matter for the CRT. In this regard, Commissioner Vignola remarked:

[Translation] "[13] Therefore, it is not appropriate to allow the application seeking the intervention of the Commission des relations du travail in matters or litigation over which it is has no jurisdiction. To do so would transform the review of a complaint pursuant to An Act respecting labour standards into a wide-ranging commission of inquiry into the conduct of the president of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, calling into question his honour and reputation. That is neither possible, nor desirable."

This decision is the subject of an application for internal review.

CONCLUSION

The CRT's first decisions on psychological harassment seem to confirm that vexatious comments, insults and disrespectful language constitute psychological harassment, whereas imposing justified disciplinary measures, the expression of legitimate demands by the employer and even a personality conflict between an employee and his/her superior do not constitute harassment. Moreover, the CRT seems to want to proceed in the same expeditious manner as it generally does in other litigation within its jurisdiction. It will generally deny applications to intervene by executives even when their honour or reputation risks being tarnished by the complainant's allegations. These cases thus lay the groundwork for the case law which will certainly develop in the next few years.

* Available in French only.

The purpose of this document is to provide information as to developments in the law. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute an opinion of Ogilvy Renault LLP or any member of the firm on the points of law discussed.

© Ogilvy Renault LLP 2006 - All Rights Reserved

 Back to Publications

Contacts

Pierre Pronovost
Montréal
514.847.4485
ppronovost@ogilvyrenault.com
Profile

Manon M. Savard
Montréal
514.847.4520
msavard@ogilvyrenault.com
Profile

Lukasz Granosik
Montréal
514.847.4996
lgranosik@ogilvyrenault.com
Profile

Marc A. Tremblay
Montréal
514.847.4896
matremblay@ogilvyrenault.com
Profile

Jean Houle
Québec
418.640.5036
jhoule@ogilvyrenault.com
Profile

Jocelyn F. Rancourt
Québec
418.640.5003
jrancourt@ogilvyrenault.com
Profile