Psychological Health and Safety in the Canadian Workplace: A Standard Is Born - Early 2013
There are increasing calls for governments to use regulatory legislation to require employers to provide employees with a psychologically safe workplace. The most recent development in this regard comes from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) through a Standard prepared by it and the Bureau de normalisation du Québec. The Standard has been available in draft form since November 2011 and is expected to be published and released November 7, 2012 in early 2013. (Editor's Note: The release date originally noted in this blog post has been updated following advice from the CSA that the release of the final Standard has been delayed until early 2013)
The new Standard creates detailed and sweeping measures and systems through which employers are encouraged to assess and ensure the psychological health of employees. Employers should take note because the Standard broadens traditional workplace health and safety norms by measuring psychological health with reference to extra-workplace factors such as the employee’s ability to cope with the normal stresses of life and to make a contribution to his or her community.
The Standard presents an opportunity for employers to develop systems to protect and enhance this component of workplace health and safety. This may assist in stemming the ongoing tide of litigation and claims arising from allegations of bullying, violence, stress in the workplace in multiple forms – including wrongful dismissal, workers’ compensation claims, OHS reprisal complaints, and grievances among them.
The Standard will set out optimistic goals and processes for achieving "psychological health and safety" in the workplace. A psychological health and safety system will encompass policies, procedures, hazard identification, incident investigation and monitoring activities, and much more relating to the broadly-defined concept of psychological health and safety under the Standard.
The Standard presents challenges in that such steps will be voluntary. They will be expected in addition to all existing steps being taken to develop and manage occupational health and safety systems for “traditional” health and safety physical hazards, conditions, and substances. The Standard goes well beyond existing regulatory occupational health and safety regimes which currently require, in various forms in different Canadian jurisdictions, specific steps by employers to proactively prevent and respond to workplace violence and harassment. Full compliance will involve an extremely complex exercise, although we understand that the CSA will be emphasizing the need for each organization to consider step by step compliiance, or compliance as a journey, with full compliance as the ultimate goal.
We are of the view that requiring compliance with the Standard will present interesting challenges for OHS regulators should they choose to enforce the Standard through regulatory OHS provisions. Although compliance with the Standard, as with any CSA standard, is voluntary, it should be noted that numerous CSA Standards have been directly incorporated into OHS legislation across Canada, in which case they are fully enforceable by orders, directions, or prosecution. Right now, it is unknown if any jurisdiction will require compliance with the Standard through a specific statutory requirement. Legislative amendment can be a slow process. Even if a jurisdiction were inclined to statutorily mandate compliance with the Standard, once it is finalized, it could be some time before a specific requirement becomes law.
Employers should be reminded of the “general duty” provision that exists within OHS legislation across Canada. This duty requires employers to generally take every reasonable precaution to ensure health and safety in the workplace. Though there is some variance in the language of these clauses natonally, they could be used by OHS regulators to require compliance with the Standard without specific legislative change. If OHS regulators were inclined to enforce the Standard through these clauses, there could be little lag time between the publication of the Standard and a regulatory push to comply with it. Enforcement of the Standard through the general duty clause of OHS legislation may be challenging for regulators, however. Existing workplace violence and harassment provisions may present legal impediments to the enforcement of the Standard though a general duty provision in that it could be argued that the regulators have already established the reasonable precautions required by enacting specific OHSA requirements for harassment and violence prevention policies and programs.
The more detailed article linked here examines the Standard and its requirements, and a recently-published Action Guide for complying with the Standard. For more information and questions about the Standard, please contact Cheryl A. Edwards cedwards@heenan.ca; Jeremy Warning jwarning@heenan.ca; or Shane Todd stodd@heenan.ca of our national OHS and Workers' Compensation Practice Group.

Comments (3)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endTamara Parris - October 24, 2012 6:39 AM
What is in the current standard is great for workplace with cultures that are accepting of being challenged, and enhancing their social, interpersonal and cognitive interactions.
It will provide a greater struggle for those helming organizations with more hierarchical, top-down power structures, where certain levels of authority are seen as "correct", or people have been allowed to be disrespectfully for a long period of time without reprimand.
In my work it is extra hard when trying to facilitate the process of identifying, addressing respectful and accepted behaviors in a larger culture; where most people are using an controlling, abrasive or abusive communication styles for problem solving.
Then to add altering their "habits" and exposing them to their "blind spots", to be able to start coaching them on respectful healthy choices.... this is comparable to bring some people to a new planet.
It is so ingrained as "acceptable" I have developed special step by step methods/model to achieve this.
Also,it is slow moving with major conflicts at times.
How reasonable is it to have this expectation that any Senior Leader or manager/supervisor should be able to walk through a set guide to achieve x,y and z outcomes.
When bill 168 came our - so many "expert consultants" I spoke with told me their concept was shape up or get fired.
For me that does not solve the problem, and is not a good solution - one has to also consider the ROI for those you have trained and developed over the years.
Kellie Auld - October 25, 2012 8:43 AM
The concept of healthy workplaces is great. I don't think there's any argument there. What bothers me with this is the 'voluntary' nature of it. As mentioned in the article, there is already a "general duty of care" in Occupational Health and Safety across Canada but how often is that enforced?
We're certainly taking a step in the right direction in the sense that attention is being brought to issues of psychological health and safety but I suspect we are a long way from doing anything in the near future other than putting words on paper.
Mathew Rose - October 27, 2012 12:59 PM
Kellie, yes and no. I am imagining future legal disputes in which, counsils will ask if a company chose to follow the standards. If the company answers no and cannot provide a reasonable answer why they havent followed the standards, then then that could be used as evidence against the company. Which in turn might lead to threats of litigation causing some companys to conform.
As someone who completes the OHS risk analysis and has testified on the subject we have a hard enough time argreeing on how to determine physical injury risk in which the issues are much more concrete. To try and do risk analysis with the psychological aspect in the workplace us going to be exceedingly difficult. There just isnt enough research, to effectively and concretely determine that certain environments are psychologically unsafe. This will be great for litigaters as there will be a huge grey area to argue from. But very difficult for us front line health professionals.