Quebec Unions’ Role with Respect to Complaints of Psychological Harassment in the Workplace: The Peril and Promise of Implementing Individual Rights Through Collective Labour Relations

Abstract

Abstract This paper reports on a study of the role granted to unions in the implementation of psychological harassment legislation in Quebec. Quebec law incorporates psychological harassment legislation into all collective agreements, making grievance arbitration the sole avenue of recourse for unionised workers experiencing harassment at work. This contrasts with the dedicated complaint process set up for non-unionised workers at the Labour Standards Commission. The paper presents the results of a qualitative study based on interviews with union representatives responsible for recourse with respect to psychological harassment. Findings suggest that the strengths and limitations of union representation of workers who believe they are being harassed vary significantly, depending on the labour relations context in each workplace. In workplaces where labour relations were generally good, union representatives were often able to play a significant role in processing complaints of psychological harassment. They brought legitimacy and meaning to the ban on psychological harassment in the workplace. However, in workplaces where unions were facing deteriorating psychosocial work environments, labour relations were often acrimonious. In these workplaces, the psychological harassment provisions raised expectations on the part of union members, while, at the same time, failing to provide any meaningful leverage to assist the union in resolving complaints effectively. The paper concludes that, ironically, where unionised workers are probably most in need of protection from harassment, they are least likely to have access to effective union representation. The choice to house psychological harassment provisions in Québec’s Labour Standards Act, and then to ‘piggy back’ implementation on labour relations in unionised workplaces also means that the responsibility for prevention, as well as individual recourse, falls to the parties to the collective agreement. In terms of legislative reform, the adoption of a risk management framework for harassment at work would attract crucial external support for prevention, inspection and intervention on behalf of harassed workers in the workplaces where workers are most at risk of psychological harassment. Government policy to this effect would offer a muchneeded legislative push towards a more collective, constructive and equitable approach to the prevention of psychological harassment.