Workplaces are faced with all manners of violence ranging from fighting, shootings, and various forms of harassment (Kelloway, Nielsen & Dimoff, 2017). In a bid to address workplace violence and harassment, Bill 168 was introduced to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The bill has been significant in spelling out the duties and rights of persons who are charged with roles of handling violence and harassment at the place of work. Particularly, Bill 168 specifies the minimum requirements that employers should put in place to deal with workplace violence and harassment. The ensuing discussion delves on 2012 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court on Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics case. In addition, the discussion will cover on significance of the information to human resource professionals.
Take Away from the Cases
In view of the Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics case, it becomes evident that Bill 168 has had significant influence on the court decisions in cases where workers have been served contract termination owing to a violence incidence at the workplace. In this particular case, Wazir Shakur was the complainant and an employee of Mitchell Plastics. In 2007, he was involved in a heated exchange with his fellow employee. According to witnesses, it was not such a serious incidence, although Mr. Shakur ended up slapping his colleague (Ghignone, 2013). Investigations were carried out and the company terminated his contract without issuing him with a notice. He decided to seek court’s intervention. At the court, the company argued that he was dismissed in line with the recent amendments introduced by Bill 168 (Ghignone, 2013). In addition, the company utilized the Employer Handbook rules on threats and intimidation on colleagues. According to the employer, the slap was enough evidence to dismiss him without notice. However, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Shakur arguing that although he committed workplace violence, the slap was not a serious offence to warrant termination without notice (Ghignone, 2013). According to the judgment, the employer lacked just cause for dismissing Mr. Shakur. In addition, the court established that Mr. Shakur had been provoked to act in the manner he did. The company had failed to train the workers on the policies contained in the Employee Handbook (Ghignone, 2013). In view of this case, it becomes evident that, some incidences of violence among employees may lack sufficient evidence to justify termination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Application of the Information in Human Resource Profession
The information learnt from this case will be useful in becoming a skilled human resource professional as it informs on workplace violence as established under Bill 168. As a human resource manager, it is important to ensure that prior to dismissing an employee without notice for committing violence; specific factual circumstances are established properly (Ghignone, 2013). In the cases of employees with clean disciplinary records, thorough investigation is paramount (Burke & Richardsen, 2019). At the same time, some actions of violence at workplace are caused by provocation. Notably, all employees are supposed to get training on violence at workplace (McLlwrath & Savage, 2010). They should be made aware of the policies governing harassment and all manner of violence, and the consequences they are likely to face for breaching it (Ghignone, 2013). Human resource professionals have a role under Bill 168 of ensuring the organization they work for conducts a regular review of violence policies and that all employees are updated on the same (Lavecchia & Saint-Cyr, 2017).
In overall, the significance of Bill 168 and its impact on employee termination is evident in the Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics case. Mr. Shakur argued his case and was cleared by the court of any wrongdoing. Notably, employers have a duty of establishing facts leading to violence among employees, prior to dismissing them without notice.
References
Burke, R. J., & Richardsen, A.M. (2019). Increasing Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces: Individual, Work, and Organizational Factors. Edward Elgar Publishing
Ghignone, R. (2013). Canada: Impact of Bill 168 on Terminations for Cause. Retrieved from < https://www.mondaq.com/canada/health-safety/236280/impact-of-bill-168-on- terminations-for-cause>
Kelloway, E.K., Nielsen, K. & Dimoff, J. K. (2017). Leading to Occupational Health and Safety: How Leadership Behaviours Impact Organizational Safety and Well-Being. John Wiley & Sons
Lavecchia, C. & Saint-Cyr, Y. (2017). Seven Years after Bill 168, We Learn It Is Costly Not to Comply With Violence Provisions under OHSA. Retrieved from < http://www.slaw.ca/2017/04/13/seven-years-after-bill-168-we-learn-it-is-costly-not-to- comply-with-violence-provisions-under-ohsa/>
McLlwrath, M. & Savage, J. (2010). International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide Kluwer Law International. Kluwer Law International B.V.
