The Act respecting labour standards applies to most employees in Quebec. An employee is a person who works for an employer and who earns a wage or salary.

However, the Act doesn’t apply to the following people:

• students doing an internship (stage);
  
• independent contractors, meaning people who run their own business;
  
• sitters who take care of a child, a sick person, a disabled person or an elderly person on an occasional basis and in the person’s home. A teenager who babysits on Saturday evenings while the parents are out would fall into this category;
  
• people working in federally-regulated businesses enterprises. This includes employees of the federal government, banks (but not credit unions/caisses populaires), radio or television stations, interprovincial transportation businesses, ports, telecommunication companies, etc. These people are covered by labour standards found in the Canada Labour Code, which is a federal law.

Also, the Act respecting labour standards provides that the following people are under a specific legal framework, which means that only certain parts of the Act apply to them:

• Managers have a right to the following benefits of the Act: the right to be absent for family or parental reasons, maternity and parental leave, protection against psychological harassment and protection from forced retirement.
  
• Construction workers' working conditions are covered by a specific law. They are still protected by the Act respecting labour standards in cases of psychological harassment, family leave and forced retirement.
  
• Agricultural workers are entitled to minimum wage, annual vacation and protection against psychological harassment under the Act.
  
• Live-in caregivers("domestic workers") who live at their employer’s home have a right to the general minimum wage, the regular workweek and protection against psychological harassment.

For more information on the application of the Act respecting labour standards, consult the Infosheet entitled Labour standards in Quebec.

In June 2004, the psychological harassment provisions of the Act respecting labour standards came into force. Psychological harassment occurs when four things are present:

Vexatious behaviour of a repetetive or serious kind:

This is behaviour that is humiliating, offensive or abusive for the person who experiences it. This is measured based on how the situation appears objectively. So, we would ask if a reasonable person in the same situation would find the behaviour troubling. What matters is not every act taken separately, which might look fairly harmless, but instead the overall effect of the behaviour. This is what is considered when deciding if there is psychological harassment. A single, very serious act might also be considered psychological harassment;

An act (or acts) of a hostile or unwanted nature:

For an act to be psychological harassment, it must be hostile toward the worker or it must be done in spite of the worker’s desire that it stop or not occur at all. “Hostile” doesn’t necessarily mean “aggressive”. Also, the victim of the harassment doesn’t have to protest out loud for the act to be considered unwanted. The protest could be expressed through body-language, for example.

Harm to dignity, or to psychological or physical integrity:

The harm experienced by the person can be psychological, for example he may feel belittled, worthless or denigrated. The harm can also have effects on the physical health of the person. However, remember that even if there are no physical effects, the situation can still constitute harassment.

A poisoned work environment:

The work environment experienced by the person who alleging the harm will also be examined. Therefore, a workplace that makes the victim feel isolated will be a factor when deciding if there is psychological harassment.

These four criteria don’t just relate to psychological harassment. In fact, they are also used as factors in defining sexual harassment under the Act respecting labour standards.

Finally, remember that it doesn’t matter what the intentions of the harassing person were; what is important is the effect that this person’s behaviour had on the victim. A person could easily be held responsible for psychological harassment even if she didn’t mean to harm the victim. The main factor is always the perception of a reasonable person placed in the same situation as the victim.

Many people could be involved in a situation of psychological harassment. It could happen between co-workers or between people at different levels of the company hierarchy. The harassing person could even be from outside the workplace (a supplier or even a customer, for example). There can also be groups of victims, or groups of aggressors.

Yes, in some cases and after analyzing the other criteria explained above.

It has already been mentioned that one of the criteria for identifying a situation of psychological harassment is vexatious behaviour that is serious or repetitive.

So, even if the situation isn’t repetitive, if the harmful effect on the victim remains over time, this can be enough. An act of this kind will be defined as harassment because of its seriousness, rather than because of its repetition.

But it is still important to keep in mind the other three criteria listed earlier: they must be present for the situation to be considered psychological harassment, legally.

No. It is important to be able to tell the difference between situations that naturally occur in the work environment and are justifiable, and actual psychological harassment. Here are some examples that wouldn’t be considered psychological harassment:

• An employer can, in some cases, be forced to use his privilege of management with respect to one of the employees. For example, an employee who is always late to work could have a sanction imposed on him by the employer or by his immediate supervisor. If these measures aren’t done in an abusive or discriminatory way, they will not be considered psychological harassment.
  
  
• Conflicts occurring during collective bargaining between the union and management are not considered to be psychological harassment as long as the behaviour doesn’t discriminate against a particular person or group, and as long as it is not abusive or unjustifiable.
  
  
• Normal work-related stress, as well as difficult but justifiable professional constraints are not psychological harassment. The fact that a person has developed migraines or that she is finding it difficult to live with a new situation doesn’t necessarily mean that she is a victim of psychological harassment. It is necessary to look at the situation from the outside, using the four criteria listed earlier in this Infosheet.

Yes. This part of the Act respecting labour standards (the Act) applies to many kinds of workers. It covers any person considered an employee under the Act (see the first question of this Infosheet). Also protected are managers and senior executives in private companies covered by the Act in Quebec.

A unionized worker is also protected by this provision of the law, as of its coming into force in June 2004. Since this date, all collective agreements in private companies covered by the Act in Quebec include clauses about psychological harassment. Your collective agreement cannot depart from the Act, except to provide more favourable conditions to the worker. For example, the time limit to file a complaint of harassment under the Act is 90 days from the most recent incident of harassment. Your collective agreement could include a time limit of 120 days, which would give more time to the worker. But the agreement couldn’t reduce the time limit to 60 days.

If you are an employee of the government of Quebec and you are not covered by a collective agreement, you are also protected against psychological harassment under the Act. But instead of enforcing your rights at the Commission des relations du travail, you must use the Commission de la fonction publique, which has the same powers in relation to this subject.

In fact, the only employees not covered by this new framework are those who work for employers covered by federal law. They are covered by the Canada Labour Code, which is the federal version of the Act respecting labour standards.

The obligations of the employer can be divided into two main areas: prevention and resolution of difficult situations.

• Prevention
  Take concrete steps to prevent psychological harassment, for example by putting in place a resource person, an internal policy, etc. The employer also must ensure that all people affected by the policy receive a copy of it: employees, managers, as well as clients, suppliers and other people from outside the organization.
  
  
• Resolution of instances of psychological harassment
  The employer must go beyond simple prevention; he must also take steps to stop psychological harassment when it occurs. For example, by listening to a person who claims to be a victim or to have witnessed harassment, investigating, encouraging understanding between the parties or dealing with the harassing person, etc.

For the employer, this is an obligation of means and not of result. This means that the employer doesn’t have to guarantee that there will be absolutely no psychological harassment in the workplace. He must only take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and resolve situations that arise.

Whenever it is possible, the first step is to find out about the options provided to workers by the employer, for example, by consulting with the appropriate contact person at the company or with your union representative.

If the situation cannot be fixed this way, the alleged victim can take action against the employer. Note that any recourse is not taken against the harassing person but against the employer because it is the employer’s legal responsibility to ensure that the workplace includes a process for preventing and dealing with psychological harassment.

Depending on whether or not you are a member of a union, a manager, or perhaps a government employee, you will have to go to a different organization to file your complaint. Here are some examples:

• For a non-unionized employee or a manager in a private company, the law provides that a written complaint must be filed with the Commission des normes du travail within 90 days of the last incident of harassment.
  
  
• Unionized workers are also protected by law, but instead of complaining to the Commission des normes du travail, they must act according to the process included in their collective agreement. If a right to a grievance is allowed, then the worker can complain through the grievance procedure. Mediation is also always possible, if both parties want it.
  
  
• Finally, employees of the government must go to the Commission de la fonction publique, which has the same powers as the Commission des relations du travail in relation to psychological harassment (please see the previous question).

Once the complaint has been filed, the Commission des normes du travail investigates to see if there has been a case of harassment, and if the employer attempted to do anything to correct the situation. If the complaint is considered invalid, the Commission will send the decision to the employee (the complainant). If the employee wishes, she can ask for an administrative review of the decision. In spite of the unfavourable decision from the Commission, the employee can still ask to be heard by the Commission des relations du travail.

At any time during the investigation, if the employer and complainant are in agreement, they can go to mediation to try to resolve the conflict. This mediation is aimed at trying to find a solution that will satisfy both parties.

If, after the investigation, the Commission decides that the complaint is justified, the Commission des relations du travail (CRT) will decide if there was actually psychological harassment and if the employer failed to respect its obligations. If the CRT decides that this was a case of psychological harassment, it will decide what action should be taken to repair the harm. At this stage it is still possible for the two parties to reach a settlement. At the CRT, the word “conciliation” is used instead of “mediation”, but the process is similar.