Ontario Bill 168 and other related trivia

And so the on-going drama - or ... as I've since come to realize ... soap opera - continues.

*****

I've not mentioned much about the contents of that hour and a half long interview with my supervisor that Friday in her office.  Mostly because I don't remember the specifics.  What I remember are the feelings.  The internalizations.  The feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, voicelessness in this on-going, never ending conflict.

Especially hopelessness.

I think it was that final meeting with my supervisor in which caused me to realize the hopelessness of my situation in the workplace.

I've used the word voiceless.  Yes, i could talk.  Yes, I had learned a lot through counselling and research about the dynamic of workplace bullying.  Yes, I could say anything I wanted to.

However, whatever I said was never heard.  It was always deflected.

Nothing I said.  Nothing I did was good enough.  I had been involved in counselling for a little more than five years up to this point.  I was continually growing and changing.  But that was not good enough either.

You see workplace abuse is not about change and growth.  It's about keeping the status quo as is.

I actually was in a meeting with one of the bullies, two supervisors and the Union Representative when I mentioned about the years and dollars spent in ongoing counselling.  Ongoing growth.  Ongoing change.  Challenging myself.

The Union Representative burst out "You fool."  She based this on the fact that I was paying for my own counselling rather than going through the workplace EAP (Employment Assistance Program) for free.  Therefore she was denying my commitment to myself, my co-workers and HR and management to resolve everything that was in my power to resolve.  My issues.  Things I did to alienate or hurt others and that included apologizing when necessary.

And I was paying thousands of dollars for that privilege.

The bullies appeared to be doing nothing positive.

All that was deemed null and void by the Union Representative because I was paying for it myself rather than going through the EAP.

The current complaint against me by thes co-worker was that I was angry as evidenced by those seven words:  "I'm sorry.  You hurt me.  I'm sorry.  Good-bye" said as I left the workplace that night.

Ironically, as I walked across the cafeteria to the exit door on my way out of the workplace after saying those words, I thought it was rather ironic that I'm apologizing to this co-worker while saying she hurt me by saying "I'm sorry" twice in that brief statement.

Personally, I don't believe that the incident should ever have gone to management.  In fact, I believe that having such a minor incident go immediately to management and from there to HR was not indicated and, therefore, wrong.  I believe that if people in management and HR had been able to look at the allegations and situation more objectively, this co-worker's objectives for making such a flimsy complaint would have been examined.

If that happened, I never knew about it.

One thing I've not mentioned in this series of posts about the breakdown and subsequent removal from the workplace is Ontario Bill 168, which was supposed to protect workers against workplace harassment.  This Bill became law on June 15, 2009 - the day I received the written reprimand for alleged invasion of privacy.  Therefore, it was not in effect for the first part of my experience with workplace bullying when alliances and dynamics were before formed.  It was not in effect the first time this co-worker complained to HR because I sent her an email trying to establish some sort of connection between us and which contained some personal information about me which she immediately forwarded to two supervisors.

However, by the time of this complaint by my co-worker, winter 2011, it was definitely in effect. I should have received protection under its provisions.

Not so. 

There were several parts to this bill.  It leans very heavily against physical assault in the workplace.  It does contain provision, however, for harassment but such provision is given a rather minor place in the bill..  However, the part that should have protected me in the workplace and in situations like the one I was facing that day (which you can access by the link above) reads:

Under Bill 168, "workplace harassment" means "engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome." Perhaps the most notable aspect of this definition is that, unlike "harassment" as defined in the Human Rights Code, the definition of "workplace harassment" under Bill 168 includes conduct that is not related to a prohibited ground of discrimination, e.g., sex, age, ethnicity, disability, religion, etc. 

I think we can reasonably say that this what I perceived to be a frivolous complaint was vexatious.  And that there was a pattern.

I also believe that I was probably covered under previous legislation by ethnicity and religion.

For whatever reason, no one in management or HR perceived it that way.

I was on my own.

The union had already thrown it's towel in the rink behind the co-workers as evidenced by the Union Representative's behaviour when I was receiving the write-up.

I think at the point we were all at on that Friday everyone was simply tired and worn out with the continuation of the problem.  Everyone just wanted it to stop.

Me included.

*****

This post may be an aside but a relevant one as so much of what happened in the workplace hinges on perceptions, assumptions along with the imperfections of Bill 168.