The fact that an employee had engaged in harassment did not make it foreseeable that he would assault a coworker, a labour arbitrator has held. However, the company's harassment policy was deficient and needed to be rewritten.
The decision arose from a union grievance alleging that the employer had not provided an injury-free workplace. An employee, Kryzanowski, alleged that another employee, Wilson, had struck him in the head from behind with a "rather substantial sized plastic lunch pail". The union alleged that the company had breached the collective agreement and the Saskatchewan Occupational Health and Safety Act because of its actions or inactions both before and after the incident.
The arbitrator stated that there was no doubt that the assault constituted harassment as defined in the OHSA. "A serious physical assault, such as this one, is perhaps the most profound single incident of harassment that exists." However, according to the arbitrator, the core question was whether the company, through its management personnel and supervisors, knew or should have known that Wilson was a physical threat to other employees and failed to take steps to prevent it.
The arbitrator decided that although Wilson had demonstrated "meanness and bullying" behaviour towards Kryzanowski through numerous disrespectful comments, and the company's management were sufficiently aware of Wilson's conduct to know that he was mean-spirited and had anger problems, none of his previous actions were physical alterations and there was no evidence that he was on the verge of physically attacking a fellow employee. The assault was not foreseeable by the company.
As such, Kryzanowski was not entitled to damages for the assault. However, the company was ordered to keep Wilson and Kryzanowski on different shifts and direct Wilson to have no contact with Kryzanowski.
Lastly, the arbitrator found that the company's harassment policy did not comply with the OHSA and regulations in that it was not kept current and did not include specific contents required by the regulations. The arbitrator ordered the company to "take immediate steps to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act by writing its harassment policy to be compliant with the Act and regulations."
Shaw Pipe Protection Limited v Construction and General Workers' Local Union No 180, 2013 CanLII 94439 (SK LA)
For more information, visit our Occupational Health & Safety Law blog at www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com
About Dentons
Dentons is a global firm driven to provide you with the competitive edge in an increasingly complex and interconnected marketplace. We were formed by the March 2013 combination of international law firm Salans LLP, Canadian law firm Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) and international law firm SNR Denton.
Dentons is built on the solid foundations of three highly regarded law firms. Each built its outstanding reputation and valued clientele by responding to the local, regional and national needs of a broad spectrum of clients of all sizes – individuals; entrepreneurs; small businesses and start-ups; local, regional and national governments and government agencies; and mid-sized and larger private and public corporations, including international and global entities.
Now clients benefit from more than 2,500 lawyers and professionals in 79 locations in 52 countries across Africa, Asia Pacific, Canada, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Russia and the CIS, the UK and the US who are committed to challenging the status quo to offer creative, actionable business and legal solutions.
Learn more at www.dentons.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
