Are We Setting Indigenous Relations Resources Up for Success?

Are We Setting Indigenous Relations Resources Up for Success?

October 27, 2019, |Bullying, Colonialism, Compliance, Harassment, Human Resources, Indigenous, TRC 92 (ii), Workplace Respect

 

When it Comes to Indigenous Relations Portfolios, Company Leaders are Oft’ Dropped into the Ocean Without Compass.

 Many managers are not fully aware of the root causes of their organization’s decision to create an Indigenous Relations position or portfolio. They first see requirements within a client’s request for a proposal to engage with and hire Indigenous members of a community; key performance indicators are weaved into contract administration to report on the number of people hired and on the number and value of subcontracts left.

Indigenous Relations[/caption]

Some may be vaguely aware of the regulatory project requirements from which socioeconomic project conditions may be directly inherited. The terms are usually negotiated by and between the project proponent and those directly affected communities, under varying federal government levels or regulatory supervision (or lack thereof).

Suppose that remains to be the full extent of the managers’ understanding. A corporate direction lacking vision ensues, typically resulting in awkward attempts at rudimentary “beads and feathers” exercises to procure a check-the-box understanding of a culture, usually accompanied by underlying resentments towards the perceived-to-be misplaced preferential treatment given to First Nation, Metis, and Inuit communities.

After a while, the manager notices that fostering and maintaining these relationships takes time and resources and often travels to remote locations. The task is too big for anyone to run from the “corner of their desk.” This is how one feels, while there is a lack of understanding of the “why” and a lack of appreciation of the larger picture and importance of the relationship.

Eventually, that part of the senior leaders’ portfolio becomes an irritant. Sadly, it is often under these circumstances that the process of delegation ensues.

Selection and Placement on the Org Chart

Once an organization decides to recruit an Indigenous Relations resource, the selection criteria are often initially driven based on several potential attributes such as:

  • capacity for relationship building,
  • reflecting the representation of a particular group or community, and
  •  level of position and compensation level (how much does the organization want to invest in this).

Often the exercise fails to source someone:

  • a representative of and/or with intimate knowledge of the sources, history and communal experience of colonialism,
  • with an understanding of the ongoing inequity, barriers, and intergenerational harm both generally in Canada and with the communities directly involved, together with
  • the skill and experience required to operate and effectively navigate corporate organization structures.

This is a tall order, indeed. We must note that often those who have the skills above have likely overcome tremendous barriers themselves and may have their own trauma stories (we will touch on this again later).

The good news is that choosing to walk this path will introduce leaders to some of the most unique, strong people they will ever meet. Once onboarded, Indigenous staff/leaders will need significant direct leadership support and the whole organization’s support. We must note that unlike safety, which over years and years has become embedded and ingrained into the fabric of organizational culture, with safety representatives providing primarily educational and technical support; Indigenous relations resources are at first, in a sense, behind enemy lines and face hostility when attempting to introduce the required changes.

Where an Indigenous resource is installed into an organization as a dedicated but isolated resource, that resource must have a direct or at least a dotted-line reporting relationship to executive leadership levels. They must have open and ongoing access to this support. We can point to examples where Indigenous relations resources have been successful without this direct support. Still, those individuals and circumstances are remarkable – as most will agree, repeatable success cannot bank on the remarkable. Therefore, we recommend installing the executive-level supports upfront. The following describes what happens to resources installed absent such supports to emphasize this point.

Who in Their Right Mind Would Want Their Organisation to Run Like This?

Because of the unintended consequences and further potential harm caused by getting it wrong, it’s worth investing in understanding where most organizations are and how they start this journey. Particular challenges are unavoidable parts of the process, and certain of the missteps we’ve noticed, have been self-imposed.

Most organizations are not capable of going directly into an embedded/integrated reconciliation result; most organizations are large enough that it is going to take a cultural shift. Similar to how the safety culture eventually became woven into the fabric of most modern management systems, heavy lifting is required by the subject matter expert(s), Indigenous peoples themselves, with executive support. Before it becomes decentralized, it must start with a dedicated resource, which typically means it is a resource that moves alongside and among departmental areas cross-functionally.

While this makes the individual agile, it also can make the Indigenous staff/leader isolated and exposed to organizational friction and interpersonal hostility.

Literature supports the notion that where individuals have experienced trauma in their life, potential health impacts associated with prolonged interpersonal hostility at work may be exacerbated more so – absent support. Recall that there is likely a correlation due to existing present-day colonial forces and intergenerational trauma, the trauma that many subject matter experts secured as the organization’s Indigenous relations resource has faced and may continue to face. So if the Indigenous relations resource is without support, while in prolonged hostile and socially isolated environments, that individual’s sympathetic nervous system takes over, creating real psychological and physiological effects that inhibit their digestive system and increases their heart rate, leading to an over-activated nervous system which is associated with:

  1. emotions of fear and rage
  2. enhanced negative psychological bias
  3. increased attention to harmful stimuli, and
  4.  perception of ambiguous situations as negative

Essentially Indigenous peoples may exist in a fight or flight state of being while at work when that workplace is hostile. If much of a person’s time is spent over-activated in this sympathetic state, it taxes the nervous system. Eventually, the person will crash. While in a “crashed” state, emotions of blame and depression may dominate. Without intervention, this leads to health concerns, behaviour concerns and ultimately, turnover of its Indigenous relations resource. This likely leads to a one-step forward, two-steps back level of progress in developing a supportive reconciliation culture.

What leader in their right mind would intentionally roll out a plan that would lend itself to this result? In our experience, none. And further, good leaders have a genuine interest in protecting and supporting their people.

Some Less Than Obvious Supports

Senior leadership can support by shouldering some of the burdens of overcoming change inertia by visibly sponsoring broad-based and meaningful culture awareness training (like the blanket exercise), followed by setting the precise tone of where the leadership wants to take the organization while ensuring Indigenous staff/leaders are the resources to help achieve that objective. Formally adopt the Truth and Reconciliation’s Calls to Action.  This will help reduce unnecessary friction at the outset.

Frequent meetings with the Indigenous staff/leader are recommended. Don’t rely solely on the individual initiating meetings with senior leaders. Use the early meetings to establish a supportive rapport before significant issues arise.

Make space to attend to holistic needs and encourage the person to book focus/decompression time. The Indigenous staff/leaders’ office and surrounding area (to and from the office) must be a safe place to offer meaningful exchanges with others at work.

Encourage attendance at conferences and workshops. The organization’s Indigenous relations resource may feel isolated and alone. Offering opportunities to attend conferences and workshops will allow resetting of perspective, refocus and recharge as the person gets to spend time with colleagues who understand precisely what they are going through.

Don’t be fooled, random testing lawful in certain circumstances

Don’t be fooled, random testing lawful in certain circumstances

March 19, 2018

This report was inspired by an article written by Lorelle Binnion, of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Teck Coal v United Steelworkers: Yet Another Unjustifiable Random Drug And Alcohol Testing Policy.  

In this case, another test for assessing the appropriateness of random testing is proposed, which is a slight variation from the previous Irving test. 

Proposed test:

  1. The arbitrator must determine whether the employee’s privacy was infringed upon by the random alcohol & drug testing policy.
  2. If the privacy rights were infringed upon, the arbitrator must determine whether or not there is a cause or a legitimate need for random A&D testing in the workplace. This often involves establishing the workplace’s safety-sensitive nature and the presence of a problem of alcohol or drug use and abuse associated with the workplace.
  3. Proportionality analysis is conducted to determine whether random A&D testing as a measure would be an effective avenue to address the employer’s issue and whether or not methods less intrusive to employees’ privacy could be implemented effectively to address the employer’s concerns instead of random testing.

Lack of Objective Evidence to Support the Notion that there is an Alcohol and Drug Problem in the Workplace

Teck Coal relied on off-duty conduct evidence that established a “work hard, play hard” culture. There was an almost exclusive reliance on off-duty behaviour and anecdotal off-duty conduct to establish a workplace problem with alcohol and drugs.

That approach is not going to be sufficient. This is something Teck Coal learned the hard way, and as a result, yet another distracting case is published. This is in contrast to Suncor’s recent case, presently making its way through various appeals. Suncor relied on objective, quantifiable data to establish a problem of alcohol and drug abuse at the workplace.

 However, advocates often cite Teck Coal as a case establishing that random alcohol and drug testing is unlawful in the workplace, at least in BC. This is not true. 

Teck Coal puts it to employers to use a sound methodology to establish and prove there is a problem with alcohol and drugs in their workplace – something Teck Coal failed to do in this circumstance.

Then, there is the Arbitrator’s Flight from Reality…

In regards to the proportionality test, the arbitrator departed from reality in wrongfully concluding:

Simply because Teck Coal was achieving safety improvements due to other aspects of its robust health and safety program, somehow random testing ceases to be a proportional response. 

This is irrational, unworkable, and unfortunately common in BC industrial jurisprudence because of the lack of industrial work in BC for a period of close to 20 years. 

There is similarly a lack of industrial jurisprudence about the administration of rules regarding safety-sensitive positions and/or highly safety-sensitive worksites in the province of BC.

The result is arbitrators are about 15 years behind the times when it comes to administering safety rules and honouring the paramount importance of health and safety on worksites. This increases the risk drastically in BC in terms of what kind of result one can expect if employers have to defend themselves in front of arbitrators in British Columbia.

Case in point, in arbitration for which I was involved, Arbitrator Ronald Keras determined that a Boilermaker Lodge 359 Job Stewart driving drunk, fishtailing, in the dark, on-site in his pickup truck, while speeding away at 60 km an hour to run away from security guards in a 10 km an hour zone did not constitute a safety risk worthy of significant discipline. Boilermakers 359 and Bantrel Re: Robert Barber Termination Grievance

“This decision suggests that from a practical standpoint, it will be challenging/if not impossible/for employers to justify random drug and alcohol testing procedures. According to this decision, it may not be sufficient to show a general workplace problem with drug and alcohol use unless the problem is more severe than in other similar workplaces or communities. Even if the employer was able to clear this initial balancing hurdle, it could then be argued that [due to the] proportionality part of the test that there are less intrusive ways to deal with the general problem of alcohol and drug abuse at the workplace once those measures have been implemented, the employer may no longer be able to demonstrate and pull a general problem with alcohol and drug abuse.”

We do not believe all aspects of Teck Coal will be followed, but it further emphasizes the need to have clear objective evidence to support the need for your random drug testing program. We wrote an article about the evidentiary requirements, which can be found here. https://withpeople.ca/blog/f/dont-get-left-behind-metrics-required-to-justify-random-alcohol

Sam Kemble

Tribunal’s ruling doesn’t rule out more employer accommodation

Tribunal’s ruling doesn’t rule out more employer accommodation

March 19, 2018

This report was inspired by an article written by Kelsey Orth, of CCPartners. Supreme Court Of Canada Affirms That Employers Have A Distinct Obligation To Consider The Duty To Accommodate Separate From Other Legislative Requirements.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision reconfirms employers have a duty to accommodate that is separate from any other legislative or administrative process [be it in regards to private or public insurance, employment standards, WCB, OH&S, or otherwise].

For most, this serves as a simple reminder. Regardless, we felt it worth bringing attention to this by posting it here for your review.

In the above-noted case, the commission responsible for administering a worker’s compensation claim agreed with the employer that once the initial accommodated assignment was concluded, the employer had no further work (for him to administer workers’ compensation legislation).

The individual then filed a human rights complaint arguing that the workers’ compensation commission’s ruling was not determinative of whether or not the employer had satisfied its duty to accommodate.

“In our view, this is the proper result, and illustrates why we always caution employers that, the matter of the involvement and outcome of any other process – including Worker’s Compensation or third-party insurance claims adjudication –  the employer’s duty to accommodate as a separate and distinct obligation that must be considered in every circumstance.”

Sam Kemble

 

13 Years Married: Still pained to see my wife profiled

13 Years Married: Still pained to see my wife profiled

Sam Kemble: Commentary

When my wife and I were courting, I stole her away from her family for the first time one Christmas to share that part of the Holiday Season with my family. It was a big deal. We were sending the signal to everyone; this is serious. You better get to know this woman because she is amazing and will be in our lives for a long time. Beth wanted to get just the right gift for my mom. She was slightly anxious and went to a prominent store in downtown Edmonton to find something special. She chose a beautiful scarf. Being quite excited, she showed me her selection when we got together that evening. It was wonderful. My mom would love it. She did love it, both the scarf and the gesture.

But then something else was shared. Beth told me of her experience in the store. She was followed around by the staff as though they felt she was going to steal something. I was furious. I had frequented the same establishment and had never been treated that way. I did not even know Beth’s ethnicity when we started dating. On numerous occasions, people have told us that she clearly has “First Nation traits.” Being discriminated against is something I have never experienced. And before that, I have never experienced discrimination vicariously through a loved one. I was filled with indignation. To Beth, my naivety was showing. At the time, I believed that racial profiling was more of an outlier phenomenon in today’s society. It was reserved for fringe groups, in any event, not mainstream. I asked Beth, “Why are you not angry?”

“If I choose to be angry about that, I would be angry all the time.” she said.

The statement hit me on several levels. All the time? Does it happen all the time? She is desensitized because of a lifetime of similar experiences? How far off base am I to have believed this type of thing does not happen?

Then I started to notice interactions. How sometimes I would be treated differently when going places with my brother-in-law, how he would be treated, or how Beth might be treated when we were out. It struck me because it was unusual and foreign to me. Eventually, concerning these (off-duty personal life) interactions, I started to become desensitized; the interactions did not inspire the same emotion in me. I still do not know if that is a good or bad thing.

In my own mind, I started assessing the order of magnitude. In some cases, it seemed to be a case of awkwardness, not hateful and not even overtly judgemental, just awkwardness. In other situations, there was a sense the individual carried with them an initial pre-judgement, often softening as the interaction with Beth continued. In other cases, there was an unmoving pre-judgment, seemingly based on Beth’s ethnicity. And in other cases, there was what appeared to be hate. For the time we went for our sunny Sunday walk for a coffee, pushing Natanis in the baby carriage. While walking down a side street, a stranger in a pick-up squealed around the corner, coming into proximity of us. He yelled, “Go back to the Reserve!”. We looked at each other and shrugged our shoulders. To us, those are just unexplainable.

Being in the human resource field and the labour relations field, I wonder what kind of impact this has on opportunities for promotion, being put in ad hoc leadership positions, or being given opportunities for meaningful work on committees. How does this impact the voices that get heard generally, across industries and sectors in Canada? Many first-opportunity decisions are often based on first or surface impressions. Final decisions are often ultimately made in-camera, where often the only person in the room with the decision-maker is the decision-maker himself or herself. Unless a person does not have a personal bias or has personal feelings but compartmentalizes them away from the decision at hand (and I believe some professionals are capable of doing that), interviewers’ and decision-makers beliefs impact those decisions.

I have also considered whether it is different for Inuit, First Nation and Metis; versus people associated with another visible minority group in Canadian society. I can’t help but feel that discrimination continues to happen to people of all ethnicities. For those who do have a prejudice against aboriginal people (I have zero science to support this but believe it anyway); generally, there seems to be more emotion and conviction attached.

During my career, I have come to a few answers from a global perspective. I do what I can to ensure it does not happen in “my house.” Professionally, “think globally and act locally” is all I have accomplished to date.

“Why am I writing this today? “

Today my wife was denied service at a coffee shop. A coffee shop that is attached to a downtown library in our hometown, Edmonton. Beth had just finished having lunch with some former work colleagues. She was settling in to have a coffee and work on her doctoral research while she waited for the time to pick Natanis up from school. What kicked off the interaction initially? Beth wanted to buy a coffee and a sandwich for a homeless person. The store insisted the homeless person leave the premises. Then, they also denied service to Beth, even to buy her own coffee. And finally, they insisted Beth leave the store and called the police, giving the description, of a 5″6 aboriginal woman.

“It has been ten years since Beth bought that scarf for my mom. I am usually not angry about this sort of thing…but today I am. “

As human resource professionals and labour relations professionals, and as Canadians, we need to do our part not to minimize and to guard against profiling in our organizations and across the stakeholder groups with whom we interface.

Short Term Service Offerings

Short Term Service Offerings

Current environment  Heavy layoffs commenced in 2015 and more are expected in 2017. Wage freezes and wage rollbacks remain a water cooler topic. Capital spending reviews and cuts are in the headlines.  There are many signals that 2017 will continue to be about managing costs and running current operations as lean as possible.   But there is still major project work and maintenance for existing operations underway, and bids to submit to secure future work.  In 2017 companies are properly wary about adding staff or making long-term spending. Essential services and activities will go on but with a sharp eye on costs. There is less organizational slack in most organization charts which may increase the need for temporary or ad hoc assistance for either technical expertise or to have access to increased variable capacity.   

Services you may need:  You may need the plan to source labour and scale up rapidly for maintenance purposes or due to changes in schedule.  And you will need to ensure costs to get workers to the site are tightly controlled. Flying tradespeople across the country every shift may be justifiable in a tight labour market but makes little sense when local or regional options exist.

Labour relations or employee investigations may arise that require staff dedication of time or expertise that no longer exists within your organization.  These are examples of areas of short-term services where Workforce Delivery can help. 

Our knowledge and experience can allow us to build a labour supply strategy that takes the current market into account. We can provide plans and execute them as needed.  

Another area of concern in active projects and worksites is managing spikes in labour relations activity such as misconduct, substance abuse or increase in complaints.  Tension and animosity among workers can build due to the job market outlook or knowing that layoffs may be coming soon.  You need cost-effective options to deal with increased labour relations activity.  Or you may be facing what you consider to be regular workload levels resulting from managing your labour force, but the team you manage has been drastically reduced.  

Your internal capacity and expertise are not what it was two years ago, but the demands remain.  Workforce Delivery can pick up challenging labour relations issues for you such as collective bargaining, grievance handling and complex investigations.  

Where With Peopel Inc. can help – Effective and cost-conscious solutions.  With People Inc. can offer ad hoc labour relations and labour supply services for places where project work is still underway and existing operations in all sectors continue.   

Cost pressures may create an opportunity (or pressure) to review labour supply costs from top to bottom.  

Approaches or sources that were never up for serious consideration in the past may now make sense.  

With People Inc. can be the source for unbiased analysis of the value provided by various labour-sourcing strategies together with transition plans.

The final call remains yours, but demands have never been greater for your decision to be based on critical screening of all the options on the table since 2015.  Our services for labour relations or labour supply can be provided on an ad hoc basis at an hourly rate.  Some common service types we offer:  

  • Single grievance or investigation file completion. 
  • Interim backfill of an unexpected vacancy of a labour relations manager or site role. 
  • Develop a labour supply strategy, with the option to execute that strategy, reporting back progress. 
  • Provide collective bargaining services for a full round of bargaining with one or more trades or unions. 
  • Fulfill labour supply shortfall needs including sourcing, screening, onboarding and booking of travel and accommodations.  

With People Inc. supplies its own phones, common business software and computers and workspace.  So none of the items represent an added cost to our clients.  For full rates and terms please contact us.  Our principal labour relations Practitioner, Sam Kemble have a combined 18+ years of experience in all aspects of labour relations.