THE
ACADIA UNIVERSITY HARASSMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION POLICY REVIEW REPORT
The
Harassment and Discrimination Advisory Committee comprised by John Smith
(Equity Officer), Kim Vaughan (SEIU), Dave Schultz, (AUPAT), Ben Whynot (ASU),
Janet Kirk (BOG), Sonia Thon (AUFA), Paula Cook (Senior Admin.) has been
convened in order to review THE ACADIA UNIVERSITY HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
POLICY. The current policy in effect is
dated February 12, 2001.
The ACADIA UNIVERSITY HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICY
is a University Policy that provides the framework for all sectors of the
University, but does not take away any rights that the members of the
University already have, independently of this policy. The Collective
Agreement’s rights prevail over the policy. Any disciplinary sanction or
procedure must respect the terms of the relevant Collective Agreements between
the BOG and the staff and faculty bargaining agents at
A previous review committee prepared a draft policy dated June 24th, 2004. That Committee included Diane Campbell (BOG), Olivia Quentin (AUPAT), Scott Roberts (Admin.), Sonya Symons (AUFA), Ben Whynot (ASU), and Elke Willmann (SEIU). The existence of this draft may have given the impression to some that there were two policies in existence. However this draft document was neither finalized nor approved. According to the present Equity Officer, there is no indication that it has ever been used in the grievance process. Lisa Nicholson, the previous Equity Officer, left no explanation of its status or direction regarding the procedure that should be followed in order to carry it to its conclusion. The present Advisory Committee has agreed to examine the changes proposed in this draft, but the basis of our review is the policy dated February 12, 2001.
At its first meeting, November
24, 2005, the Advisory Committee also agreed to involve the whole
At our second meeting, the Equity Officer referred to a process of approval which would involve the President’s Office and the Board of Governors. We have not yet determined that this procedure is applicable.
In addition to submissions from within the University, I have also had the benefit of discussing the ACADIA UNIVERSITY HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICY with Rosemary Morgan, legal advisor to the CAUT Equity Committee (which is chaired by Janice Best).
The first consultation of the policy review pointed to a number of issues which were conveyed on January 19th, 2006 by the sector representatives present. (The ASU representative did not attend the meeting). SEIU reported that its constituents were not familiar with the policy, and that more needed to be done in order to improve the awareness of its contents.
Responses from AUFA members to the request for input on the policy review dealt with a number of questions:
A- There
were concerns regarding "intent".
I will be looking at this issue closely in the drafting of definitions.
B- There were major concerns regarding the accountability of the Equity Officer. At the moment, there is no indication in the policy regarding the Equity Officer’s accountability. This matter is dealt with in his terms of employment, making it clear that he is accountable to the President of the University. Since the Equity Officer is an employee of the University it is only logical that he betrays his neutrality by not being accountable to an independent body. This position is shared by the other Unions on the Committee. In AUFA submissions the Senate was regarded as the body that should perform such function. SEIU thinks that the Senate is not the right place since SEIU doesn’t have a representative of their sector on it.
C- Another issue concerns the training of the Equity Officer. There is concern that the present Policy does not require that the Equity Officer be given adequate training to be able to interpret policy and the applicable law.
D- There is also the question of the neutrality of the Equity Officer. As it stands now, the Equity Officer is the one who advocates for the complainant, decides whether or not to proceed with an investigation, and conducts the investigation of the complaint. If the Equity Officer is also to act as a mediator or adjudicator then s/he cannot also be an advocate. Independent investigators/advocates should be engaged in order for the Equity Officer to be perceived as neutral.
E- There are also problems with the “preliminary” process in the policy. There is no indication whether or not there is a right to appeal the preliminary decision. The appeal rights are limited to the investigation process, or sanctions, or remedial action. The investigation process is clearly not the preliminary process, so the preliminary process should also be grievable.
F- There is also confusion in the policy about whether an investigation report is to be placed on a faculty member’s file. This report is not a “decision” therefore nothing should be placed on the file other than the decision letter after the respondent has exercised the right of appeal or grievance, or the right of appeal or grievance has expired. This is a matter of fairness.
G- Other responses have pointed to the need for training of Senior Administration Officers, Unit Heads, and the Equity Officer in the application of this policy as part of the obligations under Health and Safety and Human Rights legislation for ensuring a working place free of harassment. The Employer should be providing training on the policy and what constitutes the various forms of harassment and discrimination. There should be regular—and regularly updated training—for all employees and administrators.
H- The Equity Officer should be included together with Senior Administrative Officers and Unit Heads as a party who should be aware of the responsibility for action or inaction that obstructs the application of the policy.
I- There have been questions regarding the extension of deadlines. There needs to be a mechanism to allow for a reasonable extension of time in respect of time limitations.
This should include situations where the employer has a duty to accommodate under Human Rights legislation in cases where the respondent has a disability or illness.
The Advisory Committee will next meet on February 10, 2006 to begin the process of reviewing the policy line-by-line. At that time, legal advice received by the Equity Officer will play an important role in the discussion of revisions to language. In the event of a substantial disagreement, I will again seek advice from CAUT legal staff, and direction from the AUFA Executive. In any case, since a draft of the reviewed policy will be distributed for comment there will be an opportunity to participate once again.
Sonia Thon