The City of Stratford’s respectful workplace policy will be reviewed, but it will not be suspended – despite one councillor’s push to do so.
Coun. Cody Sebben put forward a motion at the council meeting on July 22 to suspend policy number H.1.36, the respectful workplace policy, and to direct staff to provide options for a future review.
Sebben made that motion after three Stratford, Ont., residents were suspended from city-owned property over alleged infractions to the respectful workplace policy during a February council meeting.
For three-months Barb Shaughnessy, Mike Sullivan, and Ken Wood were not allowed in council chambers and had to communicate with city staff through the city’s solicitor. After Shaughnessy and Sullivan challenged the banning through David Donnelly of Donnelly Law, public discourse circulated around if such an action from the city was justified, with representatives from the city often saying it was an “operational” matter and an investigation found the three of them had acted against the policy.
That suspension was lifted on July 2.
Ultimately, councillors largely found that the policy was integral to the work the city does, with some, like Coun. Larry McCabe, acknowledging that it had recently gone “awry.”
Only Sebben and Coun. Geza Wordofa voted to suspend it, although council voted unanimously to have staff prepare a review of the policy.
In defence of the policy, Coun. Jo-Dee Burbach said that it is bigger than this one instance.
“We have almost 600 employees in the City of Stratford and we need this respectful workplace policy to protect all of our employees,” Burbach pointed out. “We have multiple properties with multiple people doing all kinds of jobs … All over Canada, all over the world, we’ve seen in the past several years sort of a degradation of respect. And I think what this policy does is encourage people back towards just general respect to each other. And I’ve said this many times, I don’t think that this respectful workplace policy is hard to follow.”
Sebben, when he first put forward the motion, said that he has heard concerns from many people about the policy’s implementation and, counter to what Burbach and some other councillors had said, were worried about following the policy.
“I’ve also heard from people who have received notices, letters based on comments made at meetings,” Sebben said. “Others still have told me they’re hesitant to seek help or concern of receiving a notice. In my opinion, this policy has created an atmosphere where people are becoming increasingly discouraged from engaging with council.”
Coun. Lesley Biehn asked Dave Bush, director of human resources, if he felt that a review of the policy was warranted. Bush answered succinctly.
“Yeah, I believe the time is now,” he said.
Numerous delegations at the most recent council meeting and past meetings brought up the case of Bracken v. Town of Fort Erie, a case the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed. The court found that the town was not justified in issuing a trespass notice to an intimidating citizen, since said citizen was never threatening or violent.
Coun. Mark Hunter said that using this case as an example of why Stratford’s policy is erroneous is misinterpreting that case. The reason why the court was in favour of Bracken was because he was neither a worker nor were his actions in the workplace, Hunter said.
He further stated that staff members are required to attend council meetings as a condition of employment, making the Stratford council chambers a workplace. Per provincial legislation, the city needs to protect its staff – from both violence and harassment – and cannot override that legislation.
“I’m confused a little bit by some of the flak around this,” Hunter exasperated. “I don’t know why it’s so challenging to have to be respectful of people.”
Coun. Taylor Briscoe also said that in Bracken v. The Town of Fort Erie the court further enumerates ways that charter rights and a workplace safety policy may be balanced, including providing contact through a city solicitor, through email, or sending a delegate to council on their behalf – opportunities all of the affected individuals in Stratford were afforded through this policy.
“We do actually heed the court’s warning of how to balance that right with the balance of our workplace policies,” Briscoe said. She later stated that “a consequence for behaviour is not the same as somehow overwriting a charter right.”
Before council deliberated on the motion, many Stratford citizens delegated on the matter, including Wood, Robert Roth, Jane Marie Mitchell, David Yates, Tim Forester, Shaughnessy, and Jason Davis. In addition, Sullivan and Joan Bidell provided written correspondence.
All of the delegates supported Sebben’s motion in full, to varying degrees.
Wood, one of the recently suspended citizens, spoke at the meeting. He acknowledged that he used “intemperate language,” for which he offered to apologize, but that words alone are not violence.
Roth, a retired journalist and the spokesperson of Save Our Speech Stratford, came to council chambers wearing a Royal Canadian Regiment uniform, saying that when he first donned the uniform he made a pledge to defend the country and the values for which it stands – and that he felt compelled to wear it that evening.
He said the policy does not belong in the chamber.
“People are legally entitled, despite what was said earlier, to use tough, unflattering and even hostile language to criticize politicians,” Roth said. “That may not be pleasant, or even preferable, but it is the law. Policies are for employees, not members of the general public.”
Jason Davis, who disclosed that he suffers from PTSD after a violent altercation many years ago, shared that he knows firsthand how important it is for staff to feel safe at their work. Once, a customer threatened him at his job and his employer did nothing to stop it. He ended up leaving that position.
Davis also said that there needs to be checks and balances between the feelings of staff and actions on behalf of the city and that the same protections to ensure staff don’t feel intimidated need to also be afforded to citizens.
“It’s important to have protections there so that we can keep staff and we can make sure everyone goes home feeling safe and welcomed and able to have open ideas,” Davis said. “But it’s also important that the citizens that come to speak in this room be able to have those same feelings and not feel intimidated or not feel fear that something they do even subconsciously can be turned around and sent by a letter or an email within the hour they finished speaking.”
By Connor Luczka, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
