GN revamps its harassment policy
Work to add informal conflict resolution is in early stages, follows deputy minister’s commitment to improve process
The Government of Nunavut’s Respectful and Harassment-Free Workplace policy will get an overhaul. Nunatsiaq News spoke to Kristie Cronin, the GN’s deputy minister of human resources, to get an idea of what changes are coming. (Image courtesy of the Government of Nunavut)
Nunavut’s Human Resources Department is overhauling the way it handles harassment complaints following a recent apology from the deputy minister of health and a commitment to improve working conditions within the department.
A new policy, currently in early stages of development, would create opportunities for employees to resolve complaints informally before proceeding to a formal investigation.
Megan Hunt’s apology, contained in an all-staff memo sent last November, was in response to a report from Nunatsiaq News late last year where several current and former nurses alleged toxic work environments within Nunavut’s health centres.
Nunatsiaq News also looked at how the Department of Human Resources handles harassment complaints and how the Government of Nunavut has struggled with these issues in the past.
Kristie Cronin, the deputy minister of human resources, confirmed that her department’s work is related to Hunt’s pledge.
Cronin said it also allows her department to examine why there are a lot of harassment complaints coming in from across the GN and how best to deal with them.
Every department is struggling with this, she said.
“Not to say there’s not conflict or there’s not some culture issues,” she said.
“We’ve got a lot to figure out, but a lot of it has to do with the knee-jerk reaction to file a complaint.”
The Department of Human Resources received 325 formal harassment complaints between fiscal years 2017-18 and 2023-24, according to a Dec. 13 briefing note prepared by the Human Resources department, obtained by Nunatsiaq News through Nunavut’s access to information law.
Fewer than half of these complaints — 160 — were recommended for formal investigation and 55 met the threshold of harassment.
This table shows how harassment complaints at the Government of Nunavut have been handled for the past seven fiscal years. (Screenshot from Department of Human Resources briefing note)
For 2023-24, for example, the department received 50 complaints. Twenty-nine moved to formal investigation and 11 were concluded to be founded. Fifteen investigations for the most recent fiscal year were still marked as pending when the briefing note was prepared.
The year before that, six out of 50 complaints were deemed founded.
Cronin said that more often than not, the root of a harassment complaint tends to be an issue of staff simply not getting along.
“What an investigation does is it sends a team of people through a months-long [process] and flips them upside down and at the end you’re often still at a spot where you have conflict,” Cronin said.
That’s why the department is considering policy changes that focus more on informal conflict resolution.
Cronin said her inspiration came from a policy that worked well for her former employer, the Greater Essex County District School Board, in southern Ontario.
This policy provides two opportunities for informal conflict resolution before a complaint proceeds to an officer for assessment and possible investigation.
The Human Resources team also researched other policies from across Canada for ideas, Cronin said.
Other changes on the table include that a person accused of harassment would get a copy of any harassment complaint made against them, something that does not happen under the current policy.
“We [also] really want to involve the supervisor,” said Cronin.
“I don’t think the supervisor should be skipped over. I mean, if it were me and two people on my team weren’t getting along, I’d want to sit down and have some dialogue with them.”
The harassment form itself could use an update as well, Cronin said.
“Sometimes it’s not being filled out correctly, which makes it really hard … when it comes to an investigation,” she said.
Cronin said she has shared her plans with other deputy ministers and that a draft will be ready for cabinet within a month or two. From there, it will go through a consultative process involving committee approval and feedback from the Nunavut Employees Union.
“I don’t want to rush it,” said Cronin.
“But at the same time, we all know that the government can be a little slow sometimes. I don’t want it to take forever because it really is causing us some issues.”
Amazing that something this obvious is not already in place.
Government is definitely slow, moving policy or problems through multiple complex channels disengages the stakes from the players (by design). The problem here is apathy and overload then grind them to a halt.
Overload first, then apathy.
At least that’s what I see.
But otherwise correct.
Weak.
Paranoid much? These notices are put in place when the gn knows they are doing things wrong. Or when s.h.i.t. is about to hit the fan.
Well, i have a little something to say, what if the employer harasses the employee? in the past, it happened to me! i was very close to quitting, and they really hard to get me fired for no reason! i mean, my supervisor at that time was very rude. she would start yelling at me and i dont normally yell but getting frustrated from her actions i would end up yelling back. i’ve had numerous fact finding meetings with HR and other authorities. they would close in on me and make sure nobody knows about it! they’d threaten me by saying if i dont listen to them that i’ll be terminated from my job. i still have the numerous letters i received! i still owe a very big thank you to one of the MLA’s that time when she was able to stop my employer from harassing me and firing me for no apparent reason.
It is real. There was nowhere else to turn, after HR, the director who was the friend, leave credits, doctor, .
I did not have fact findings as there was no wrong doing (on my side) but the other way around is near impossible to tackle. No one. At times supervisors mean well but they are inexperienced and go to the extreme to deal with their team.
I wonder if the Nunavut Housing Corporation, being at arm’s length from the GN, would be subject to the policy. It’s rife with employee harassment and managerial bullying.
It is interesting that HR does not need to report these numbers publically.
.
My complaint process was essentially no dialogue with anyone and a late decision with no analysis or details saying that it couldn’t be harassment, it was just a one time incident. I was as is HR gave the DM a canned answer and they rolled with it.
.
Silver lining is I have left GN and make more money with better hours.
You must be with one of the RIAs now?
no gn health offers a lot of us the ability to work from the south now with the new remote protocol. am told cgs is the same but has been this way for many years, you’re just a “contractor”. hr is basically staffed from the south by an agency of created by former hr staff. eia has a few staff based in ottawa. i think culture, justice and family services are the only departments i don’t know about with options to dump the toxic iqaluit office and move south when moving to middle management or you’re a licensed professional
informal? i found that any informal communication or setting boundries was thrown in the garbage bin. most staff leave the gn and go south and then tackle the issue. why? so they are not hounded and threathened by their actions. and these fact finding meeting. i have been in several. there a joke.
Can Government of “None of it” do this country a favor and close already?
Please? This is embarrassing.
Bullying within the Health Department in the three regions is terrible from the directors, mainly Baffin and Kiv; it still amazes me how these same dysfunctional directors, managers are still in their positions.
Haven’t the ADM for operations realize the constant staff turnover is due to the directors, ED, and Managers who are trusted to keep retention in the workplace are the same exact people who are pushing the staff, nurses.
As a former GN employee, I would be extremely hesitant to be subjected to any “informal process” as part of a workplace harrassment claim, regardless which side of the complaint I was on.
The senior staff, Director level up often lack management/supervisor training and most of all, management experience. Yes, they need to start somewhere but first level supervisors jump up the chain too quickly in the GN, not jsut due to HR hiring procedures but firstly, the hiring managerial staff lack experience themselves in people management (relationship building, guiding and leading staff to do their work (effectively) and support them but do have consequences if there is lack of effort. How do you build a team within the workplace and ensure that the organization is succeeding? Secondly, how do you manage staff who do not do their work (ensuring they know the expectations, performance appraisals, recommend further training, etc.). Thirdly, how do you deal with negative employees? harassment? non-performing, undermining, insubordination, nepotism? favouritism? How do you counsel staff in that setting with those issues? How do you follow up with formal steps to toxicity in the workplace? etc….
You are very accurate in your post. I wonder how many harassment complaints are filed against the few managers who are brave enough to attempt managing poor performance.
In reading this news article, two things in particular stand out with the current practice based on Ms. Cronin’s comments.
1. One of the proposed changes being considered is the person accused of harassment would get a copy of the harassment complaint made against them, something that does not happen under the current policy.
How can someone respond to allegations of harassment if they don’t receive a copy of the complaint? Shouldn’t employees have a right to know what is said about them, and by whom, so they can properly respond to the allegations against them? I think the purpose of an investigation is to allow for gathering facts in order to render a decision if harassment occurred? It just seems that it would seem very difficult to do that if someone doesn’t know what is being said, and by whom? This current practice also increases the likelihood of frivolous complaints. Maybe the reason why the number of complaints received are so high and the number of founded complaints are so low.
2. We [also] really want to involve the supervisor,” said Cronin. I don’t think the supervisor should be skipped over. I mean, if it were me and two people on my team weren’t getting along, I’d want to sit down and have some dialogue with them.
Why would a supervisor be skipped over in the process? Who is accountable for their teams, the Department of HR or the manager? What is the motivation for managing teams if HR is excluding them in their process?
Stop hiring intern cash grab staffer’s that bring-up complaints that is NOT relevant to workplace environment! Collect funds and leave mess for media to pick-up! Notice this trend???
Did I miss something? Not a word about Union involvement in any of the above complaints. Or is it people have finally realized that unions are only power-hungry, threatening, overpaid executives who are draining the pockets of their members and accomplishing nothing.,
FYI, senior managers/directors/supervisors continually back each other up. People get your education and stop people from working remotely, hire local. What’s with the federal programs? Sending contractors up to spend all these funds on short term courses/project that are not meaningful before March 31.
The GN, the HR department, must confront an uncomfortable truth: a culture of toxic workplace dynamics that undermines the very principles of safety, respect, and integrity we stand by EXISTS and it is not simply a knee jerk reaction on overload. The grievances aired by our employees are not baseless reactions but testimonies of prolonged suffering under harassment and discrimination. These brave voices seek refuge in our policies, only to find their experiences minimized, not due to a lack of validity, but due to systemic failures and an alarming absence of genuine accountability within our organization.
The harsh reality is that the GN harbors environments where moral bankruptcy flourishes, allowing those in power to compromise the well-being of their colleagues, unchecked and unrestrained. Our commitment to public service is tarnished by the actions of those who prioritize personal gain over communal well-being, eroding trust and integrity at every level.
Acknowledging this, it is clear that superficial measures such as informal complaint boxes serve only to perpetuate this toxic status quo, offering false victories while sidestepping true accountability. It’s imperative that GN transcends these ineffective approaches by investing in comprehensive training for managers, implementing rigorous organizational integrity inspections, and, most importantly, fostering a genuinely safe working environment where all employees can thrive free from fear.
The suggestion that greater supervisory involvement is the solution overlooks the critical issue at hand: often, supervisors are not just bystanders but contributors to the problem. The lack of training in conflict resolution among many supervisors exacerbates these challenges, turning management positions into platforms for ineptitude and coercion. Quick promotions without adequate preparation lead to leadership that is not only unqualified but also detrimental to the health of the GN as an organization.
It is the collective responsibility of Nunavutmuit to advocate for and enact profound changes within GN. THE PUBLIC must demand a dismantling of the structures that allow toxicity to thrive, ensuring that leadership is earned through competence and empathy, not through tenure or manipulation. The Ministers of the Public MUST commit to creating a workplace where integrity, respect, and safety are not just ideals, but realities for everyone.