This is the third blog in a series written by Mary Ann Baynton, Director of Collaboration and Strategy for Workplace Strategies for Mental Health.
Developing a national standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace was a world first. We’d talked a lot about mental health and mental illness but this new-ish thing, psychological health and safety… Were there any experts who could help steer the ship?
Who would be on the team?
The standard’s Project Review Committee would include representatives from two standard making organizations—the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the Bureau de normalisation du Québec (BNQ).
We also had representatives from the Government of Canada and Mental Health Commission of Canada. These representatives provided oversight for the project.
Those who would do the work of creating the standard—the Technical Committee—had two project managers: Elizabeth Rankin from CSA and Daniel Langlais from BNQ. I was honoured to be appointed as one of the Technical Committee co-chairs, along with Roger Bertrand.
Roger was an economist and former political figure who had both credibility and influence in Québec. I was program director for the Great-West Life Centre for Mental Health in the Workplace (now Canada Life’s Workplace Strategies for Mental Health) and principal of my own workplace relations consulting firm.
Our next task was to find candidates for the Technical Committee who would write the new standard.
Choosing the right people was critical. We wanted leaders and experts who could contribute to a rich, informed and balanced discussion. As this unfolded, we sought potential candidates with a diversity of experiences. Some of the best minds in research, health, law and policy were willing to volunteer for this transformative project.
The Technical Committee included:
- Dr. Ian Arnold
- Simon Brascoupé
- Dr. David Brown
- Charles Bruce
- Theresa Caruana
- Jill Collins
- Claudine Ducharme
- Dr. Marie-Théresè Dugré
- Lucie Fournier
- Dr. Kathy Germann
- Sarika Gundu
- Mike Hamett
- Andrew Harkness
- Kristina Hobson
- Len Hong
- Kathy Jurgens
- Niels Koehncke
- François Legault
- Laura Lozanski
- Lynn Macdonald
- Sapna Mahajan
- Dr. Mario Messier
- Monika Mielnik
- Teri Monti
- Stan Murray
- Judith Nielsen
- Louise Roy
- Sari Sairanen
- Dr. Joti Samra
- Bawan Saravanabawan
- Mike Schwartz
- Dr. Martin Shain
- Lori-Ann Smith
- Drew Sousa
- Denis St-Jean
- Dr. Michel Vézina
What were we trying to do?
We knew employers already had a legal duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, such as mental illness and addiction. The proposed standard would provide a framework to help reduce the chance of causing psychological harm to any employee, whether or not they had a mental illness. The framework would help employers develop and sustain a psychologically healthy and safe workplace management system, including:
- the identification of psychosocial hazards
- control of risks for hazards that cannot be eliminated
- practices and culture that support and promote psychological health and safety
- evaluation and continual improvement to ensure sustainability
This followed the approach for occupational health and safety management systems that traditionally focused exclusively on physical risks.
Why was this important?
We wanted this to be something employers wanted to do because of the benefits it brought to organizations. Of course, our intention was that it would also protect the psychological health and safety of employees.
While we were focused on these goals, there was also robust debate about some key considerations including:
- Differentiating psychological versus psychosocial
- Psychological factors could include things like genetics, family history and current health conditions. These are things that are largely out of an employer’s control. We chose to use the term psychosocial factors instead to emphasize what was within employers’ influence, responsibility and control.
- Considering protection of physical safety as a psychosocial factor
- The psychosocial factors in the standard were based on those identified in Guarding Minds at Work. One that was added to the standard and eventually to Guarding Minds, was protection of physical safety. This refers to the stress or fear that may arise when workers feel they’re at risk for physical harm at work.
- Concerns about interfering with management rights.
- Most occupational health and safety standards do not interfere with management’s right to direct workplace operations and make decisions. This standard, however, requires leaders to do no harm in the course of their work; as such it does impact management rights.
- Whether the proposed standard should be voluntary or mandatory.
- There were strong opinions on both sides, but the decision wasn’t ours to make. All standards are voluntary until or unless they’re written into law by provincial or federal governments.
Our knowledge of psychological health and safety grew as we continued to debate every clause. Through learning from each other, we were all becoming more well-rounded experts on this important topic.
We worked together to draft a standard that we could then send for public review. That was an unexpected eye-opener. I’ll share how that went in our next blog.
Explore the History of psychological health and safety and read all of the blogs in this series.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Canada Life or Workplace Strategies for Mental Health.
Additional resources
The Evolution of Workplace Mental Health in Canada – Toward a standard for psychological health and safety. This book, published in 2017, takes a deeper dive into the development of the first edition of the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace.