and, in doing so, also provides business
owners and managers with a step-by-step
guide to creating healthier workplac-es
and potentially reducing the mental
health-related liability risks highlighted
in the Boucher case.
WHY IS A STANDARDIZED
APPROACH TO WORKPLACE
PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY IMPORTANT?
The Standard has been established, in part,
as a response to the ballooning $50-billion
annual business losses attributed to work-place
mental health problems in Canada.
Even in the absence of the Boucher
ruling, the Mental Health Commission
of Canada’s statistical rationale for urging
employers to implement the Standard is
compelling:
■■ More than 500,000 Canadians do not
attend work in any given week due to
mental illness
■■ More than 30 per cent of disability
claims and 70 per cent of disability
costs are attributed to mental illness
■■ Approximately over $50 billion is lost
to the Canadian economy because of
mental illness annually
The workplace mental health crisis
is not solely a Canadian phenomenon.
In the United States, the findings of a
2004 study conducted by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) suggests that the
number of lost work days for workers
challenged by anxiety, stress and neu-rotic
disorders is four times greater (25
days) than the number of work days lost
for all other non-fatal injuries or illness-es
(an average of six days). The United
Kingdom Mental Health Foundation as-serts
that, due to rising absenteeism and
impaired productivity, mental health is-sues
now cost British employers more
than £26 billion per year. This data was
collected in response to a 2012 IDEA
survey, which suggests that British work-ers
are the most depressed in Europe.
The conclusion to be taken from this
data is that, even without consideration
of Boucher v. Wal-Mart-inspired employ-er
liability risks, the economic cost of
mental disabilities to employers is a com-pelling
motive for managers’ proactivity.
In Canada, the CSA Standard is one of
several responses to the expanding work-place
mental health crisis in Canada, and
should be of interest to employers as a
cost reduction and employee wellness
framework. Additionally, and in light of
the Boucher case, Canadian employers
should also consider implementing the
Standard as a liability risk management
initiative.
INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE AS
AN EMPLOYER LIABILITY RISK
The Boucher decision is interestingly dis-tinguishable
from most other dismissal
cases because it did not have to account
for reasonable notice damages. Perhaps
recognizing its risks in the case, Wal-Mart
had already paid Ms. Boucher 32 weeks
of notice compensation, which amounted
to 160 per cent of her 20-week contrac-tual
entitlement. For the many employers
and lawyers who believe that employees
only sue for money, Ms. Boucher’s deci-sion
to pursue her legal claim in spite of
having been overpaid on her contractual
notice entitlement ought to underline the
impact of perceived interactional injustic-es
in employee claims decisions. According
to previous research, the manner in which
employees assess the fairness of their
employment relationships and their
legal words
Pogonici/Shutterstock
14 ❚ NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 ❚ HR PROFESSIONAL