WorkSafeBC Report On The Vancouver School Board

Employer: School District No.
39 (Vancouver)
Contents
Persons mentioned in this report.............................................3
Introduction .........................................................................5
Scope ................................................................................................................ 5
How the investigation was conducted .................................................................... 5
Law and policy ................................................................................................... 6
1 Factual information ..........................................................8

1.1 School District No. 39 (Vancouver) ................................................................ 8
1.2 Work environment and workload ................................................................... 9
1.2.1 Long Range Facilities Plan ................................................................ 10
1.2.2 Strategic report and school closure reports ......................................... 10
1.2.3 Budget for 2016/2017 school year ..................................................... 10
1.2.4 Other projects ................................................................................ 11
1.3 Sequence of events ................................................................................... 11
1.3.1 August 2014 to May 2016: Development of Long Range Facilities Plan and
2016/2017 budget .......................................................................... 11
1.3.2 Summer 2016 ................................................................................. 13
1.3.3 September 2016 ............................................................................. 14
1.3.4 September 26, 2016: Private board meeting ...................................... 17
1.3.5 September 26, 2016: Public board meeting ........................................ 17
1.3.6 Events after the public meeting on September 26, 2016 ...................... 19
2 Definition of bullying and harassment .............................. 20

2.1 Inappropriate conduct or comments ............................................................ 20
2.2 Exclusion: Management and direction of workers .......................................... 21
2.2.1 Management and direction of workers ................................................ 21
2.2.2 Reasonable action relating to the management and direction of workers 22
2.3 Reasonably ought to have known ................................................................ 27
3 Reasonable steps to address the hazard ........................... 29

3.1.1 Inspection ...................................................................................... 29
3.1.2 Corrective actions ........................................................................... 31
4 Conclusions .................................................................. 31
WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 2 of 32

The Workers Compensation Board of B.C. (WorkSafeBC) has given you this report for your information only.
You may not share this report with any other person or agency without WorkSafeBCs permission.
Employer: School District No. 39 (Vancouver)
Persons mentioned in this report

In this report, the employer will be referred to as the Vancouver School Board, or VSB.
Name Known in the report as Role
Peter MILBURN Special Advisor Was appointed special advisor by the

Minister of Education on July 18, 2016,
to perform a forensic audit of VSB
expenses and a review of VSB.
Vancouver School Board (VSB) senior management team

Superintendent, associate superintendents, and secretary-treasurer
s. 22 Superintendent s. 22
.
s. 22 Acting Superintendent 1 s. 22
s. 22 Acting Superintendent 2 s. 22
s. 22 Associate Superintendent 1 s. 22
s. 22 Secretary-treasurer s. 22
s. 22 Interim Secretary-treasurer s. 22
VSB district management team

Directors and district principals
s. 22 Director of Instruction 1 s. 22
s. 22 Director of Instruction 2 s. 22
s. 22 District Principal s. 22

VSB school trustees

Members of the Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver)
s. 22 Trustee 1 s. 22
s. 22 Official Trustee s. 22
Contractor
Andrea POWELL- Contractor Was contracted by VSB to work with the
WILLIAMS DMT on the Long Range Facilities Plan,
the strategic report, and the school
closure reports. Provided WorkSafeBC
with information about the school
closure consultation process.

Introduction
Scope
On September 29, 2016, the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) wrote to WorkSafeBC
expressing concern that the behaviour of some of the trustees of School District No. 39
(Vancouver) (also known as the Vancouver School Board, or VSB) towards staff could be
perceived as bullying and/or harassment and asked WorkSafeBC to consider investigating
this issue. Subsequently, WorkSafeBC conducted an investigation to determine whether
bullying and harassment had occurred and whether VSB met the requirements of the
Workers Compensation Act by taking reasonable steps to address the hazard of workplace
bullying and harassment.
With respect to allegations of workplace bullying and harassment, an employer must

investigate to determine whether bullying and harassment has occurred. WorkSafeBC then
conducts inspections to determine whether the employer has taken all reasonable steps in
the circumstances to address the hazard of workplace bullying and harassment. In this
case, WorkSafeBC also investigated to determine whether bullying and harassment
occurred.
Under section 111 of the Act, WorkSafeBC has the mandate to be concerned with
occupational health and safety generally and with the maintenance of reasonable standards
for the protection of the health and safety of workers in British Columbia and the
occupational environment in which they work. In carrying out its mandate, WorkSafeBC
may undertake inspections, investigations, and inquiries on matters of occupational health
and safety and occupational environment.
How the investigation was conducted

This investigation into allegations of workplace bullying and harassment included:
Reviewing the employers history with regard to compliance with workplace bullying
and harassment requirements
Retaining the services of a subject matter expert in the field of bullying and
harassment investigations
Collecting and reviewing employer documents and records
Interviewing witnesses
All witnesses who were interviewed were advised of WorkSafeBCs authority to question
people, as set out in section 179(3) of the Act. These witnesses were further advised that
they were entitled to have another person present during the questioning, as set out in
section 184(1) of the Act.
WorkSafeBC sought to interview VSB staff members, former school trustees, and other
parties with relevant information. Some individuals were unwilling or unable to participate,
but all nine of the boards elected trustees were interviewed. WorkSafeBC proceeded with
this investigation and reached conclusions on the basis of the available evidence.

Law and policy

Section 115(1)(a) of the Act requires employers to take all reasonable steps in the
circumstances to ensure the health and safety of their workers.
Section 115(2)(e) of the Act requires employers to provide workers with the information,
instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety in carrying
out their work and to ensure the health and safety of other workers at the workplace.
WorkSafeBCs policies are published in its Prevention Manual, which is available online at
www.worksafebc.com/en/law-policy/occupational-health-safety/ohs-policies.
Policy D3-115-2 defines bullying and harassment as including:

(a) any inappropriate conduct or comment by a person towards a worker that the
person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause that worker to be
humiliated or intimidated
but excluding:
(b) any reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the
management and direction of workers or the place of employment.
Policy D3-115-2 identifies what WorkSafeBC considers to be reasonable steps for an

employer to take to address the hazard of workplace bullying and harassment. These steps
include:
(a) developing a policy statement with respect to workplace bullying and harassment not
being acceptable or tolerated;
(b) taking steps to prevent where possible, or otherwise minimize, workplace bullying
and harassment;
(c) developing and implementing procedures for workers to report incidents or
complaints of workplace bullying and harassment including how, when and to whom
a worker should report incidents or complaints. Included must be procedures for a
worker to report if the employer, supervisor or person acting on behalf of the
employer, is the alleged bully and harasser;
(d) developing and implementing procedures for how the employer will deal with
incidents or complaints of workplace bullying and harassment including:
i. how and when investigations will be conducted;
ii.what will be included in the investigation;
iii.
roles and responsibilities of employers, supervisors, workers and others;
iv.follow-up to the investigation (description of corrective actions, timeframe,
dealing with adverse symptoms, etc.); and
v. record keeping requirements;
(e) informing workers of the policy statement in (a) and the steps taken in (b);
(f) training supervisors and workers on:
i. recognizing the potential for bullying and harassment;
ii. responding to bullying and harassment; and
iii. procedures for reporting, and how the employer will deal with incidents or
complaints of bullying and harassment in (c) and (d) respectively;

(g) annually reviewing (a), (b), (c), and (d);

(h) not engaging in bullying and harassment of workers and supervisors; and
(i) applying and complying with the employers policies and procedures on bullying and
harassment.
Policy D3-116-1 sets out the obligation of workers to take reasonable care to protect
themselves by preventing where possible, or otherwise minimizing, workplace bullying and
harassment.
Policy D3-117-2 sets out the reasonable steps for a supervisor to take in order to prevent
where possible, or otherwise minimize, workplace bullying and harassment.
WorkSafeBC also publishes guidelines (available online at www.worksafebc.com/en/law-

policy/occupational-health-safety/ohs-guidelines) to assist in the application and
interpretation of the Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. Guideline
G-D3-115(1)-3 provides information on WorkSafeBCs approach to dealing with individual
specific complaints relating to cases of bullying and harassment. This guideline also provides
information on the application of the policy under section 115 relating to bullying and
harassment (D3-115-2).

1 Factual information
1.1 School District No. 39 (Vancouver)
The employer in this case is School District No. 39 (Vancouver), which is also known as the
Vancouver School Board (or VSB, as referred to in this report). This school district is a
diverse public school system with 92 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 18 secondary
schools. These schools have approximately 5330 full-time equivalent employees and an
annual enrolment of around 54,000 students from Kindergarten to Grade 12. VSB also
provides educational programs and services to adult students.
VSB employs:
A senior management team (SMT), which includes the superintendent, associate
superintendents, and secretary-treasurer
A district management team (DMT), which includes directors and district principals
General staff members
VSB is governed by a board of trustees. The board comprises nine members (trustees), who
are each elected for a four-year term. The board also includes one student trustee, who is
appointed under VSB policy. As elected officials, the elected trustees are not employees of
VSB, nor are they considered workers under the Act. The trustees differ in their opinion of
who they are accountable to: the Province of British Columbia; the public that elected them;
or parents, students, and teachers.
At the time of the alleged bullying and harassment that is the subject of this report, the
elected members of the board comprised four Non-Partisan Association (NPA) trustees, four
Vision Vancouver trustees, and one Green Party trustee. These trustees were dismissed by
the Minister of Education (the Minister) on October 17, 2016, for failing to pass a balanced
budget, and were replaced by a single official trustee as authorized by the School Act. The
Official Trustee is currently the official trustee of the board.
The board divides its work among five standing committees made up of trustees and VSB
staff. Committee recommendations are forwarded to the full board for approval.
Management Coordinating Committee (Committee I)
Planning and Facilities Committee (Committee II)
Education and Student Services Committee (Committee III)
Personnel and Staff Services Committee (Committee IV)
Finance and Legal Committee (Committee V)
VSBs reporting structure can be summarized as follows:

The trustees are elected by the public. The board directs the work of the
superintendent.
The superintendent and secretary-treasurer are hired by the board, report to the
board, and can be dismissed by the board. The superintendent assigns duties to the
other members of the SMT (associate superintendents and secretary-treasurer). The
superintendent can also receive direction from the Minister on specific initiatives.

The DMT reports to the SMT.

Other VSB staff report to the SMT and the DMT, depending on their roles.
1.2 Work environment and workload

The work environment for VSB staff includes working with colleagues in the office, attending
meetings with trustees, and occasional consultations with the public or stakeholders. This
investigation focused on the effect of the behaviour of trustees on the work environment.
Witnesses stated that the work environment had deteriorated over the past two years.
Relationships between the trustees seemed mostly collegial prior to 2014. After 2014,
discussions became heated, with trustees raising voices and pointing fingers between
themselves (not towards staff). At times, the interactions would be rude, derogatory,
belittling, and demeaning using gestures and tone of voice. Some trustees told WorkSafeBC
that other trustees had shouted at them and that they had witnessed shouting between
other trustees. In particular, witness accounts identified s. 22
as having exhibited negative behaviour most frequently.
s. 22 stated that in late 2015, the negative behaviour by trustees

became focused on the SMT, and s. 22 saw some degrading behaviour towards the SMT. s. 22
stated that the behaviour s. 22 observed by trustees towards the SMT would not be
acceptable in schools and was surprised that no one stepped in. s. 22
also stated that, in s. 22 view, s. 22 would sometimes target certain individuals with
carefully chosen words.
Although there were both trustees and staff members who said that the trustees are not
supposed to play with the trains (that is, trustees should only interact with the SMT and
not the DMT or office staff who work directly on projects), a number of VSB staff members
(including members of the SMT and DMT) told WorkSafeBC that in the course of their work,
the guiding principle in the office was along the lines of: Better run it by s. 22 or you
will hear about it.
When witnesses SMT, DMT, and other VSB staff were asked why they did not report
any behaviour or comment they believed was bullying and harassment, they all answered
they were fearful for their jobs and future careers. They all stated that there was nothing
anyone could do to the trustees even if they were found to be bullying and harassing staff.
Members of the SMT all stated that reporting a trustee as being a bully would be a career-
ending step because the trustees could terminate the employment of SMT members merely
by voting.
Leading up to 2016, the SMT, DMT, and staff at the VSB office were working on a number of
major projects. Witnesses reported that in addition to their regular workweek, there were a
significant number of board meetings, committee meetings, and workshops (project
meetings where the trustees and the SMT, DMT, and other relevant staff work closely
together) held on evening and weekends. The SMT, DMT, staff, and trustees were required
to attend these meetings.
s. 22 told WorkSafeBC that there was an astonishing amount of work

done by staff. Hours of work were increasing towards the end of 2015 and into 2016, with

meetings becoming longer and more difficult. s. 22 stated that it was the busiest s. 22
had seen in s. 22 as a trustee and that the staff were overworked. s. 22 stated
that s. 22 empathized about how much work there was to do.
1.2.1 Long Range Facilities Plan

In August 2014, the Ministry signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the board
to create a Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). In the MOU, the Ministry and the board
committed to work towards achieving a district-wide average capacity utilization of 95%
across the Vancouver school district as part of the Province of British Columbias Seismic
Mitigation Program.
The district had surplus school capacity as defined by the Ministry, and the LRFP was to be a
framework to determine how to achieve 95% capacity utilization over the next 15 years.
School closures would be required to balance the 2016/2017 budget and would be among
the recommendations in the LRFP. The criteria for school closure would be published in the
LRFP, and a list of recommended school closures would be developed separately from the
LRFP. Level one criteria (or factors) would be applied to all schools in the district. Any school
that met the level one criteria would then be assessed based on level two criteria to
determine whether or not the school was deemed a possible candidate for closure.
The deadline for the closure process in order to close a school was to be the board meeting
scheduled for December 8, 2016 (as per VSB policy) in order to meet all the various
requirements in related agreements.
s. 22 and the trustees were

involved in the process of developing the LRFP. A number of workshops were held on
weekends with the trustees and the SMT, DMT, and VSB staff who were directly involved
working closely together on revisions to the LRFP. Trustees developed the criteria for
identifying which schools should be closed.
1.2.2 Strategic report and school closure reports

VSB staff applied the criteria set out in the LRFP and produced a preliminary list of
12 schools for potential closure. This list was documented in an overview report titled
Strategic Report: Potential School Closures (the strategic report).
For each school on the proposed list of closures, a detailed Administrative Report on
Potential School Closures (school closure report) was developed. All 12 school closure
reports were attached to the strategic report.
Numerous workshops were held on evenings and weekends for the development of the
strategic report and the school closure reports, with the trustees working closely with the
SMT, DMT, and related VSB staff.
1.2.3 Budget for 2016/2017 school year

Section 111 of the School Act requires the board to prepare an annual balanced budget.
Section 113 of the School Act requires the budget to be approved by the board by June 30
for the next fiscal year.

The SMT, DMT, and other VSB staff prepared the budget for the board to approve and then
submit to the Minister. When the budget was not approved by June 30, additional workload
was created for the SMT, DMT and VSB staff.
1.2.4 Other projects

The SMT, DMT, and other VSB staff were also working on developing VSBs five-year (2016
2021) strategic plan and the curriculum for the 2016/2017 school year.
Also, after the Special Advisor was appointed on July 18, 2016, additional work was needed
to respond to his inquiries.
1.3 Sequence of events

The following events were identified by witnesses as relevant to the allegations of bullying
and harassment.
1.3.1 August 2014 to May 2016: Development of Long Range Facilities Plan and
2016/2017 budget
In August 2014, the Ministry of Education and VSB signed the MOU regarding the LRFP, and
work began on its development. Initially, the LRFP was to be completed by June 30, 2015.
As discussed in 1.2, witnesses told WorkSafeBC that the work environment became
negative, starting in late 2014, with raised voices, shouting, gestures, belittling, bickering,
rude interactions, and disrespectful behaviour between the trustees. Witnessed stated that
in 2015, the trustees negative behaviours became focused on the SMT.
By January 2016, the final LRFP was not yet ready. VSB requested an extension from the
Ministry until May 2016. The Ministry approved the extension.
On January 30, 2016, the board approved an interim LRFP that the VSB staff had produced.
The heavy workload continued throughout the first half of 2016, with two to three evening
meetings per week as well as meetings and workshops on weekends. Trustees and the SMT
attended all of these meetings. The DMT and relevant staff attended particular meetings,
depending on the subject.
Staff in many departments were working on the budget because it required reductions in
most areas. The budget needed to be approved by the board by June 30, 2016.
The president of the BC School Superintendents Association (BCSSA) first became aware of
issues between the SMT and the trustees in April 2016, when the Superintendent sought
advice from the BCSSA, inquiring about his responsibilities if the board did not approve a
balanced budget by June 30.
In April 2016, the Superintendent presented a balanced budget to the board. On April 28,
2016, at a special board meeting, the budget was officially presented to the board. The
board did not approve the budget. The vote was split: four NPA trustees voted to accept the
budget, and four Vision Vancouver trustees and one Green Party trustee voted against the
budget. Normally, the VSB board approves the budget by the end of April so that the SMT

can carry out the measures contained in the budget and allocate staffing while adhering to
collective agreement provisions. When the board did not approve the budget on April 28, it
did not provide any direction to the Superintendent regarding allocation of resources.
On May 9, 2016, at a board meeting, the board announced that the Superintendent was
required by the School Act to begin implementing the spending reductions in the proposed
budget until directed to do otherwise by the board, and that the board supported this effort.
Part of these spending reductions included school closures, which had been identified by
VSB staff by applying the criteria set out in the LRFP [OR: which were identified by applying
the criteria set out in the LFRP]. The board further announced that it remain[ed] hopeful
that the proposed cuts [could] be reduced or eliminated and that it would continue to work
with the Minister to secure additional funding for the operating budget.
In May 2016, VSB staff completed the LRFP. The board unanimously approved the final LRFP
including the criteria for school closures at a board meeting on May 24, 2016.
The level one criteria in the final LRFP are as follows:

Catchment students currently attending a school considered for closure can be
accommodated in local catchment schools.
Out-of-catchment students currently attending a school considered for closure can be
accommodated at their home school and/or in local catchment schools.
Projected future student enrolment of the adjusted catchment area(s), as the result
of a closure, can be accommodated.
VSB policies provide the following definitions relevant to terms used in this report:
Catchment area: the geographical area around a school that includes part or all of
the school district.
Catchment school: the school within whose catchment boundaries a student normally
resides.
Catchment student: a person of school age who is resident in the catchment area of
the school.
Non-catchment student: a person of school age who is resident in the school district
and not resident in the catchment area of the school.
Continuing student: a person of school age in attendance at the school during the
previous school year. Continuing students include continuing non-catchment and
continuing catchment students.
The terms local catchment school and home school are not defined in VSB policy.
Generally, in the context of the LRFP, local catchment school is used interchangeably with
catchment school, whereas home school refers to the school at which the student is a
continuing student in other words, the school attended by a student in the previous
year.
The level two criteria in the LRFP are as follows:

Geographic considerations (catchment size analysis, walk distances and routes,
location of the school within the community in relation to other schools).
Seismic risk of the building.

School site considerations including proximity to major roadways, play space, ability
to use the building for temporary accommodation, ability to use the space for
alternative functions.
High deferred maintenance costs and high facility operating costs.
Services and supports in place for vulnerable students, families, and communities.
Education and social impacts of school closure on students and families, particularly
in communities with high concentrations of vulnerable students and families.
1.3.2 Summer 2016

On June 20, 2016, the Superintendent provided the trustees with a memorandum
containing a preliminary list of possible schools for closure.
The memorandum identified 12 schools for potential closure and included information that
explained how schools are identified for potential closure (level one and level two factors or
criteria), which had been approved by the board in the LRFP. Of the 12 schools
recommended for potential closure, 11 were in East Vancouver.
The memorandum also included the timeline and process for closure of schools, as well as
the following statement: Please note that in relation to the preliminary list of schools
below, all students including out-of-catchment students currently attending a school
considered for closure, will be able to be accommodated in local catchment schools. The
memorandum also stated: All continuing students can be accommodated within
neighbouring schools.
To address some of the districts 2016/2017 budget shortfall, the Minister proposed selling a
capital asset. At a board meeting on June 29, 2016, the board announced that it had
rejected the proposal. The board further announced that it had not been able to secure
additional funding to avoid cuts to programs and closure of schools. s. 22
s. 22 made the following statement at the meeting: The VSB will continue to
advocate for stable, adequate, and predictable funding.
The board did not approve the budget by the June 30 deadline. Starting on July 1, 2016, the
superintendent then had to implement a balanced budget in accordance with the School Act.
The Superintendent began implementing the spending reductions identified in the proposed
budget, which included moving forward with the closure process for the schools identified
for potential closure. As part of the process, the detailed school closure reports had to be
developed.
On July 18, 2016, the Minister appointed the Special Advisor to lead a forensic audit and full
review of VSB. In explaining the reasons for the audit, the Minister cited the boards refusal
to follow the School Act and pass a balanced budget. The Special Advisors review would
include interviews of trustees and staff as well as inspection of VSB records, including
emails. The Special Advisors report was to include the following:
A forensic audit of the boards expenditures.
A full review of the boards operations and governance, including assessment of the
extent to which the board has considered the information presented by management
in decision making.

An assessment of the effectiveness of the boards oversight of the district, including

the skills, training, and experience of the board to fulfill its statutory and fiduciary
duties.
An assessment of VSBs 2016/2017 budget reduction strategies, and consideration of
other potential opportunities to achieve a balanced budget that would have less of an
impact on classroom instruction.
An assessment of the extent to which the board has in place adequate systems and
practices to monitor the organizations performance, and the extent to which it
operates accordingly.
In July and August, there were no board or committee meetings. The VSB staff prepared the
school closure reports. s. 22 stated s. 22
We were all feeling the stress of the many
issues in play.
At the same time, the staff were engaged with the Special Advisor in late July and all of
August. s. 22 and VSB staff provided the Special Advisor with all
documentation he requested, including emails.
1.3.3 September 2016

On September 6, 2016, a special board meeting was held where s. 22
requested funding to correct critical issues with a human resources management computer
system that VSB had implemented in March 2014. Witnesses stated that s. 22 was
hostile towards s. 22 and was unhappy about the need for additional
funding.
s. 22 advised WorkSafeBC that there were concerns s. 22
s. 22 these concerns,
including why the board had not been made aware of the existence of possible surplus funds
to address the problems with the computer system prior to the September 6 special board
meeting.
During the September 6 meeting, s. 22 also provided a report detailing the

large volumes of documentation, including emails, that the Special Advisor had requested
and that VSB staff had provided to him. Witnesses told WorkSafeBC that s. 22
berated s. 22 and exhibited negative body language, including rolling s. 22
eyes, glaring, and huffing. s. 22 about the release of emails to
the Special Advisor. In particular, s. 22
Witnesses stated that it was an
uncomfortable meeting.
On September 10, 2016, at a workshop, the VSB staff presented the board with a
preliminary draft of the strategic report and the 12 school closure reports, which were dated
September 15, 2016. The intent of this workshop was to provide trustees with an
opportunity to ask questions and to ensure that staff members would not be asked in front
of a large crowd to clarify questions regarding the school closures and rationale, as they
might otherwise be at a town hall meeting (a large board meeting open to the public and

held in a public venue instead of the usual VSB meeting location). Town hall meetings had
been requested s. 22
At the September 10 workshop, the staff worked through the reports for all 12 schools with
the trustees, outlining the process followed and how the criteria in the LRFP had been
applied. s. 22 stated that the trustees did not ask any questions or
share any objections about how staff had identified schools for closure.
On September 14, 2016, VSB received an email from a reporter at the Vancouver Sun,
asking the following question:
I would like to ask if it is possible to get a comment as to why, in the end, students
attending a school rather than the catchment population is what counted when the
schools were initially considered for the list. At first, VSB had said it would only count
the students living in a schools catchment, but that isnt what happened in the end.
Just want to explain why the change was made.
The email was forwarded s. 22 who replied to the email and

copied the trustees, stating that there had been no change. In the email, s. 22 explained the
level one criteria (as laid out in the LRFP) as well as additional factors such as the School
Act and VSB policy.
s. 22 replied by email s. 22 and all the trustees: Youve kind

of answered it but the east/west disproportionate impact still concerns me It would be
helpful to have more info on the rationale to move away from looking at in-catchment
enrollment.
On September 15, 2016, at a Planning and Facilities Committee meeting, the

Superintendent distributed the strategic report (with the 12 individual school closure
reports) to the trustees. The trustees had reviewed these reports with the staff on
September 10. The Superintendent reviewed the key points, including the decision-making
process for school closure, district information on current and projected school enrolment
and utilization, and possible schools for closure.
The strategic report includes the following information about the level one criteria:
Current enrolment: Catchment students attending a school being considered for
closure can be accommodated in local catchment schools. Out of catchment students
attending a school to be closed can be accommodated at their home school and/or in
local catchment schools. Although the LRFP allows for the possibility of returning out
of catchment students to their home schools, staff analysis contemplated the
accommodation of all continuing students within local catchment schools.
Projected enrolment: The projected future student enrolment of the adjusted
catchment area, as the result of a school closure, can be accommodated.
At this meeting on September 15, s. 22 asked why staff had not adhered to the level
one criteria in the LRFP and instead went in another direction. s. 22
provided a detailed answer on the application of not only the level one criteria, but also the
application of the VSB policies in accordance with the School Act.

Also at the meeting on September 15, s. 22 asked how VSB staff factored continuing
growth and development of communities (based on building permits and proposed
developments) into the reports. s. 22 explained that VSB staff and
the Planning and Facilities Committee meet quarterly with City of Vancouver staff. At these
meetings, they consider permitting for actual planned residential developments in a three-
to-five-year window. s. 22 further explained the planning software
system that VSB uses (Baragar) and said that VSB has contingency plans if numbers change
considerably from projections or are incorrect.
Trustees asked several questions during the meeting, but at no point during the discussion
did any trustees request that staff create new school closure reports. In response to a query
from s. 22 VSB staff agreed to research when the Ministrys 95% capacity utilization
target came into effect. They would provide the answer at the board meeting scheduled for
September 26, 2016.
At the end of the September 15 meeting, the trustees on that committee recommended a
list of schools proposed for closure. Of the 12 schools from the preliminary list, the
committee supported the recommendation for 11 schools to proceed to public consultation
as outlined in VSB policy. The approved list of 11 schools would then be brought to the full
board and voted on at a public board meeting scheduled for September 26.
On September 17, 2016, s. 22

provincial governments position to cut funding to the education system and on having to
make tough decisions regarding cuts to the VSB budget that s. 22
s. 22
On September 21, 2016, the Ministry announced that it was removing the 95% capacity
utilization target set out in the MOU. Trustees and staff expressed differing opinions on the
significance of this change.
Motion:
That the board request staff prepare a revised set of proposals [school closure
reports] utilizing the board-approved level-one criteria, specifically based on in-
catchment-only enrollment and projections.
The revised proposals should:
- Utilize the board-approved level-two factors, in particular giving full consideration
of the impact on closing schools in relation to their specific community and social
impacts to ensure schools with higher concentrations of vulnerable students and
families are not disproportionately targeted for closure, as they are in the September
2016 report [the strategic report].
- Be developed with the understanding that 95% average capacity utilization is no
longer a goal of the LRFP and incorporate any other new information that has
become available since the report was adopted by the VSB in May 2016.

- Explore split swing sites for secondary schools in lieu of closing entire schools,
similar to what is currently being proposed for Kingsford-Smith.
- Contemplate the educational and social impacts of proposing large combined
school populations and will ensure there is a process for consulting with proposed
receiving schools.
Receiving schools are the schools that will receive the students displaced by a school
closure. s. 22
Because of the timing of s. 22 announcement of the

motion, it was not included on the agenda for the public board meeting on September 26.
On September 26, 2016, before the school closure meetings mentioned below, the
s. 22
1.3.4 September 26, 2016: Private board meeting

On September 26, 2016, a private board meeting was held. At least one witness stated
that s. 22 the rest of the SMT not to attend this meeting as s. 22
anticipated it would get hostile because s. 22 not pleased with s. 22 having provided
documentation to the Special Advisor. The SMT attended the meeting despite the
s. 22
At the meeting, the trustees asked s. 22 about what information had been
released to the Special Advisor. There were a number of questions about what date range of
documents had been disclosed and whether the records had been redacted for privileged
legal advice and private information. s. 22
s. 22 about the emails released to the Special Advisor and that the tone of the
questioning was offensive and forceful, as if s. 22 were being accused of
wrongdoing.
1.3.5 September 26, 2016: Public board meeting

The public board meeting took place in the gymnasium at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary
School. The primary purpose of this meeting was for the board to vote to move the schools
considered for closure forward to the next steps in the school closure consultation process.
Witnesses stated that hundreds of people were in attendance. This meeting, described as a
gong show by s. 22 and a circus s. 22 was highly emotional and upsetting
for several witnesses, and lasted for about four and a half hours. Witnesses also told
WorkSafeBC that the tone of the meeting was intimidating towards all of the SMT, DMT, and
other VSB staff. s. 22 said: It was, without
question, a difficult meeting.
s. 22 stated that as the SMT and trustees entered the auditorium,

s. 22 pointed to the crowd, and said, See what you guys have
created here. Look at this, you guys created all of this. s. 22 told
WorkSafeBC that s. 22 felt as if the SMT had done something wrong.

s. 22 made comments, pointed towards the

provincial government, regarding s. 22 relating to funding of the education system.
Among these statements, s. 22 We know that it is a political choice of
government to underfund education. The public interjected with loud boos and cheers as
s. 22 spoke. Witnesses stated that the crowd was angry and that s. 22
In the middle s. 22
Frankly, I think it is time we did a little better I agree that a great deal of work has
been done on this, and a great deal of very ethical and competent people have
worked very hard on these reports The reality is that these werent the reports we
asked for. We asked for in-catchment I want to see a very different set of
information.
s. 22 at one point saying, We need

to be educating the provincial government, and here is what they need some education on.
This resulted in a loud crowd response.
s. 22 remarked on the staffs herculean efforts,

referring to the enormity of work the staff had performed in the creation of the LRFP and
school closure reports. s. 22 I really want to emphasize that our staff
are experts, and then stated that with respect to enrolment numbers and projections, the
predictions were accurate to within 29 students (of more than 50,000) in the school district.
Later in the meeting, s. 22 that all 12 of the school closure reports

veered away from the original criteria that the level one criteria used by staff in the
creation of the individual school closure reports were substantially different than the criteria
in the agreed-upon LRFP.
At the meeting, s. 22 an urgent motion, s. 22

that staff prepare a
revised set of 12 school closure reports using the board-approved level one criteria,
specifically based on in-catchment-only enrolment and projections.
The audio recording of the meeting and witness statements indicate that this motion caused
an uproar in the room. In a 5:4 vote, the board voted to request these revisions to the
school closure reports from the staff. The board then voted (5:4) to address this issue at
the meeting scheduled for October 3, 2016.
After the four-hour meeting time limit, s. 22 a motion, which was s. 22

s. 22 to extend the meeting. The vote was 5:4, and then s. 22 .
s. 22 a motion to write a letter to the mayor, in part to request that City

of Vancouver staff do an analysis of neighbourhood plans and population projections in
regard to the school closure reports and the LRFP. The motion was s. 22
and carried in a 5:3 vote. During the discussion, in support of the motion, s. 22

Weve had questions [about VSBs enrolment data] There is new census data coming.
s. 22 also said that new census data is coming.
1.3.6 Events after the public meeting on September 26, 2016

The School Act states that the secretary-treasurer or another employee designated by the
board must be present at board meetings at the time any decision is rendered and must
record any decision. s. 22
the board was unable to render or record any decisions.
Also on September 27, s. 22 a special board meeting to appoint an acting

superintendent. Some staff declined to attend. Witnesses told WorkSafeBC that s. 22
went to the VSB office s. 22
s. 22 appeared to be frantic and aggressive in s. 22
efforts to get someone to fill one of the roles so that they could carry out the meeting. No
one was found, which meant that no special board meeting could be held.
s. 22
went on leave in the following days.
At a private special board meeting on September 28, 2016, the board appointed s. 22
to fill the role of superintendent. s. 22
s. 22
On September 29, 2016, WorkSafeBC received a letter from the Ministry, asking
WorkSafeBC to consider investigating allegations of bullying and/or harassment of VSB
employees by some of the trustees. The letter included a letter to the Ministry from the
BCSSA dated September 28, 2016.
On October 3, 2016, s. 22 first public board meeting as

s. 22 At this meeting,s. 22 recommended to the board that the school
closure consultation process be suspended effective immediately. Witnesses stated that
s. 22 became angry at the suspension of the closure process and that
s. 22 questioned s. 22 like he was on trial.
On October 17, 2016, the Minister dismissed all nine trustees for failing to pass a balanced
budget as required by the School Act. On the same day, the Minister appointed the Official
Trustee to conduct the affairs of the school district.
On October 24, 2016, the Official Trustee dismissed s. 22
On October 28, 2016, the Minister publicly released the Special Advisors Forensic Audit of
Board Expenses and Review of the Vancouver School Board. Dated October 17, 2016, that
report is available online at www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-
training/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/reports-and-publications.
On November 3, 2016, the Official Trustee appointed s. 22

2 Definition of bullying and harassment

As stated in policy D3-115-2, bullying and harassment
(a) includes any inappropriate conduct or comment by a person towards a worker that
the person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause that worker to be
humiliated or intimidated, but
(b) excludes any reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the
management and direction of workers or the place of employment.
As discussed in section 1.1 of this report, the board provides work direction to the
superintendent and secretary-treasurer. Therefore, at the time of the alleged bullying
and harassment, the trustees were the supervisors of the Superintendent and the
Secretary-treasurer.
After identifying conduct or comments that caused workers to be humiliated or intimidated,

WorkSafeBC considers whether the conduct or comment meets the exclusion in the
definition. If the conduct or comment is considered to be reasonable action relating to the
management and direction of workers (reasonable work direction), then it is deemed to not
be bullying and harassment.
If the conduct or comment is not considered to be reasonable work direction, then

WorkSafeBC considers whether the person knew or reasonably ought to have known it
would cause that worker to be humiliated or intimidated.
2.1 Inappropriate conduct or comments

This WorkSafeBC investigation revealed evidence that more than one inappropriate
comment made by more than one trustee caused more than one worker to be humiliated or
intimidated. Witnesses told WorkSafeBC about numerous intense discussions between
trustees or towards staff that were humiliating or intimidating and that may have felt
humiliating or intimidating to other staff; that meetings were at times very partisan,
stressful, and passionate; and that staff were often caught in the middle.
The following are some specific examples of inappropriate conduct or comments that caused
VSB workers to be humiliated or intimidated.
Meeting on September 6, 2016
At this meeting, s. 22 reported to the board about the documentation that the
Special Advisor had requested, and s. 22 money to correct
critical issues with the human resources management computer system. Witnesses
described this meeting as uncomfortable. Members of the board, s. 22
questioned s. 22 in a hostile manner. s. 22
stated that s. 22 tone of voice, body language, and manner were
disrespectful.

s. 22 told WorkSafeBC that the questioning of the s. 22

at this meeting was stern and s. 22 uncomfortable. s. 22
intimidated and feared retribution.
Public meeting on September 26, 2016
Witnesses told WorkSafeBC that as a whole, the public board meeting on September 26 was
embarrassing, humiliating, and intimidating. Some stated that s. 22
at the public meeting undermined the work they had
done, gave the impression that staff had not done their work, and furthered the divide
between the trustees and the SMT. One witness stated that this closure process meeting
should not have been held publicly and was humiliating to staff and that s. 22
questions and statements were crafted to embarrass staff and stimulate the audience.
s. 22 contributed
to VSB staffs feelings of humiliation and intimidation.
In addition, some trustees told WorkSafeBC that they believed that the meeting and
s. 22 undermined the work of the VSB staff. Not all trustees knew what
s. 22 and there had been ample time to have these discussions prior
to September 26. Some trustees believed that the comments would have caused VSB staff
to be humiliated.
The following are some of the specific behaviours and comments that workers stated were
particularly humiliating and intimidating and undermined their work:
s. 22
2.2 Exclusion: Management and direction of workers

The definition of bullying and harassment in policy D3-115-2 excludes any reasonable work
direction. In deciding whether inappropriate conduct or comments meet this exclusion, a
two-part test must be applied:
The first part is deciding if the conduct or comment is or can be considered
management and direction of workers (work direction).
If it is, the second part is to determine if it was reasonable action.
2.2.1 Management and direction of workers

In this section, the specific examples of the inappropriate conduct and comments listed
above will be addressed to consider whether they could be considered work direction.

s. 22 questioning of the s. 22 about the documentation that s. 22 had

provided to the Special Advisor could be considered work direction. s. 22
s. 22 acknowledged that staff were in a tough spot having to give
information to the Special Advisor. s. 22 an
inquiry about what the staff had provided to the Special Advisor, and s. 22
s. 22 likely would not be

considered work direction. s. 22
was referring to the Province of B.C. that it could do a better job than closing schools and
cutting budgets. Because this comment was not a request for staff to do anything, it cannot
be considered work direction.
s. 22 can be considered work direction: s. 22

that these werent the reports we asked for. We asked for in-catchment s. 22
very different set of information. These statements identify a perceived deficiency in work
that the staff had performed and then identify the desired correction. It is clear that in
s. 22 the staff did not use the correct data in the creation of the school closure
reports. The words alone would be considered management of workers.
s. 22 that coming up with the LRFP was a herculean task and that s. 22
thanked staff members many times, telling them they had done a good job, and always
treated them with respect. s. 22 wanted to see what the school closure
plan looked like if the staff adhered to the original criteria of catchment and s. 22
Motion for City of Vancouver review: When the board moved to have the mayor ask City
of Vancouver staff to review the enrolment projections and closure proposals, the board was
essentially directing VSB staff to provide the strategic report to the City so that its staff
could then analyze VSBs enrolment and population projections. In this way, the motion
could be considered work direction.
s. 22 comments about new census data being available were

related to s. 22 requesting a revised set of school closure reports. As noted
above, s. 22 are considered to have been work direction. s. 22
comments were also work direction.
2.2.2 Reasonable action relating to the management and direction of workers

An employer may exercise its authority to manage and direct workers in the place of
employment. However, these decisions cannot be undertaken in a manner that would
constitute bullying and harassment. If the conduct or comment is considered work direction,
the next question is whether the work direction is reasonable action taken by an employer
or supervisor.

s. 22 questioning of s. 22 about the emailss. 22 provided to the Special

Advisor was work direction. If this questioning had been done in private, it could be
considered to have been reasonable.
However, given that the entire SMT was present at this meeting, s. 22
cannot be considered reasonable action. Evaluating work performance, providing feedback,
and giving work direction can at times be unpleasant and unsettling to workers. Not every
unpleasant interaction is considered bullying and harassment. Both the message and the
persons in attendance should be considered. Human resources management best practices
provide that performance management should be delivered in a private setting with only the
parties directly involved in attendance. The board did have private meetings with s.
s. 22 and could easily have dealt with this matter in private. 22
Public meeting on September 26, 2016 s.

2
2
s. 22 Multiple factors relate to whether s. 22 were
reasonable action relating to the management and direction of workers.
As noted above, s. 22
implies that the

statements represent the opinion of all nine trustees. However, the evidence does not
support that s. 22 were actually the view of the entire board. When the motion
came to a vote, it was not supported unanimously by all nine trustees: five trustees voted
for it, and four voted against it. During the debate, some trustees opposed the motion, and
s. 22
was indicating that staff had followed the guidelines set out in the LRFP, which
had been unanimously accepted by the board on May 24, 2016.
In this respect, s. 22 were not reasonable action relating to the

management and direction of workers because they did not represent the view of the entire
board.
The school closure consultation process had to be completed before the Planning and
Facilities Committee meeting scheduled for early December. If the school closures had been
approved by the board at the meeting on September 26, then within the next 10 and a half
weeks, the revised school closure reports would have had to be created and at least one
meeting would have had to take place for each school. Staff would have been under added
pressure to complete these tasks along with their regular duties, and any disruption in the
process would have been difficult to manage successfully. Rerunning the data would have
affected many different factors or criteria. Considering all of these points, s. 22
s. 22 was not reasonable action relating to the
management and direction of workers.
Staff indicated that s. 22 and explained that they had

applied the criteria set out in the LRFP. The LRFP had been unanimously approved by the
board on May 24, 2016. Once approved, it became the official position of the entire board.

By approving the LRFP, it became the position of all trustees that the tool that staff would
use in making projections was the planning software that had been used to compile the
LRFP (Baragar). The LRFP states:
The Ministry of Education has indicated that most districts in the Province use Baragar
Systems population and enrolment estimates for planning purposes. Baragar Systems
projections have been shown to be reliable within 0.6% of actual enrollment. The MOU
(August 2014) states that the Long Range Facilities Plan should be based on agreed
upon enrolment projections. Due to the proven reliability of Baragar Systems enrolment
projections, it is agreed that Baragar Systems enrolment projections will be used in this
report.
The staff did use this tool and apply these board-approved criteria in their work on the
preliminary list of school closures, the strategic report, and the individual school closure
reports.
s. 22
stated that
the trustees had requested reports that used in-catchment numbers, which was said to be
different data than what VSB staff had based the reports upon. s. 22
asked staff more than once why the criteria for level one had changed. s. 22
stated that staff did not have to
restart or redo the school closure reports and that all the staff had to do was run an
additional report using in-catchment data only.
s. 22
a
clause in the strategic report that states: Although the LRFP allows for the possibility of
returning out of catchment students to their home schools, staff analysis contemplated the
accommodation of all continuing students within local catchment schools.
s. 22 stated that the school closure reports conformed to the level

one criteria set out in the LRFP that had been approved on May 24. s. 22 that the
criteria were not different in the strategic report and the school closure reports, and that the
statements s. 22 were completely inaccurate. s. 22 that the LRFP was
the broader document and that the clause in the strategic report had been added to clarify
the application of the level one criteria. Additional clarity was needed because, in addition to
the level one criteria, VSB staff had to apply other factors, such as the School Act and the
VSB policies. s. 22 that s. 22 because the
trustees were given this information on a number of occasions and had plenty of
opportunity to follow up with more questions before the September 26 meeting if the
answers did not satisfy them. For example, on June 20, 2016, the Superintendent provided
to all the trustees an interoffice memorandum that contained an attachment titled How
schools are identified for potential closure. In this attachment, a level one factor section
states: All continuing students can be accommodated within neighbouring schools.
s. 22
asked why the staff had gone in a different direction than that of the level one criteria in the
LRFP. s. 22 provided a detailed reasoning of how and why the staff

had applied the School Act, VSB policies, and the LRFP in the creation of the reports.
Nobody objected to s. 22 answer at this meeting.
The viewpoint on whether the staff followed the guidance of the LRFP is divided. The staff
position is that the reports were created in accordance with all of the criteria set out in the
LRFP. Some trustees support the position that the staff created the reports according to the
level one criteria, whereas other trustees take the position that staff did not create the
reports in accordance with the level one criteria in the LRFP.
The VSB staff continually monitor the development of the City of Vancouver and its
changing demographics. All staff who were interviewed agreed that Baragar is accurate and
the best tool for determining enrolment projections. Some trustees support this position.
Some trustees stated that they would like additional consultation with the City of Vancouver
to, if nothing else, confirm the [enrolment] projections. At the September 26 meeting,
s. 22 said that demanding a report on population projections from the City was
redundant because every trustee knows full well that VSB staff already met regularly with
the Citys planning staff in order to gather information about future developments that may
have an impact on school enrolment; staff already have this information factored into their
recommendations.
s. 22 stated that some major developments in the City of

Vancouver have been announced and would have a significant impact. s. 22
a newspaper article dated November 16,
2016, in support of this position. WorkSafeBC reviewed the building permit applications at
the City of Vancouver and found that the project referenced in the media article has been in
development since 2015.
s. 22 that the City of Vancouver had offered to review the

projections in areas of significant development and that the board should consider all
relevant information, including new developments. However, s. 22
had explained and demonstrated to the board that residential developments do not
necessarily result in increased public school enrolment from those developments.
s. 22 at the September 10 meeting that contingency plans

were built into the LRFP to accommodate any unforeseen or sudden changes in enrolment.
So, if isolated circumstances were to result in sudden and unexpected changes in
enrolment, the LRFP has a means to deal with those circumstances.
The evidence shows that the reports were created in accordance with the criteria that had
been accepted by the board in May 2016. As a result, s. 22
request a revised set of school closure reports were not reasonable action relating to the
management and direction of workers. Staff demonstrated that new developments do not
necessarily correlate with higher enrolment.
s. 22 motion at the public meeting came after the Ministry removed the 95% capacity
utilization target that had been set out in the MOU. s. 22 that the LRFP
was largely based on the 95% target and that this target was an overriding issue in
selecting a school for closure.

On September 21, s. 22
that the removal of the 95% target

was a game changer. s. 22 told WorkSafeBC that the process did not rely on the 95%
capacity utilization target.
s. 22 stated that the 95% capacity utilization target was not a major
factor in considering the closure of the 11 schools and that its removal did not change
anything. s. 22 stated that the 95% target was not a consideration in
deciding which schools should be closed. s. 22
stated that the removal of the 95% target would not
make a significant change in the decision to close 11 schools. s. 22 stated that the
removal of the 95% capacity utilization target was not a tipping point in the selection of the
12 schools.
Given the difference of opinions about the significance of the removal of the 95% target,
s. 22 request for a revised set of school closure reports could be seen as reasonable.
However, the bigger picture must be taken into consideration.
Based on the above analysis, s. 22 the strict deadline for the

end of the school closure consultation process, and the removal of the 95% capacity
utilization target, s. 22 cannot be considered reasonable action.
s. 22 were not reasonable work direction, they do not meet the exclusion
in the definition of bullying and harassment.
Motion for City of Vancouver review: Staff were confused about why certain trustees
would move to have the mayor ask City of Vancouver staff to analyze the enrolment
projections and closure proposals. VSB staff told WorkSafeBC that they already met with the
City regularly, that they did not understand why s. 22 would want to go to the City to
have the reports reviewed, and that additional meetings would yield little or no change in
the reports.
The motion to have the City review the enrolment projections and the school closure reports
was not reasonable action because VSB staff already meet with the City regularly. This
motion therefore does not meet the exclusion in the definition of bullying and harassment.
New census data: s. 22 about new census data being available. In their
interviews with WorkSafeBC, s. 22 stated that BC census data
is unreliable. The LRFP, which the board approved, explained why BC census data is not
reliable.
These comments about BC census data were not reasonable action because the LRFP is
clear about why census data is not reliable. These comments therefore do not meet the
exclusion in the definition of bullying and harassment.

2.3 Reasonably ought to have known

There is no direct evidence to suggest that s. 22 knew their conduct or
comments would humiliate or intimidate the workers. In this section, any inappropriate
conduct or comments that did not meet the exclusion of reasonable work direction (as
analyzed in section 2.2 above) will be examined to assess whether the person(s) who made
the comments reasonably ought to have known their comments or conduct would cause
those workers to be humiliated or intimidated.
This section will address each of the specific examples of inappropriate conduct or
comments listed above.
When s. 22 reported to the board that s. 22 had given the Special Advisor all the
documentation he had requested, including emails, s. 22
would know that workers would be compelled
by section 171.2(c) of the School Act to provide information to the Special Advisor. A
reasonable person would know, s. 22 ought to have known, that questioning s.
in a disrespectful manner in front of his subordinates about something 22 that
he also knew he had to do would be humiliating or intimidating.
Although s. 22 questions on September 6 are considered to have been work direction, they
were not reasonable work direction because the other members of the SMT were present.
Because s. 22 reasonably ought to have known that s. 22 would cause s.
s. 22 to be humiliated or intimidated, WorkSafeBC deems this to be bullying
22 and
harassment.
VSB staff stated that this public board meeting was humiliating and intimidating. In
particular, these feelings were a result of the public nature of the inappropriate conduct and
comments by the trustees, which had the effect of undermining the work they had done on
the LRFP and the school closure reports.
A reasonable person would know that questioning the staffs work publicly would be
humiliating or intimidating.
s. 22 stated that trustees must be transparent and that this means asking questions in
public as a technique to make things understandable to the public. s. 22 stated that
public meetings are the venue to ask these questions that most trustee business takes
place in public and this is where tough questions are asked. s. 22 that trustees
do not meet privately with staff. s. 22 seems to contradict the nature of the
workshops where staff and trustees work closely together. This is also contrary to the
evidence of witnesses who said that the culture in the office was along the lines of: Better
run it by s. 22 or you will hear about it. s. 22 reported that s. 22
was told to send everything s. 22 first and keep s. 22 informed, that you dont
want to get on s. 22 bad side and that s. 22 was very demanding of staff time.

Other trustees told WorkSafeBC that they saw how these comments at the public meeting
undermined the work of the VSB staff and caused the staff to be humiliated. There had been
ample time to have these discussions prior to the public meeting on September 26, so they
could have taken place in a private setting. One witness stated that the trustees were
content with the school closure reports and that the trustees asked a lot of questions during
the workshops and committee meetings and were content with the answers.
Based on these and other witness statements, a reasonable person would know that
questioning the work of the staff in public would be humiliating and intimidating to staff.
Regarding the specific examples of inappropriate conduct and comments at this meeting:
s. 22
was not work direction. s. 22 talking about the
Province of B.C. and not VSB staff. Given that this was a politically charged meeting, such a
comment is not completely unexpected, and one cannot say that s. 22 reasonably ought to
have known that this comment in particular would cause staff to be humiliated or
intimidated. Therefore, this part s. 22 is not considered to be bullying and
harassment.
s. 22 comments that the

school closure reports did not adhere to the criteria in the LRFP s. 22
s. 22 that the reports had been extensively workshopped with trustees prior to the
September 26 meeting, so there had been reasonable opportunity to raise concerns about
the application of the criteria before the public meeting. A reasonable person would have
known that the staff who had worked on those reports would be humiliated and intimidated
by such statements being made in a public meeting.
s. 22 were not reasonable work

direction to VSB staff, s. 22 reasonably ought to have known that they would cause the
staff to be humiliated or intimidated. Therefore, WorkSafeBC finds these comments to be
s. 22
See what you guys have created here. Look at this, you guys
created all of this s. 22 caused
staff to be humiliated and intimidated. s. 22 conduct
and comments before and during this meeting would cause staff to be humiliated and
intimidated, and WorkSafeBC finds these comments meet the definition of bullying and
harassment.
Motion for City of Vancouver review: The motion to have the mayor ask City staff to
analyze the enrolment projections and closure proposals in the school closure reports
This motion humiliated staff because it implied, in public, that they had not done a good
enough job. A reasonable person would know that questioning the thoroughness of the
staffs work in public would cause those workers to be humiliated.
As stated above in section 2.2, this motion was not reasonable work direction to staff.
s. 22 reasonably ought to have known that it would cause the staff to be humiliated

and intimidated. WorkSafeBC finds that this motion meets the definition of bullying and
harassment.
New census data: s. 22 about new census data being available was
humiliating to staff. Staff considered VSBs planning software (Baragar) to be the most
accurate source of data, and the LRFP includes an explanation of why census data is not
reliable. Given that this issue is addressed in the LRFP, which the trustees had approved in
May 2016, a reasonable person would know that questioning the data source in public would
have the effect of undermining the staffs work on the school closure reports and be
humiliating and intimidating.
As stated above in section 2.2, these comments were not reasonable work direction to staff,
and s. 22 ought to have known they would cause staff to be humiliated and intimidated.
Therefore, WorkSafeBC concludes that these comments meet the definition of bullying and
harassment.
s. 22
would have known that the reports were
created in accordance with the criteria approved by the board, and s. 22 supported the
request for new reports. However, s. 22 did not rise to the level of
3 Reasonable steps to address the hazard

In previous inspections of VSB regarding allegations of bullying and harassment,
WorkSafeBC found the employer to have met the requirements of sections 115(1)(a) and
115(2)(e) of the Act as they relate to bullying and harassment. In particular, the employer
had complied with the requirements of policy D3-115-2. However, these previous
allegations did not involve trustees.
3.1.1 Inspection
In this case, in addition to investigating whether bullying and harassment occurred,
WorkSafeBC reviewed VSBs documentation and records as they pertain to the relationship
between trustees and the SMT. This inspection included asking the employer for all
materials necessary to demonstrate whether it had taken the reasonable steps to address
the hazard of bullying and harassment outlined in policy D3-115-2.
VSB provided WorkSafeBC with copies of the school districts written policy statement,
procedures, and training around workplace bullying and harassment. These documents form
part of VSBs bullying and harassment program.
VSB is a large and complex organization with multiple work locations that have a wide
variety of different types of staff. VSB is bound by a number of collective agreements and
requirements of professional associations, such as the BC Teachers Council. As such, VSB
has numerous and comprehensive policies and procedures relating to the topic of bullying
and harassment in the workplace. Depending on the work location and the role and
occupation of the worker who reports an incident or complaint, there can be different
procedures for each circumstance. In addition to the reporting and investigation procedures

that VSB has in place, there are supporting procedures and documents relating to
investigating complaints and following up with corrective measures.
VSB adopted its Reporting and Investigation Procedures for Incidents of WorkSafeBC
Bullying and Harassment on January 29, 2014, and revised these procedures on
September 4, 2015. The reporting procedures outline how all the various types of VSB staff,
including members of the SMT and DMT, are to report incidents of bullying and harassment:
VSB employees who believe they have been subject to or observed bullying and
harassment as defined by WorkSafeBC will:
Obtain a copy of the VSB Workplace Bullying and Harassment form. The form is
available at the worksite or online at the VSB Health and Safety page.
Complete the VSB Workplace Bullying and Harassment form: Part 1 Initial
Employee Checklist and Part 2 Employee's Report
Submit the completed VSB Workplace Bullying and Harassment form: Part 1
Initial Employee Checklist and Part 2 Employee's Report to your Principal, Vice
Principal or Supervisor.
The reporting employee may submit the completed VSB Workplace Bullying and
Harassment form: Part 1 Initial Employee Checklist and Part 2 Employee's
Report directly to Employee Services (Labour Relations) if the person responsible for
the workplace bullying and harassment is:
i. Another employee,
ii. The complainant's Principal, Vice Principal or Supervisor, or
iii. A School Board Trustee, District Manager, or Department Head
Although there is an obligation under WorkSafeBC policy for workers and supervisors to
report incidents of bullying and harassment, the VSB staff interviewed in this investigation
did not use VSBs reporting procedures. Witnesses expressed a level of fear and uncertainty
in the reporting of a trustee for bullying and harassment and explained that they did not
report the bullying and harassment for fear of retaliation by the trustees.
WorkSafeBC reviewed VSBs documentation and records and concluded that the employer
had implemented each of the relevant steps listed in policy D3-115-2. Specifically, the
employer demonstrated that it had:
developed a policy statement with respect to workplace bullying and harassment;
taken steps to prevent where possible, or otherwise minimize, workplace bullying
and harassment, as evidenced by numerous meetings with the workers regarding the
allegations of bullying and harassment;
developed and implemented procedures for workers to report incidents or
complaints;
developed and implemented procedures for how the employer will deal with incidents
or complaints (including investigating and following up with corrective actions);
informed workers, through training, of its policies and the steps it was taking;
trained all its employees on the policies; and
applied and complied with its policies and procedures.

VSB conducted an independent investigation into whether bullying and harassment occurred
and provided WorkSafeBC with a copy of its final investigation report and executive
summary on February 22, 2017. The adequacy of that independent investigation, as well as
the adequacy of any actions taken by VSB as a result of that investigation to ensure that
bullying and harassment is prevented or minimized in the future, are not addressed in this
report and will be the subject of separate WorkSafeBC compliance activity.
3.1.2 Corrective actions

Although WorkSafeBC accepts VSBs bullying and harassment policies and procedures as
meeting WorkSafeBC policy requirements, there are challenges with VSBs implementation
of the corrective actions set out in its procedures as elected school trustees are not in a
traditional employment relationship with VSB.
VSB policies and procedures contemplate several forms of corrective actions that may be
taken in response to incidents of workplace bullying and harassment, including:
Restorative processes
Counselling
Mediation
Conflict resolution training
Discipline
Dismissal
Suspension
The School Act sets out the criteria for when a trustee can be dismissed from office. Only
the Minister has the authority to dismiss a trustee under these circumstances; WorkSafeBC
cannot enforce provisions contained in the School Act. Discipline under the School Act
applies only when a trustee has been charged with an offence. The School Act does not
speak to discipline for bullying and harassment or other inappropriate conduct in the
workplace.
VSB can offer other forms of corrective action, such as limitations on contact or mediation,
in an effort to prevent or otherwise minimize workplace bullying and harassment for the
workers of VSB. However, trustees can refuse to participate without consequence.
In summary, with the inability of VSB to effectively apply corrective actions against
trustees, it is understandable that supervisors and workers would be hesitant to report
alleged bullying and harassment for fear of reprisal.
4 Conclusions
WorkSafeBCs investigation considered whether bullying and harassment had occurred, and
whether VSB met the requirements of the Act by taking reasonable steps to address the
hazard of workplace bullying and harassment.
WorkSafeBCs investigation found that conduct and comments of s. 22

at the September 26 board meeting, s. 22
meet the definition of bullying and harassment set out in WorkSafeBC policy D3-

115-2. In addition, conduct and comments s. 22 at the September 6 private

meeting also meet the definition of bullying and harassment.
The conduct and comments of s. 22 caused members of the SMT,

DMT, and other staff to be humiliated and intimidated. s. 22 reasonably
ought to have known this would be the case. The conduct and comments s. 22
s. 22 were not reasonable action relating to the management or direction of
workers or the place of employment, and were therefore not subject to the policy exclusion.
Further, WorkSafeBCs investigation found that VSB had taken reasonable steps to address
the hazard of workplace bullying and harassment by having in place adequate policy,
procedures, and training around workplace bullying and harassment. VSB was found to be
compliant with policy requirements.
Commonly used forms of discipline, such as suspension and dismissal, are not applicable to
elected school trustees as they are not employees of VSB, nor are they considered workers
within the scope of the Act. VSB can request other forms of corrective action, such as
limitations on contact or mediation, in an effort to prevent or otherwise minimize workplace
bullying and harassment for the workers of VSB. However, trustees can refuse to participate
without consequence. The lack of effective corrective actions, along with the fear of reprisal,
contributed to the VSB workers reluctance to report bullying and harassment.


WorkSafeBC Report On The Vancouver School Board

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WorkSafeBC Report On The Vancouver School Board

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Employer: School District No.

1 Factual information ..........................................................8

2 Definition of bullying and harassment .............................. 20

3 Reasonable steps to address the hazard ........................... 29

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 2 of 32

Persons mentioned in this report

Name Known in the report as Role

Peter MILBURN Special Advisor Was appointed special advisor by the

Vancouver School Board (VSB) senior management team

VSB district management team

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 3 of 32

VSB school trustees

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 4 of 32

With respect to allegations of workplace bullying and harassment, an employer must

How the investigation was conducted

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 5 of 32

Law and policy

Policy D3-115-2 defines bullying and harassment as including:

Policy D3-115-2 identifies what WorkSafeBC considers to be reasonable steps for an

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 6 of 32

(g) annually reviewing (a), (b), (c), and (d);

WorkSafeBC also publishes guidelines (available online at www.worksafebc.com/en/law-

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 7 of 32

VSBs reporting structure can be summarized as follows:

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 8 of 32

The DMT reports to the SMT.

1.2 Work environment and workload

s. 22 stated that in late 2015, the negative behaviour by trustees

s. 22 told WorkSafeBC that there was an astonishing amount of work

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 9 of 32

1.2.1 Long Range Facilities Plan

s. 22 and the trustees were

1.2.2 Strategic report and school closure reports

1.2.3 Budget for 2016/2017 school year

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 10 of 32

1.2.4 Other projects

1.3 Sequence of events

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 11 of 32

The level one criteria in the final LRFP are as follows:

The level two criteria in the LRFP are as follows:

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 12 of 32

1.3.2 Summer 2016

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 13 of 32

An assessment of the effectiveness of the boards oversight of the district, including

1.3.3 September 2016

s. 22 advised WorkSafeBC that there were concerns s. 22

During the September 6 meeting, s. 22 also provided a report detailing the

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 14 of 32

The email was forwarded s. 22 who replied to the email and

s. 22 replied by email s. 22 and all the trustees: Youve kind

On September 15, 2016, at a Planning and Facilities Committee meeting, the

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 15 of 32

On September 17, 2016, s. 22

On September 25, 2016, s. 22

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 16 of 32

Because of the timing of s. 22 announcement of the

1.3.4 September 26, 2016: Private board meeting

1.3.5 September 26, 2016: Public board meeting

s. 22 stated that as the SMT and trustees entered the auditorium,

WorkSafeBC Prevention Field Services Page 17 of 32

s. 22 made comments, pointed towards the

s. 22 at one point saying, We need

s. 22 remarked on the staffs herculean efforts,