Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 109, Issue 1, pp 79–88 | Cite as

Disability and workplace harassment and discrimination among Canadian federal public service employees

  • Andrea Marie Jones
  • Rodrigo Finkelstein
  • Mieke Koehoorn
Quantitative Research
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Policy and legislation that prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination, including that which is disability related, has been in place in Canada for many years. The study objective was to examine associations between disability and workplace harassment and discrimination in the current Canadian context, as well as the intersection of disability with age, gender, and ethnicity.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from the 2014 Canadian Public Service Employee Survey was analyzed (n = 175,742) using logistic regression to investigate the relationship between self-reported disability and workplace harassment and discrimination in the last 2 years. Age, gender, and ethnicity were included as potential confounders and effect modifiers. Additive and multiplicative effect modifications were examined using linear binomial and logistic regression, respectively.

Results

Overall, 18 and 8% of the sample of Canadian public service employees reported workplace harassment and discrimination, respectively. The prevalence was higher for workers with disability (37 and 26%). Disability was significantly associated with an increased odds of harassment (odds ratio (OR) = 2.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.68–2.92) and discrimination (OR = 4.97; 95% CI, 4.72–5.23) in models adjusted for confounders. Significant positive additive effect modification was observed for (1) age in the harassment and discrimination models and (2) ethnicity in the discrimination model.

Conclusion

Findings from a 2014 census of the Canadian federal public service suggest that additional efforts are needed to address workplace harassment and discrimination beyond those already in place. Consideration should be given to workers with disability, as well as the intersectional impacts for older workers, visible minorities, and Aboriginal peoples.

Keywords

Disabled persons Workplace Social discrimination Ethnic groups Gender Age groups 

Résumé

Objectifs

Des politiques et des lois interdisant le harcèlement et la discrimination en milieu de travail, notamment envers les personnes handicapées, existent depuis de nombreuses années au Canada. Nous avons voulu examiner les associations entre le handicap et le harcèlement et la discrimination au travail dans le contexte canadien actuel, ainsi que les croisements entre le handicap et l’âge, le sexe et l’ethnicité.

Méthode

Nous avons analysé par régression logistique les données transversales de l’édition 2014 du Sondage auprès des fonctionnaires fédéraux du Canada (n = 175,742) pour examiner la relation entre le handicap autodéclaré et le harcèlement et la discrimination au travail au cours des deux années antérieures. L’âge, le sexe et l’ethnicité ont été inclus à titre de possibles facteurs confusionnels ou modificateurs de l’effet. La modification de l’effet a été examinée par régression linéaire binomiale (interaction additive) et par régression logistique (interaction multiplicative).

Résultats

Dans l’ensemble, 18% et 8% de l’échantillon d’employés de la fonction publique canadienne ont fait état de harcèlement et de discrimination au travail, respectivement. La prévalence était plus élevée chez les employés handicapés (37% et 26%). Le handicap présentait une corrélation significative avec une probabilité accrue de harcèlement (rapport de cotes [RC] = 2,80, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95%: 2,68–2,92) et de discrimination (RC = 4,97, IC de 95%: 4,72–5,23) dans les modèles ajustés selon les facteurs confusionnels. Dans le modèle additif, une interaction positive significative a été observée 1) pour l’âge dans les modèles de harcèlement et de discrimination et 2) pour l’ethnicité dans le modèle de discrimination.

Conclusion

Les constatations d’un recensement mené en 2014 dans la fonction publique fédérale canadienne indiquent qu’il faut faire des efforts en plus de ceux qui sont déjà déployés pour contrer le harcèlement et la discrimination en milieu de travail. Il faudrait tenir compte des employés handicapés, ainsi que des incidences croisées sur les travailleurs âgés, les minorités visibles et les Autochtones.

Mots-clés

Personnes handicapées Lieux de travail Discrimination sociale Groupes ethniques Genre Tranches d’âge 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclaimer

Although the research and analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, the opinions expressed do not represent the views of Statistics Canada.

Sources of support

Jones and Finkelstein are supported in part by the Centre for Research on Work Disability Policy. Jones and Koehoorn are supported in part by the Partnership for Work Health and Safety, a research partnership between WorkSafeBC (provincial workers’ compensation system) and the University of British Columbia. Jones is supported in part by the CIHR Bridge Strategic Training Program and WorkSafeBC. This research was supported by funds to the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and Statistics Canada.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Australian Government (2009) Fair Work Act 2009. Act No. 28 of 2009. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00144. Accessed 8 August 2017).
  2. Balser, D. B. (2002). Agency in organizational inequality: organizational behavior and individual perceptions of discrimination. Work Organ, 29(2), 137–165.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, G. R. (2014). Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med, 110, 10–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Lewis, D., & Jones, T. (2013). The ill-treatment of employees with disabilities in British workplaces. Work Employ Soc, 27(2), 288–307.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017012460311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foster, D. (2007). Legal obligation or personal lottery? Employee experiences of disability and the negotiation of adjustments in the public sector workplace. Work Employ Soc, 21(1), 67–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017007073616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gee, G. C., Pavalko, E. K., & Long, J. S. (2007). Age, cohort and perceived age discrimination: using the life course to assess self-reported age discrimination. Soc Forces, 86(1), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Government of Canada (1985) The Canadian Human Rights Act of 1985. Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/. Accessed 8 August 2017.
  8. Government of Canada. Policy on harassment prevention and resolution. 2013. Available at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=26041. Accessed 26 June 2017.
  9. Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial relations: towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. Br J Ind Relat, 44(2), 239–262.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2006.00496.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoel H, Cooper C. (2000) Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Unpublished report. Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology Available at: http://www.bollettinoadapt.it/old/files/document/19764Destructiveconfl.pdf. Accessed 4 November 2017.
  11. Ineson, E. M., Yap, M. H. T., & Whiting, G. (2013). Sexual discrimination and harassment in the hospitality industry. Int J Hosp Manag, 35, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khubchandani, J., & Price, J. H. (2015). Workplace harassment and morbidity among US adults: results from the national health interview survey. J Community Health, 40(3), 555–563.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-014-9971-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Knol, M. J., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2012). Recommendations for presenting analyses of effect modification and interaction. Int J Epidemiol, 41(2), 514–520.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Landsbergis, P. A., Grzywacz, J. G., & LaMontagne, A. D. (2014). Work organization, job insecurity, and occupational health disparities. Am Journal Ind Med, 57(5), 495–515.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopez, S. H., Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., Hodson, R., & Roscigno, V. J. (2009). Power, status, and abuse at work: General and sexual harassment compared. Sociol Q, 50(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1994). A comparison of the performance of model-based confidence intervals when the correct model form is unknown: coverage of asymptotic means. Epidemiology, 5(2), 171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199403000-00007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Maroto, M., & Pettinicchio, D. (2014). Disability, structural inequality, and work: the influence of occupational segregation on earnings for people with different disabilities. Res Soc Stratif Mobil, 38, 76–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2014.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Okechukwu, C. A., Souza, K., Davis, K. D., & de Castro, A. B. (2014). Discrimination, harassment, abuse and bullying in the workplace: contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities. Am J Ind Med, 586(57), 573–586.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull, 135(4), 531–554.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Prince, M. J. (2010). What about a disability rights act for Canada? Practices and lessons from America, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Canadian Public Policy, 36(2), 199–214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Robert, P. M., & Harlan, S. L. (2006). Mechanisms of disability discrimination in large bureaucratic organizations: ascriptive inequalities in the workplace. Sociol Q, 47(4), 599–630.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00060.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: results from a national study. J Interpers Violence, 24(5), 819–843.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2007). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  24. SAS Institute Inc. (2018) SAS 9.4 Software | SAS. http://www.sas.com/en_us/software/sas9.html. Accessed 9 December 2014.
  25. Scior, K., Addai-Davis, J., Kenyon, M., & Sheridan, J. C. (2013). Stigma, public awareness about intellectual disability and attitudes to inclusion among different ethnic groups. J Intellect Disabil Res, 57(11), 1014–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01597.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaw, L. R., Chan, F., & McMahon, B. T. (2012). Intersectionality and disability harassment: the interactive effects of disability, race, age, and gender. Rehabil Couns Bull, 55(2), 82–91.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355211431167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snyder, L. A., Carmichael, J. S., Blackwell, L. V., Cleveland, J. N., & Thornton, G. C. (2010). Perceptions of discrimination and justice among employees with disabilities. Empl Responsib Rights J, 22(1), 5–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-009-9107-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spiegelman, D., & Hertzmark, E. (2005). Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol, 162(3), 199–200.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Statistics Canada. (2014) Microdata user guide: public service employee survey 2014. Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  30. The Council of the European Union (2009) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Off Journal L 303;16–22. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0078:en:HTML. Accessed 8 August 2017.
  31. The University of British Columbia Board of Governors (2012). Research involving human participants. 2012. Available at: http://universitycounsel.ubc.ca/files/2012/06/policy89.pdf. Accessed 8 December 2014.
  32. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1990) Americans with Disabilities Act. Public Law 101-336. 42 U.S.C. 12111, 12112. Available at: https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2017.

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Marie Jones
    • 1
  • Rodrigo Finkelstein
    • 2
  • Mieke Koehoorn
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.School of CommunicationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations