Today’s workplace has four distinct generations working together:

• Traditionalists or Veterans (born approximately 1922–45)
• Baby Boomers (1946–60)
• Generation X (1961–80)
• Millennials or Generation Y (1981–?)

Use the following suggestions to help you get along with co-workers of different generations:

Be self aware.

Think about how people of different generations may view your behaviour and pay attention to your own beliefs and values. For example, Boomers have had to work many long, hard hours in order to stand out among the huge numbers of their generation in the workforce. Gen Xers and Millennials may think that Boomers don’t care about life outside of work because they are focusing on the Boomers’ behaviour rather than the forces that shaped it.

On the other hand, Gen Xers entered the workforce during a time when organizations were downsizing and restructuring. They’ve learned to rely on themselves and to place a high value on their life outside of work. Veterans and Boomers who kept their jobs during the restructuring handled the situation by working harder. To them, Gen Xers may appear too focused on the “life” side of the work-life balance.

Keep an open mind.

Challenge your assumptions. For example, the Veteran who wears a business suit and seems uncomfortable with technology may be highly creative. The Gen Xer who leaves early and files reports from home may not be out partying all night but may be sharing child care with a spouse.

Focus on the goal.

If everyone on the team does their share, it may not matter whether Veterans work at their desks during office hours, whether Boomers work after hours, whether Gen Xers work at home on the weekend or whether Millennials work on laptops in cafés between jobs.

Value diversity.

Accept each generation’s different experiences and perspectives. Veterans and Boomers have the kind of experience that comes from years in the workforce—when it comes to the ups and downs of working life, they really have seen it all. Gen Xers and Millennials can benefit from their experience.

Gen Xers have developed the skills to be independent and self-directed. Millennials learned their teamwork skills in day care. Both have grown up working and playing with technology: cell phones with cameras, text messaging, wireless connections from hand-held computers to company networks. Millennials and Gen Xers use all available technology effortlessly to work at any time, from anywhere. What may sometimes look like youthful arrogance is more likely competence and confidence—Veterans and Boomers can benefit by recognizing the difference.

Support and learn from each other.

Co-workers from each generation have much to offer each other. For example, Gen Xers and Millennials can share their technology skills with Boomers and Veterans. The older generations can mentor the younger. Each generation has something to learn from:

Veterans’ perspectives on loyalty
Boomers’ dedication to the goal
Gen Xers’ skills at achieving work-life balance
Millennials’ comfort with diversity

Discover common interests.

Sports, hobbies, films, favourite TV shows, volunteering—people from different generations may share more interests than they realize. What starts out as small talk in the coffee room may develop into an appreciation for a different point of view or a chance to explore a new skill.

Veterans, Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials all bring a wide range of skills, outlooks and experiences to the workplace. When generations recognize and respect their differences, they stay open to the opportunity to learn from each other.

Employment Law – Unjust Dismissal – Punitive damages – Standards of Review – Availability of punitive damages for wrongful dismissal if employer’s conduct was discrimination or harassment that breached human rights legislation – Relevance of principles applicable to contracts for peace of mind to punitive damages in an employment law context – Whether a trial judge should conduct independent research other than as to matters of law and, if so, what procedures are required – Whether punitive damages award should be reduced on appeal without increasing compensatory damages; Whether discrimination and harassment should be a separate cause of action; Whether human rights legislation should be incorporated into individual employment contracts; Effect of proportionality on compensatory and punitive damage awards; Whether  overriding and palpable error standard of review should be integrated with  rationality standard of review.

The respondent was employed by the applicant.  He began to suffer from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.  He received long term disability benefits but the benefits were cancelled and he returned to work.  He continued to experience intermittent absences.   The applicant advised the respondent to apply for a program that exempted employees from attendance-related discipline.  The respondent saw a company physician.  The employment relationship deteriorated.  The respondent retained counsel and his enrollment in the program offering exemption from discipline was cancelled.  The applicant demanded that the respondent see another company physician. The respondent requested more information on the purpose, methodology and parameters of the examination.  The applicant refused to provide further details and the respondent refused to meet the doctor.  The applicant terminated the respondent’s employment.  The respondent brought an action for wrongful dismissal.

I imagine it will be some time before this case is completely resolved.

Supreme Court of Canada – Decisions – Judgements to be Rendered in Leave Applications.

Diane Carr v. Humpty’s Family Restaurant and Humpty’s Restaurants International Inc. (July 21, 2006; Delano W. Tolley, Panel Chair)

Discrimination – Grounds – Gender – Sexual Harassment – Area – Employment – Kitchen worker alleged sexual harassment at the workplace arising from a colleague’s persistent sexual comments and gestures directed at the complainant – Restaurant manager did nothing when advised of the colleague’s behaviour – When complainant and co-worker threatened to quit if situation was not corrected by management, their employment was terminated – Perpetrator testified he was unaware his comments were offensive to the complainant and his gestures were made in fun – Sexual harassment included inappropriate comments – Express objection need not be shown to establish that the behaviour is unwelcome where a reasonable person knew or ought to have known that it is unwelcome. Complainant awarded $4,000 in damages for pain and suffering, lost wages and reimbursement for costs incurred in bringing the complaint – Complaint allowed.

The complainant kitchen worker alleged sexual harassment in the workplace because of a colleague’s sexual comments and gestures directed to the complainant. The restaurant manager was advised of the behaviour but did nothing. After numerous incidents, the complainant and a co-worker gave the manager an ultimatum that they would quit employment if the situation was not corrected. As a result, both the complainant and co-worker’s employment was terminated. The perpetrator of the comments and objectionable conduct stated he never heard any complaint from co-workers regarding his conduct and that some incidents were made in fun.

HELD: Complaint allowed. Sexual harassment included inappropriate comments. Actions made “in fun” are not relevant to determining whether a violation of the law occurred. Express objection need not be shown to establish that the behaviour is unwelcome where a reasonable person knew or ought to have known that it is unwelcome. The complainant was awarded $4,000 in damages for pain and suffering, lost wages and reimbursement to the complainant for costs incurred in bringing the complaint.

Cases Considered: Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., (1989) 10 C.H.R.R. D/6205; McNulty v. G.N.F. Holdings Ltd. 16 C.H.R.R. D/418.

Statutes and Regulations Considered: Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14, s. 7(1).

Read the complete decision: PDF

Blakes Bulletin on Labour & Employment ( PDF 146 KB) provides a summary of the CoA decision.

VANCOUVER (CP) – A B.C. Human Rights tribunal has ordered owners of the Nanaimo Burger King to pay two women they fired almost $45,000 dollars for sexist comments.

Macleans.ca: Human Rights tribunal says sexist remarks will cost Burger King owner $45,000

There are several things employers can learn from this judgement that can help reduce human rights problems as well as general employment issues.

1. The first lesson is related to human rights, don’t ask questions in the areas protected by human rights legislation. In this case, asking Baker when she planned to have children violated Alberta’s Individual Rights Protection Act.
2. Also related to human rights, make sure you have clear policies around discrimination/harassment issues and your staff understand their responsibilities relative to these policies.
3. Watch the time factor for probationary periods, In Alberta, that is 90 days. If you wait to day 91, the probationary period no longer applies.
4. Don’t leave early performance issues to day 90. Invest some effort in developing skills or correcting problems from the beginning of the employment relationship.
5. Ensure that you have clear policy and procedures around performance evaluation and that standards are based on clear job descriptions and task lists.

In this case, it looks like a deliberate decision was made to terminate an employee because of pregnancy. However, it wouldn’t take too much careless to put an employer in a similar situation. Some reasonable attention to process on the front end will reduce these types of human rights complaints.

Download judgement from Alberta Human Rights. (pdf)

Technorati Tags: Human Rights, Discrimination, Gender, Performance Management

In a small business, having a culture of equality can mean the difference between success and failure.

• Damaged reputation
• Limited internal competition
• Morale
• Turnover
• Wrong signals to potential clients
• Limited hiring pool
• Ethical precedents
• Legal violations

Read The True Cost of Discrimination