L’impact de la norme portant interdiction du harcèlement psychologique ou moral au travail sur les droits de direction de l’employeur. Une étude de droit comparé : Québec, France, Belgique
Our project aims to measure the impact of the prohibition of psychological harassment at work on the company's management rights in Quebec (art.81.18 and seq., L.n.t). Moreover, as in this area other countries have distinguished themselves as pioneers by the introduction of a legislative framework prohibiting bullying at work and for the sake of having a more global vision of the phenomenon, we have found it useful to approach the subject under a comparative law approach, simultaneously analyzing French, Belgian and Quebec law.   Indeed, to counter violence in the workplace, legally, Belgium and France have banned acts of harassment and their repetition, by amending and adding penal provisions in their respective labor laws. Quebec has moved in the same direction by amending its labor standards act. All these standards have in common the establishment of a protection regime for employees who are victims of psychological or moral harassment. The basis of this protection is to a large extent the promotion of fundamental human rights in the domestic legal order. For example, in European law, workplace bullying is considered to be a form of discrimination that undermines the principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation.   However, we know that the main raison d'être of labor law as emphasized by Pierre Verge and Guylaine Vallée, is to limit the power that the employer has over the employee, which manifests itself through his rights of direction. These rights effectively grant the employer a wide margin of maneuver in the conduct of its business. He can thus «affect changes in company structures or work organization, modify production processes, implement and use new technologies, reduce production and labor force, etc. »   He can also take any disciplinary measure, including dismissing any employee who does not comply with his orders. As we can see, in several areas related to the management of his organization, the employer has long decided freely.   Thus, raising the question of psychological or moral harassment at work seems to question the power that the employer has to freely regulate his business.  Our objective in approaching the subject is to understand the justifications underlying this intervention of the state in a field that until then was not specifically targeted by the law and the impact of this prohibition on the rights of direction so as to confirm or refute our hypothesis of a dynamics of internal normative change of the company impelled by this prohibition. To achieve this, we will use the method of jurisprudential and doctrinal analysis inflected by a socio-legal perspective. This will enable us to understand whether there has been a change in the nature of management rights in light of the new situation. If so, how, and in what measure (s)? If not why?
Psychological harassment moral harassment Rights of direction Labor law Fundamental human rights Comparative Law.