The Town of Viking has put in place a new code of conduct policy to keep employees safe by curtailing “inappropriate” behaviour by “customers.”
The Public Customer Code of Conduct Policy was passed by town council Jan. 20.
“This policy ensures that, if inappropriate behaviour occurs, the town has a comprehensive plan to take appropriate action so that a respectful workplace can be maintained,” stated the report to council by Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Doug Lefsrud.
He said the town is committed “to the highest ethical, professional, and operational standards, and applies these standards when serving the community.
“The new policy aims to ensure that our community is served in alignment with these standards while also ensuring that the town employees are provided with a safe work environment with procedures in place to respond to inappropriate behaviour,” he explained in the report to council.
The policy statement adds that, “while employees are expected to treat all members of the public with respect and dignity, regardless of the member of the public’s behaviour, they are (to be) provided with a safe work environment with procedures in place to respond to inappropriate behaviour.”
The policy itself outlines a list of what is considered inappropriate, including entering restricted areas or loitering in unauthorized areas; causing damage to town property or theft of same; using town facilities or equipment for personal use; not adhering to established procedures; and behaviour that creates a hostile environment with verbal abuse and physical altercations.
Plus, unreasonable conduct included being abusive or intimidating to staff while they investigate a complaint; using excessive or multiple lines of enquiry of staff or departments for a single issue; or refusing to accept the results of an investigation based on a complaint.
The policy states that the town’s approach to managing inappropriate behaviour by members of the public is a four stage process.
This includes giving the person an official warning; then the “single point of contact” would be the CAO to deal with the person; then there would be restricted contact; and finally, there would be a ban on that person from interacting with the town’s facilities, programs or conducting business with the town.
Patricia Harcourt
Editor
