Focus on Harassment

The Focus series is a collection of reports that present the results of the 2017 Public Service Employee Survey, broken down by theme. Focus on Harassment looks at results related to harassment and examines how they relate to results for other aspects of the workplace.

On this page

Background

Under the Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution, deputy heads are responsible for protecting employees from harassment by establishing and maintaining a respectful and harassment-free workplace and by responding to all forms of harassment. The survey is one tool that helps gauge whether Government of Canada workplaces are free of harassment.

Harassment is normally a series of incidents, but it can be one severe incident that has a lasting impact on the individual.

Harassment is any improper conduct by an individual that is directed at and offensive to another individual in the workplace, including at any event or any location related to work, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm.

It comprises objectionable act(s), comment(s) or display(s) that demean, belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat.

It also includes harassment within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in other words, based on:

  • race
  • national or ethnic origin
  • colour
  • religion
  • age
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
  • gender identity or expression
  • marital status
  • family status
  • genetic characteristics (including a requirement to undergo a genetic test, or disclose the results of a genetic test)
  • disability
  • conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered

Incidence of harassment

18% of employees indicated that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years, similar to 2014 (19%).

Sources of harassment

Employees who indicated that they had been harassed on the job in the past 2 years reported the following as the source(s) of the harassment:

  • individuals with authority over them: 63%, unchanged from 2014
  • co-workers: 51%, similar to 2014 (50%)
  • members of the public: 9%, unchanged from 2014
  • individuals working for them: 8%, similar to 2014 (7%)
  • individuals from other departments or agencies: 6%, similar to 2014 (5%)
  • individuals for whom they have custodial responsibility: 5%, similar to 2014 (4%)

Nature of harassment

Employees who indicated that they had been harassed on the job in the past 2 years were asked to indicate the nature of the harassment they had experienced. The following were the most prevalent responses:

  • offensive remark: 57%, unchanged from 2014
  • unfair treatment: 48%, a slight increase from 2014 (46%)
  • being excluded or being ignored: 45%, a slight increase from 2014 (43%)
  • aggressive behaviour: 41%, unchanged from 2014
  • humiliation: 41%, similar to 2014 (40%)
  • excessive control: 40%, unchanged from 2014

For 10% of employees who had been harassed, the harassment consisted of a sexual comment or gesture; for 2%, the harassment consisted of physical violence.

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Of the 18% of employees who indicated that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years, 8% indicated that they had filed a grievance or formal complaint, similar to 2014 (7%).

The other actions taken by employees to address the harassment were:

  • discussed the matter with their supervisor or senior manager: 52%, similar to 2014 (51%)
  • discussed the matter with the person(s) from whom they experienced the harassment: 29%, similar to 2014 (30%)
  • contacted a union representative: 22%, similar to 2014 (21%)
  • resolved the matter informally on their own: 14%, a slight decrease from 2014 (16%)
  • used an informal conflict resolution process: 11%, similar to 2014 (12%)
  • contacted a human resources advisor in their department or agency: 9%, similar to 2014 (10%)

25% of employees who indicated that they had been harassed took no action, unchanged from 2014.

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

Employees who indicated that they had been harassed on the job in the past 2 years but did not file a grievance or formal complaint were asked to indicate their reason(s) for not doing so. The following were the most frequently cited reasons:

  • did not believe it would make a difference: 53%, similar to 2014 (54%)
  • fear of reprisal: 45%, unchanged from 2014
  • concerns about the formal complaint process: 26%, similar to 2014 (25%)
  • did not think the incident was serious enough: 17%, similar to 2014 (16%)
  • issue was resolved: 12%, similar to 2014 (13%)
  • changed jobs: 12%, similar to 2014 (11%)
  • too distraught: 12%, similar to 2014 (11%)

Harassment in current organization

A question was added to the 2017 survey to find out whether the harassment an employee had experienced had occurred in the employee’s current organization. Of the 18% of employees who indicated that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years, 93% indicated that it had occurred while they were an employee of their current organization.

Satisfaction with organization’s response to harassment and efforts to prevent it

Employees were asked about their satisfaction with their organization’s efforts to prevent and respond to harassment in the workplace. 50% of employees indicated that they were satisfied with how matters related to harassment are resolved in their organization, unchanged from 2014; 24% of employees responded that they didn’t know.

66% of employees felt that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment, a slight increase from 2014 (64%) and a large decrease from 2011 (72%); 9% of employees responded that they didn’t know.

Key observations

The following observations do not necessarily indicate relationships of cause and effect, but they may provide insight into some of the connections between harassment and different aspects of the workplace.

Organizational performance issues

Harassment is linked to organizational performance issues such as lack of stability, unreasonable deadlines and high staff turnover. The incidence of harassment was higher among employees who indicated that their work always, almost always or often suffers because of such issues, as shown in

Figure 1: Harassment among employees who indicated that the quality of their work suffers because of an organizational performance issue, by issue
Graphic of harassment among employees who indicated that the quality of their work suffers because of an organizational performance issue, by issue. Text version below:
Figure 1 - Text version
Harassment among employees who indicated that the quality of their work suffers because of an organizational performance issue, by issue
Issue Always, almost always or often Never, almost never or rarely
Constantly changing priorities 25% 12%
Lack of stability in my department or agency 28% 11%
Too many approval stages 23% 13%
Unreasonable deadlines 26% 13%
Having to do the same or more work, but with fewer resources 25% 11%
High staff turnover 26% 13%
Overly complicated or unnecessary business processes 24% 12%

Workplace well-being

Harassment is linked to lower levels of workplace well-being. For example, employees who indicated that they had been harassed on the job in the past 2 years also reported having higher levels of stress and emotional exhaustion and were less likely to describe their workplace as psychologically healthy.

One in three employees (33%) who had been harassed on the job in the past 2 years indicated that harassment or discrimination caused them stress at work to a large or very large extent.

Employees who had been harassed were more likely than those who had not been harassed to indicate that:

  • they have high or very high levels of work-related stress (40% compared with 16%)
  • they feel emotionally drained at the end of their workday (50% compared with 24%)

29% of employees who had been harassed indicated that they would describe their workplace as psychologically healthy, compared with 63% of employees who had not been harassed.

Sense of value and empowerment

Employees who indicated that they had been harassed on the job in the past 2 years were less likely to feel valued and empowered. For example, 39% of employees who had been harassed felt valued at work, compared with 70% for employees who had not been harassed. Furthermore, employees who had been harassed were less likely than those who had not been harassed to feel that they would be supported by their organization if they proposed a new idea (35% compared with 63%).

Respect

Harassment and organizational efforts to prevent and resolve harassment are linked to perceptions of respect in the organization.

For example, employees who agreed that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment were more likely than those who disagreed to indicate that:

  • their organization treats them with respect (93% compared with 38%)
  • in their work unit, every individual is accepted as an equal member of the team (86% compared with 34%)

Confidence in senior management

Satisfaction with organizational efforts to prevent and resolve harassment is linked to employees’ perceptions of senior management. Employees who had been harassed were less likely than those who had not been harassed to have confidence in the senior management of their organization (35% compared with 62%). 73% of employees who agreed that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment had confidence in senior management, compared with 18% of employees who disagreed.

Satisfaction with the organization

Harassment is linked to lower levels of satisfaction with the organization. 41% of employees who had been harassed were satisfied with their organization, compared with 73% of employees who had not been harassed. Employees who had been harassed were also less likely than those who had not been harassed to indicate that they would recommend their organization as a great place to work (40% compared with 72%).

Retention

Harassment may lead to retention issues. 38% of employees who had been harassed indicated that they would prefer to remain with their organization even if a comparable position was available elsewhere, compared with 64% of employees who had not been harassed. Employees who had been harassed were also more likely than those who had not been harassed to indicate that they intend to leave their position in the next 2 years (34% compared with 24%). Further, of the employees who experienced harassment and indicated that they had taken no action to address it, 9% indicated that the reason they hadn’t taken action was that they had changed jobs.

Fear of reprisal

Employees who had been harassed were more likely to fear reprisal than those who had not been harassed. For instance, 23% of employees who had been harassed felt that they could initiate a formal recourse process such as a grievance, complaint or appeal without fear of reprisal, compared with 54% of employees who had not been harassed. Further, employees who had been harassed by a superior were less likely than those who had been harassed by a colleague to feel that they could initiate a formal recourse process without fear of reprisal (16% compared with 24%). When asked why they had not filed a grievance or formal complaint about the harassment, 58% of those who had been harassed by a superior indicated that it was because they were afraid of reprisal, compared with 41% of those who had been harassed by colleagues.

Discrimination

Harassment and discrimination are closely linked. 31% of employees who indicated that they had been harassed also indicated that they had been discriminated against, whereas 3% of employees who indicated that they had not been harassed indicated that they had been discriminated against. In addition, 67% of employees who indicated that they had been discriminated against also indicated that they had been harassed; 14% of employees who indicated that they had not been discriminated against indicated that they had been harassed.

Results by demographic factor

Aboriginal employees

Incidence of harassment

As was the case in 2014, employees who identified as Aboriginal were more likely than other employees to indicate that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years (28% compared with 17%).

Sources of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, Aboriginal employees were more likely than other employees to indicate that they had been harassed by:

  • their colleagues (56% compared with 50%)
  • members of the public (12% compared with 9%)
  • individuals for whom they have a custodial responsibility (9% compared with 5%)

Nature of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been the victim of harassment, Aboriginal employees were more likely than other employees to indicate that the harassment took the form of:

  • unfair treatment (54% compared with 48%)
  • being excluded or ignored (51% compared with 44%)
  • excessive control (45% compared with 40%)
  • a personal attack (42% compared with 35%)
  • a threat (17% compared with 13%)

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, Aboriginal employees were more likely than other employees to have:

  • contacted their union representative (27% compared with 21%)
  • filed a grievance or formal complaint (11% compared with 8%)

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

The reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint were fairly similar for Aboriginal and other employees. The most frequently cited reasons were that:

  • they did not believe it would make a difference
  • they were afraid of reprisal

Persons with disabilities

Incidence of harassment

More than one third (37%) of employees with disabilities indicated that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years, compared with 17% for other employees. These results are the same as those for 2014.

Sources of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, those with disabilities were more likely than other employees to indicate that the source of the harassment was an individual with authority over them (73% compared with 62%).

Nature of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been the victim of harassment, those with disabilities were more likely than other employees to indicate that the harassment involved:

  • being treated unfairly (59% compared with 46%)
  • being excluded or ignored (54% compared with 43%)
  • excessive control (48% compared with 39%)
  • humiliation (47% compared with 40%)
  • a personal attack (41% compared with 35%)
  • interference with work or withholding resources (37% compared with 29%)

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Employees with disabilities were more likely than other employees to indicate that they had:

  • contacted their union representative about the harassment (33% compared with 20%)
  • used an informal conflict resolution process (14% compared with 10%)
  • filed a grievance or formal complaint (14% compared with 7%)

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, those with disabilities were slightly less likely than other employees to indicate they had taken no action in response to it (23% compared with 26%).

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

Employees with disabilities who indicated that they had been harassed but who did not file a grievance or formal complaint were more likely than other employees to indicate that they did not do so because they:

  • did not believe it would make a difference (58% compared with 52%)
  • were afraid of reprisal (54% compared with 43%)
  • had concerns about the formal complaint process (32% compared with 25%)
  • were too distraught (18% compared with 11%)

Satisfaction with organization’s response to harassment and efforts to prevent it

Employees with disabilities were less likely than other employees to agree that they are satisfied with how matters related to harassment are resolved in their organization (36% compared with 51%) and that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment (53% compared with 67%).

Members of visible minorities

Incidence of harassment

Identical proportions of visible minority employees and other employees indicated that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years (18%). The 2017 results for visible minority employees and other employees were also very similar to the 2014 results (19% compared with 18%).

Sources of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, visible minority employees were slightly more likely than other employees to indicate that they had been harassed by individuals with authority over them (66% compared with 63%) or by their colleagues (53% compared with 50%).

Nature of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, visible minority employees were more likely than other employees to indicate that the harassment took the form of unfair treatment (55% compared with 47%).

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Among employees who had been harassed, visible minority employees were slightly more likely than other employees to indicate that they had taken no action to address the harassment (28% compared with 25%). Identical proportions of visible minority and other employees indicated that they filed a grievance or formal complaint (8%).

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

The reasons given for not filing a grievance or formal complaint were similar for visible minority employees and other employees. The most frequently cited reasons were that:

  • they did not believe it would make a difference (51% compared with 53%)
  • they were afraid of reprisal (45% compared with 45%)
  • they had concerns about the formal complaint process (27% compared with 26%)

Satisfaction with organization’s response to harassment and efforts to prevent it

Similar proportions of visible minority employees and other employees agreed that they are satisfied with how matters related to harassment are resolved in their organization (52% compared with 50%) and that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment (68% compared with 66%).

Women

Incidence of harassment

As in past surveys, women were more likely than men to indicate that they had experienced harassment on the job in the past 2 years (19% compared with 16%).

Sources of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, women were:

  • less likely than men to indicate that the harassment had come from individuals with authority over them (61% compared with 67%)
  • more likely than men to indicate that the harassment had come from co-workers (53% compared with 48%)

Nature of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, women were less likely than men to indicate that the harassment took the form of:

  • unfair treatment (46% compared with 51%)
  • aggressive behaviour (39% compared with 44%)
  • excessive control (38% compared with 43%)
  • threats (11% compared with 17%)

Women were more likely than men to indicate that the harassment involved sexual comments or gestures (13% compared with 6%).

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, women were less likely than men to indicate that they had taken no action to address the harassment (23% compared with 29% of men). Women were more likely than men to have discussed the matter with their supervisor or a senior manager (55% compared with 46%) and slightly less likely than men to have filed a grievance or formal complaint (7% compared with 9%).

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

Among employees who indicated that they had been the victim of harassment but who did not file a grievance or formal complaint, women were more likely than men to indicate that they did not do so because they had changed jobs (15% compared to 9%).

Satisfaction with organization’s response to harassment and efforts to prevent it

Women were less likely than men to agree that they are satisfied with how matters related to harassment are resolved in their organization (48% compared with 53%), but similar proportions of women and men agreed that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment (66% compared with 67%).

Age

Incidence of harassment

Younger employees, especially those aged 24 and under, were less likely than older employees to indicate that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years. Employees aged between 45 and 54 years were the most likely to indicate that they had been harassed. This pattern was also observed in past surveys.

Figure 2 shows the incidence of harassment by age group.

Figure 2: Harassment by age group
Graphic of harassment by age group. Text version below:
Figure 2 - Text version
Harassment by age group
24 years and under 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 years and over
9% 14% 17% 18% 19% 20% 20% 19% 17%

Sources of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, younger employees were:

  • more likely than older employees to have been harassed by co-workers
  • less likely than older employees to have been harassed by individuals with authority over them

Co-workers were the main source of harassment for employees aged 29 and younger, whereas individuals with authority were the main source of harassment for employees aged 30 and over.

Figure 3 shows the incidence of harassment by co-workers and by individuals with authority, broken down by age group.

Figure 3: Harassment by co-workers and individuals with authority, by age group
Graphic of harassment by co-workers and individuals with authority, by age group. Text version below:
Figure 3 - Text version
Harassment by co-workers and individuals with authority, by age group
Age group Co-workers Individuals with authority
24 years and under 66% 40%
25 to 29 years 62% 54%
30 to 34 years 56% 60%
35 to 39 years 54% 64%
40 to 44 years 51% 65%
45 to 49 years 50% 65%
50 to 54 years 46% 66%
55 to 59 years 46% 65%
60 years and over 46% 65%

Nature of harassment

Among employees who indicated that they had been harassed, younger employees were much more likely than older employees to indicate that the harassment was sexual.

Figure 4 shows the incidence of harassment in the form of a sexual comment or gesture, broken down by age group.

Figure 4: Harassment in form of sexual comment or gesture, by age group
Graphic of harassment in form of sexual comment or gesture, by age group. Text version below:
Figure 4 - Text version
Harassment in form of sexual comment or gesture, by age group
24 years and under 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 years and over
27% 21% 18% 15% 11% 8% 6% 4% 3%

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Among those who indicated that they had been harassed, younger employees were less likely than older employees to have taken action to address the harassment they experienced, including file a grievance or a formal complaint.

Figure 5 shows, for each age group, the proportion of employees who:

  •  filed a grievance or a formal complaint to address the harassment they had experienced
  •  took no action
Figure 5: Employees who filed a grievance or formal complaint and those who took no action, by age
Graphic of employees who filed a grievance or formal complaint and those who took no action, by age. Text version below:
Figure 5 - Text version
Employees who filed a grievance or formal complaint and those who took no action, by age group
Age group Filed a grievance or formal complaint Took no action
24 years and under 2% 39%
25 to 29 years 5% 30%
30 to 34 years 7% 28%
35 to 39 years 7% 27%
40 to 44 years 8% 26%
45 to 49 years 8% 24%
50 to 54 years 9% 23%
55 to 59 years 10% 23%
60 years and over 10% 23%

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

The reasons for which employees did not file a grievance or a formal complaint varied by age. For example, the proportion of employees who did not file a grievance or formal complaint because they did not think the incident was serious enough steadily decreased with age (45% of employees aged 24 and under, compared with 12% of employees aged 60 and over). The proportion of employees who did not file a grievance or formal complaint because they did not know what to do, where to go or whom to ask also steadily decreased with age (21% of employees aged 24 and under, compared with 7% of employees aged 60 and over).

Satisfaction with organization’s response to harassment and efforts to prevent it

Employees aged 24 and under were more likely than employees in older age groups to agree that:

  • their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment (81% compared with 63% to 72% for employees in older age groups)
  • they are satisfied with how matters related to harassment are resolved in their organization (72% compared with 47% to 58% for employees in older age groups)

Occupational category

Incidence of harassment

Employees in the Executive category were the least likely to indicate that they had been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 2 years. As in past surveys, employees in the Operational category were more than twice as likely as employees in the Executive category to indicate that they had been harassed on the job.Footnote 1

Figure 6 shows the incidence of harassment by occupational category.

Figure 6: Harassment by occupational category
Graphic of harassment by occupational category. Text version below:
Figure 6 - Text version
Harassment by occupational category
Executive Scientific and Professional Administration and Foreign Services Technical Administrative Support Operational
14% 16% 17% 18% 19% 30%

Sources of harassment

When asked about the source(s) of the harassment, employees in all occupational categories except Administrative Support most often indicated individuals with authority over them. The most commonly cited source of harassment for Administrative Support employees was co-workers (60%), followed by individuals with authority (58%).

Employees in the Operational category were more likely than employees in the other occupational categories to indicate the following as the source(s) of the harassment:

  • individuals with authority over them: 68% compared with 58% to 66% for employees in the other categories
  • individuals for whom they have a custodial responsibility: 19% compared with 1% to 2% for employees in the other categories
  • members of the public: 16% compared with 6% to 11% for employees in the other categories
  • individuals from other departments or agencies: 9% compared with 4% to 7% for employees in the other categories

Employees in the Executive category were:

  • more likely than employees in the other occupational categories to indicate that they had been harassed by individuals working for them (25% compared with 2% to 10% for employees in the other categories)
  • less likely to indicate that they had been harassed by co-workers (26% compared with 46% to 60% for employees in the other categories)

Nature of harassment

When asked to indicate the nature of the harassment they had experienced, employees in the Operational category were more likely than employees in the other occupational categories to indicate the following:

  • offensive remarks: 66% compared with 51% to 56% for employees in the other categories
  • unfair treatment: 55% compared with 45% to 48% for employees in the other categories
  • personal attack: 44% compared with 33% to 38% for employees in the other categories
  • yelling or shouting: 41% compared with 25% to 30% for employees in the other categories
  • threat: 21% compared with 11% to 14% for employees in the other categories
  • sexual comment or gesture: 16% compared with 3% to 10% for employees in the other categories
  • physical violence: 7% compared with 1% to 2% for employees in the other categories

Employees in the Executive category were more likely than employees in the other occupational categories to indicate that they had experienced aggressive behaviour (51% compared with 38% to 48% for employees in the other categories).

Actions taken to address the harassment experienced

Among employees who indicated that they had been the victim of harassment, those in the Executive category were the least likely to indicate that they had taken no action (21% compared with 24% to 27% for employees in the other categories).

Employees in the Executive category were more likely than those in the other occupational categories to indicate that they had discussed the matter with their supervisor or a senior manager (56% compared with 45% to 54% for employees in the other categories) or with the person(s) from whom they had experienced the harassment (35% compared with 25% to 31% for employees in the other categories).

However, employees in the Executive category were the least likely to indicate that they had filed a grievance or formal complaint (3% compared with 13% of employees in the Operational category and 6% to 9% of employees in the other occupational categories).

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint

Reasons for not filing a grievance or formal complaint were fairly similar across all occupational categories; however, employees in the Operational category were more likely than those in the other categories to indicate that they had not filed a grievance or formal complaint because they did not believe it would make a difference (61% compared with 47% to 54% for employees in the other occupational categories).

Satisfaction with organization’s response to harassment and efforts to prevent it

Employees in the Executive category expressed the most positive opinions about their organization’s efforts to resolve and prevent harassment, whereas employees in the Operational category expressed the least positive opinions.

On the resolution side, 72% of all employees in the Executive category indicated that they are satisfied with how matters related to harassment are resolved in their organization, compared with:

  • 36% of employees in the Operational category
  • 47% to 53% of employees in the other occupational categories

On the prevention side, 82% of all employees in the Executive category agreed that their organization works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment, compared with:

  • 47% of employees in the Operational category
  • 64% to 69% of employees in the other occupational categories

How the percentages were calculated

Throughout this report, the percentages represent the following.

  • the sum of “Strongly agree” and “Somewhat agree” responses
  • the sum of “Always / Almost always” and “Often” responses
  • the sum of “Very high” and “High” responses
  • “Yes” response to yes-or-no questions
  • the selected responses in lists where more than one response could be selected

The totals used to calculate the percentages do not include the responses “Don’t know” and “Not applicable”.

For additional results, consult the Public Service Employee Survey website.

Appendix: Occupational groups in each occupational category

Occupational category Occupational groups
Executive CIEXC, DE (NFB), DM, DX, EX, EXPCX, GR-EX, MGT (CNSC), MGT (NRC), PX/AAG/AG, REX, RLE
Scientific and Professional AC, AG, AP-VFM, AR, AU, BI, CH, CISPC, DE, DS, EC, ED, EN, ES, FO, HR, LC, LIB (NRC), LP, LS, MA, MD, MT, ND, NU, OP, PC, PH, PM-MCO, PS, RCO, RO (NRC), SE, SG, SI, SP (NFB), SR (CFIA), SW, UT, VM
Administration and Foreign Services AD (NFB), AP-FIN, AS, CO, CS, FI, FS, HR/RH (CRA), IS, OM, PE, PG, PM, SP (CRA), TR, WP
Technical AI, AO, CIPTC, DD, EG, EL, EU, GT, PI, PY, RO, SO, TC, TI, TO
Administrative Support AD (NRC), AS (NFB), CIASC, CM, CR, DA, OE, ST
Operational CX, FB, FR, GL, GS, HP, HS, LI, OP (NFB), OP (NRC), PO-IMA, PO-TCO, PR, SC, SR
Other AB, ASG, FT, GR, IM, IN, ITS/LA, MG, NB, RE, REG, UNI, Other, Students, Governor in Council Appointees
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: