top of page
Protected Grounds
The difference between unintentional discrimination and a defensible operation.
What We Are Doing Well
We keep responsibility tied to performance. When production is on the line we lean on proven hands for the higher skill blocks, and that helps us hit targets. We do think about comfort and privacy in camp and try to keep setups equitable, and we adjust when something is clearly not working. We are direct about naming patterns that might not be fair, which is why we are taking a harder look at how we assign work and flexibility.
Why This Matters To Us
Fair, consistent decisions keep trust high and keep the crew focused on the work instead of wondering about favoritism. When chances to step up move through the whole crew, we build depth, cover absences, and keep production steady week after week. Thoughtful bunking and predictable standards reduce friction in camp, which shows up as better morale and fewer slow starts. This is how we keep good people coming back and keep our name solid with experienced workers.
Our Standard
Our calls on work assignment, opportunity, housing, and discipline are based on job requirements, skills, readiness, and safety. Higher value or higher skill work goes to the person whose skills match the block, and we explain the reason for key assignments at tailgate and note it in our log. We make room for trial opportunities when it is safe to do so, so newer or mid season workers can show capacity and grow. Camp and living setups are planned for dignity, privacy, and comfort within the limits of the site, and we make respectful adjustments fast when something is off. Performance issues are handled with the same steps for everyone, with notes kept, and we do not let personal characteristics or familiarity drive decisions.
Where We Are Building
Work assignments and access to opportunity need tightening. We tend to default to familiar faces for higher skill blocks and to be more flexible with scheduling for long term hands. That pattern can box out newer or mid season workers who have the ability, and it can create a ceiling that we did not intend.
Our handling of performance and complaints is not fully consistent. Similar issues have landed differently depending on who was involved and how well we knew them, and we have not been documenting those calls. That makes expectations fuzzy and leaves room for doubt about fairness across the crew.
Camp and living arrangements are mostly built for logistics, not a clear standard for dignity and comfort. We have seen small frictions from bunk pairings that could have been avoided with a more deliberate setup. A steadier approach here supports respect in camp and keeps the day running smoother.
Our Next Steps
- Build and post a simple skills matrix for each crew that lists block types and the skills required, then use it at tailgate to plan who gets which blocks and to flag one or two trial spots each week.
- Start a one page decision log kept in the rig: date, assignment or schedule call, reason tied to the matrix or job requirement, and supervisor initials.
- Run a rotating trial on tougher blocks twice a week where a newer or mid season worker pairs with a lead hand for part of the day, with a 5 minute debrief written in the log.
- Set a clear, three step discipline path that every supervisor follows: first talk with notes, written note with expectations, final step if needed, all recorded in the same notebook.
- Before each camp move in, do a quick private check in on bunking needs, set pairings with privacy in mind, and give a 24 hour window with a clear way to request a swap.
Discrimination in Hiring
What fair hiring actually looks like in a fast-moving, referral-driven industry.
What We Are Doing Well
We move fast from first contact to decision. Most candidates reach out on Facebook or through a referral, then we do a phone conversation to check experience, availability, and physical readiness. We use a ParQ before camp, and our experienced leads are good at reading functional ability and redirecting toward what the job requires. We do not scrape social media and we lean on trusted referrals, which has brought in solid, work-ready people.
Why This Matters To Us
Running a consistent hiring process helps us pick the right people, set clear expectations, and keep them for the season. It also gives us a crew that reflects the communities we work in, not just our own circles and referral chains. When decisions are tied to job requirements, we can stand behind them if a call is ever questioned. Cleaning up the personal side of conversations protects candidates and our operation while still focusing on full-season commitment.
Our Standard
We hire for functional ability, safety mindset, reliability, and commitment to the full season. For each role we state the physical and operational demands, share the same information with every candidate, and ask the same core questions. We keep the conversation on the work: tasks, pace, hours, travel, camp living, and the candidate's ability to meet those demands. We do not ask about family status or personal circumstances. We take short notes and make the call against the stated requirements, and referrals inform but do not decide.
Where We Are Building
Job requirements are in our heads, not on paper. Different supervisors describe the work in different ways, which can set different expectations for the same role. Putting the demands in writing matters for fairness, safety, and fewer surprises once boots hit the block.
Hiring calls sometimes drift into personal territory like kids at home or other commitments. That creates exposure and can tilt decisions away from actual job ability. Keeping questions on the work helps us judge fairly and pull in a wider range of strong workers.
If a candidate or worker raises a health issue, responses vary by supervisor. That inconsistency can miss simple solutions, or turn a health limitation into a performance problem. Handling these talks the same way protects people and keeps good hands on the crew.
Right now the process depends on who picks up the phone. Gut feel and vouching carry different weight crew to crew, which makes outcomes uneven. Consistency here strengthens our reputation and makes decisions easier to explain if they are reviewed.
We do not have a standard checklist or interview structure across crews. That makes it harder to compare candidates and show how we reached a decision. A steady process builds predictability and trust for both the company and the people we bring on.
Our Next Steps
- Write a one pager for each role that lists physical demands, production targets, travel and camp setup, and season length, then use it on every hiring call and in messages.
- Build a short interview sheet with core questions tied to the role, a simple 1 to 5 rating scale, and a small do not ask sidebar, then run it in every phone screen.
- Hold a one hour supervisors huddle before peak hiring to run sample calls, practice redirecting personal questions, and script how we handle health disclosures by focusing on abilities and workable adjustments.
- Save hiring notes and the decision rationale for each candidate in a shared folder by season and crew so any decision can be traced to job requirements.
- Mid season, spot check two recent hires across different supervisors, compare notes against the standard, and make quick tweaks to keep us lined up.
Duty to Accommodate
Balancing fairness to the individual with the realities of the operation.
What We Are Doing Well
We handle these situations with practical judgment on the block. Our supervisors know the work and the safety limits, and some have already made short term changes like tweaking schedules or shifting duties so a worker can keep going without risking the crew. We move fast and try to land on something workable for both the person and production. When a limit is real, our instinct is to explain it in plain terms tied to the job and the terrain.
Why This Matters To Us
We want to keep good workers and run steady crews, and that depends on handling these conversations well. Having a clear, shared way to recognize when accommodation is in play keeps us from missing something important and lets us act before a small issue becomes a big one. Being consistent across supervisors protects trust and helps us make calls that match how we operate, not whoever happens to be on shift. When we can explain limits clearly and show we explored options, tough decisions land better and the crew sees that we are fair.
Our Standard
When a worker flags a limitation or we notice a change that could point to injury, disability, family status, religion, pregnancy, or similar protected grounds, we treat it as a potential accommodation conversation. We identify the essential duties and safety requirements, ask the worker what might help, and look at short term adjustments that keep the core job and safety intact, such as schedule tweaks or temporary modified duties. We balance the worker’s input with operational realities and escalate to our designated lead when we are unsure or when an adjustment will last more than a brief period. We record what was shared, the options we considered, what we decided, and when we will review it. If an adjustment cannot be done safely or would cause undue hardship, we explain the limit plainly and respectfully, and note what we tried before landing there.
Where We Are Building
We need a shared way to spot when an everyday request or a dip in performance might actually call for an accommodation talk, not just when there is an obvious physical injury. Tightening that recognition will help us catch issues early and handle them consistently across crews.
We lack a simple, consistent process and a place to capture what was discussed, what we tried, and what we decided. Without documentation and a clear point of escalation, decisions vary by supervisor and we lose the thread on what has already been considered.
We are not consistent in how we explore options with the worker or in how we communicate a hard limit. Some leaders can explain the why in a way that lands, others default to no. Bringing more structure to those conversations will help the worker feel heard while keeping safety and production front and centre.
Our Next Steps
- Create a one page accommodation note and stash copies in each foreman binder and our shared drive, with fields for what was raised, essential duties, options tried, the decision, and a review date.
- Hold a 30 minute tailgate with all crew leads on spotting triggers for an accommodation talk, including injury, disability, family status, religion, pregnancy, and mental health, with a few field examples.
- Set a simple rule: any adjustment lasting more than three shifts, or touching safety or crew scheduling, gets called in to the ops lead the same day.
- Draft a pocket script for supervisors on how to say no respectfully: acknowledge the concern, recap options considered, explain the safety or operational reason, offer what can be done, and set a check in date.
- Start a single spreadsheet to log accommodation cases across crews and review it monthly so we can spot patterns and make consistent calls.
Duty to Prevent
Building the conditions where problems are less likely to occur — and easier to address when they do.
What We Are Doing Well
We have some strong crew leaders who are easy to approach, and workers bring them small things early, which tells us trust is there on those crews. We cover respectful conduct at orientation and set the tone for how we treat each other. Most folks know the default is to bring a concern to the crew leader, and none of our supervisors are shutting people down for speaking up. We are straight about where we stand and we want that baseline of approachability across every crew.
Why This Matters To Us
We work in remote camps where living and working together can make raising concerns hard, so clear standards and consistent leadership matter. If expectations are not spelled out the same way across crews, confusion creeps in and small issues snowball. If the reporting path beyond the direct supervisor is unclear, problems can get stuck or stay underground. We run best when there is trust, clarity, and early reporting, so we need everyone pulling in the same direction on this.
Our Standard
We set a clear standard: everyone is treated with respect on and off the block. Harassment, discrimination, bullying, and put downs are not part of our operation. We expect workers to speak up early when something feels off, and we make space to do that without hassle. Supervisors are the first point of contact for concerns, and when the issue involves a supervisor or that does not feel safe, a second option is available and explained at the start of the season. When a concern is raised, we listen, keep it as private as we can, act promptly, and circle back on what we did. Retaliation is not tolerated, and leadership is measured on how well they model this standard.
Where We Are Building
Behavioural Standards: Our expectations are covered at orientation, but the depth depends on who is running it and how much time we have. We do not hand every worker a written standard, so the message does not land the same way every time and we cannot show what was covered. Tightening this up matters because crews need the same baseline on day one and we need something we can point to when questions come up.
Reporting Pathways: Most workers take concerns to the crew leader, but we have not clearly laid out what happens next or the options if the issue involves that leader. In camp, the stakes feel high and that uncertainty can keep people quiet. We need a simple, spelled-out path that lowers the barrier and makes next steps predictable.
Leadership Tone: Approachability varies by supervisor. Some leaders are naturally open, others focus on production and are harder to approach with personal or sensitive issues. We have not built approachability into how we train and measure leaders, so the worker experience is inconsistent.
Documentation and Training: We do not have a written policy handed to every worker, and we cannot show that supervisors have been trained on respectful conduct and how to handle concerns. That makes it hard to demonstrate our due diligence and to keep the message consistent through staff changes and seasonal turnover. Locking this down will support leaders and protect the operation.
Our Next Steps
- Draft a one-page respectful conduct standard, print it for sign-in packets, and post it in camp and crew trucks.
- Build a 10 minute orientation script with a simple checklist for respect and reporting, and have every supervisor use it on day one.
- Post and brief a clear reporting pathway that names an alternate contact beyond the crew leader, with phone, radio channel, and email, and explain what happens after a report.
- Hold two short supervisor huddles, pre-season and mid-season, to practice listening, responding, and closing the loop on concerns using real scenarios.
- Start a confidential concerns log managed by project management that records date, issue, action taken, and close-out so we can show follow-through.
Duty to Recognize
Bringing the same situational awareness you apply to physical risk into how you read your crew.
What We Are Doing Well
We stay close to the day to day, and our supervisors step in quickly when something blows up in the open: a confrontation, someone getting spoken to aggressively, or anything that visibly disrupts the work. Some of our leaders read people well and manage the crew dynamic as part of running production. We are strong on scanning for physical risk and keeping the line moving, and that keeps us in regular contact with crews. When concerns do reach the top, we take them seriously and act.
Why This Matters To Us
We run remote crews, often living and working together, so small tensions can snowball fast if we miss early signals. If a worker is unsure where to take a concern, or the issue involves their own leader, trust drops and problems get bigger and harder to fix. Acting at the first hint protects relationships, keeps focus on the work, and saves time and money. We believe a tight operation depends on catching issues early and making sure concerns land with someone who can act.
Our Standard
We expect every leader to track the social temperature of the crew with the same discipline we bring to safety and production. When a leader sees or hears something off, even a casual comment, a quiet stretch from someone, or a pattern of jokes at one person, that is enough to trigger a same day check in. Leaders document what they noticed and loop in a senior lead when they are unsure or see a pattern building. If the concern involves the immediate supervisor, the pathway is straight to a designated contact outside the line of supervision, with no pushback for raising it. In camp or on the block, reporting options are visible and reachable.
Where We Are Building
Our supervisors pick up the obvious, but early signal recognition is inconsistent. Some leaders are heads down on production and miss shifts in mood or behaviour until it becomes a visible problem. That gap matters because early action keeps camp steady and avoids days lost to preventable conflict.
We tend to react to overt incidents and may overlook uneven treatment, exclusion, or signs that someone needs an accommodation. Those quieter patterns affect crew cohesion and performance just as much as a blowup. Getting better at spotting them will keep people engaged and reduce churn mid season.
Right now there is no clear, well known pathway when the concern is about a supervisor. In a remote camp, living alongside the leader, that uncertainty is a real barrier and can silence concerns for the rest of the season. Without a trusted route outside the chain, issues do not reach someone with authority to act in time.
Our leaders are not all clear that the duty to respond starts the moment they become aware of a concern, even informally. When that is not understood, casual comments or overheard concerns can get set aside while production pressures take over, and small issues grow. Clarity here protects workers and the operation.
Our Next Steps
- We will name two second line contacts outside the crew hierarchy, share their cell numbers, radio call signs, and text options on laminated cards in every truck and tent, and pin the same info in the camp message board and crew group chat.
- We will run a 20 minute toolbox session with crew bosses and assistants using real examples from our season to define early signals and a simple trigger rule: if we see or hear something that affects someone on the crew, we check in that day.
- We will add one short social temperature question to tailgates and rides back to camp, and assign one lead each day to collect quiet comments after the meeting for follow up.
- We will set up a private reporting lane that works in camp: a text only number that goes to the owner, an evening call window, and a weekly confidential tent chat rotation for anyone who wants it.
- We will start a simple page in the supervisor notebook for social flags, review it each week with the operations lead, and decide if anything needs a nudge or formal follow up.
Duty to Respond
What good response looks like when it matters most.
What We Are Doing Well
We move fast when a situation is clearly unsafe, like a physical altercation, a serious harassment allegation, or two people who cannot safely work together. In those moments we separate people and restructure assignments on the spot, and supervisors escalate to me or the operations lead rather than trying to manage it alone. We have leaders who can listen under pressure and follow up promptly, as we saw in the recent crew conflict that was checked the next day. Our crews generally feel concerns are handled reasonably, and we want to keep building on that.
Why This Matters To Us
Responding early and consistently is how we keep a camp that people trust. If our first response or level of action changes from one supervisor to another, workers notice and are less likely to bring things forward. Clear protective steps and a clean handoff into investigation let our leaders act with confidence, and they let us stand behind our decisions later. We run remote operations and need a process that is fair, quick, and visible enough that crews believe it works.
Our Standard
Our standard is simple. When a concern is raised, the supervisor listens, thanks the person, gets the basic facts, and checks for any safety risk right away. If there is any risk or the situation is beyond a simple coaching conversation, the supervisor separates the people as needed and calls me or the operations lead the same shift, or within 24 hours at the latest. We record what was reported, what immediate steps were taken, who is involved, and where things stand, and we keep that record in one place. I or the operations lead decide if a formal investigation is required, lead the follow through, and ensure the person who raised the concern gets an update within 24 hours and again at resolution. If the supervisor is the subject of the concern, the report goes directly to me or the operations lead and the named supervisor is removed from the file.
Where We Are Building
Our first 24 hours are not consistent. In the middle ground where something feels serious but not urgent, our supervisors are unsure what protective step to take or when to escalate, so we tend to watch and wait. That hesitation lets conflict harden and makes it harder for the person who spoke up to feel heard.
We do not have a shared framework across supervisors, so similar concerns sometimes get handled at different levels. Even when there is a reason, the optics are off and the crew reads it as unfair. That undercuts trust in the process and makes people less willing to raise problems early.
Our investigation process is not formalized. We have no written steps, no template for notes, no clear threshold for when a matter moves into a structured process, and no defined way to protect privacy or to close the loop with everyone involved. We also lack a clear pathway for concerns about a supervisor to reach someone with the authority to act. Without this, we cannot show a consistent process or a clear resolution if we are asked.
Our Next Steps
- Put a first 24 hours pocket card in every rig: listen, check safety, separate if needed, call me or the operations lead, log the basics, and check back with the reporter.
- Run a 30 minute tailgate with all supervisors to walk through three middle ground scenarios and agree on default protective actions, like short-term reassignment or riding in different trucks.
- Start a single incident log: supervisors text a photo of a one-page report to the operations lead by end of shift any time a concern is raised, so we have one place for records.
- Set clear triggers for a formal investigation and name who leads it, and commit to updating the reporter within 24 hours and again when it is closed.
- Post an alternate reporting path when the supervisor is the subject, with direct numbers for me and the operations lead in the cookhouse and crew vehicles, and brief the crew on where to find it.
bottom of page