+34
Howard Levitt: Employers must be more rigorous in examining and documenting complaints
An employer cannot simply investigate a harassment complaint, reach a conclusion and assume the matter is finished, writes Howard Levitt. In Alyssa Gassi v.
The Corporation of the County of Lambton, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, for the first time, substantively considered what it means under theThe decision does not create a rigid investigative checklist. That is good news for employers. It does, however, make one thing clear: an employer cannot simply investigate a harassment complaint, reach a conclusion and assume the matter is finished.
Section 32.0.7 of the OHSA requires an employer to ensure that an investigation into an incident or complaint of workplace harassment is appropriate in the circumstances. It also requires the employer to advise the complainant and, where applicable, the alleged harasser in writing of the investigation's results and any corrective action or to be taken. The employee, a municipal prosecutor, made a workplace harassment complaint identifying several people and alleging a range of inappropriate conduct.
The County assigned a Senior Labour Relations Consultant to investigate. He had investigation training, met with the complainant for approximately three hours and subsequently interviewed two County employees. On the surface, this appeared to be a prompt, professionally handled investigation. The Board itself recognized that the County took the complaint seriously, acted promptly, used an investigator with relevant training and knowledge, maintained confidentiality and obtained an understanding of the complaint.
The investigator had told the complainant she would have an opportunity to respond to information gathered during the investigation. After interviewing the two County employees, however, he concluded the investigation without giving her that opportunity. He also did not adequately explain why he had interviewed those individuals but not others identified in the complaint. That finding should change how employers approach harassment complaints.
Importantly, the Board did not turn every workplace investigation into a miniature trial. It expressly recognized that an appropriate investigation does not necessarily require investigating every allegation or interviewing every person named in a complaint. The investigator retains discretion to determine the appropriate scope of the investigation. Employers should not read Lambton as requiring an external investigator, dozens of interviews or a report hundreds of pages longAn investigator should be able to answer basic questions: Why was this witness interviewed?
Why was another not? Why was one allegation pursued while another was excluded? What evidence was material? Did either party have an opportunity to respond to information that could materially affect the conclusion?
If the investigator makes those decisions intelligently, proportionately and documents the reasons, the employer will be in a much stronger position if the investigation is later challenged. If the decisions appear arbitrary, the fact that the investigator may ultimately have reached the correct conclusion will not save the employer. The Board said the issue was not whether it would have reached the same conclusion as the investigator.
The issue was whether the investigation was fairly and appropriately undertaken in a manner that would permit the employer to determine whether workplace harassment had occurred. An internal investigator is entirely permissible and almost invariably preferable. Internal investigators understand the workplace, its policies and its personnel. But the investigator must be sufficiently independent and should understand the OHSA, the employer's harassment policy and the basic principles of workplace investigations.
An external investigator should be considered where independence, conflicts, complexity or expertise make that appropriate. A complaint may contain 10 allegations. That does not mean all 10 require a full investigation. The investigator can determine that some matters fall outside the scope or do not require further investigation.
There is no requirement to interview everyone named in a complaint. But if an apparently important witness is not interviewed, the investigator should be able to explain why.
"The investigator did not think it was necessary" is unlikely to be enough if the decision is later challenged. Lambton demonstrates the importance of showing the reasoning behind the investigative scope. This may be the most important practical lesson from Lambton. If the investigator obtains evidence that contradicts the complainant's account, raises a significant new issue or could materially affect the ultimate finding, the affected party should ordinarily have an opportunity to address it before the investigation is concluded.
That does not mean endless rounds of interviews. It means allowing a meaningful response to material evidence. The file should demonstrate the reasoning process, not merely contain interview notes and a conclusion. Record why significant witnesses were interviewed, why others were not, why particular allegations were pursued or excluded, what evidence was considered material and how conflicting evidence was assessed.
There is an equal danger in turning every workplace complaint into a six-month legal proceeding. Investigations should be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations, the number of people involved, the complexity of the evidence and the consequences of the findings. The OHSA does not require an external specialist in many cases. An inspector can, however, order an employer to have an investigation conducted by an impartial person with specified knowledge, experience or qualifications, at the employer's expense.
Finally, keep harassment investigations separate from employment decisions, while documenting both carefully. Lambton is particularly instructive because the Board rejected the employee's separate claim that her termination was retaliation for making the harassment complaint. The County was able to establish that the termination resulted from other workplace conduct and not the complaint. That is an important distinction.
If legitimate performance or misconduct concerns arise during an investigation, employers should document them immediately, identify the evidence supporting them and ensure that the resulting employment decision is consistent with normal workplace practices. I've often heard complaints raised by other employees about the complainant, issues the employer had not previously been unaware of. Although disciplining them may look suspicious, it can nevertheless proceed if justified. Investigate promptly.
Investigate objectively. Investigate proportionately. Give people a meaningful opportunity to address material evidence. Most importantly, document why significant investigative decisions were made.
The days when an employer could treat a harassment investigation as a basic fact-finding exercise are disappearing. The better approach is to recognize what the OLRB actually said: employers retain considerable discretion over how investigations are conducted, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably, fairly and in a manner that can withstand scrutiny. , leading his teams of labour lawyers in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Howard has appeared in more Supreme Court employment law cases and provincial appeals than any lawyer in Canadian history. A bestselling author, he discusses current workplace issues on the podcast,
Please follow us on Google to support usBusiness Financial Information Investing Investor Market News Stock Research Stock Valuation Business News Economy Finance Investment Tools Mortgage Mutual Funds Personal Finance Quote Real Estate Retirement Stock Stocks Suze Orman Tax Track Portfolio
Canada Latest News, Canada Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
U.S. weekly jobless claims fall to near 57-year lows; layoffs drop in SeptemberFresh U.S. data points to continued labour market stability even as employers remain cautious about hiring
Read more »
U.S. judge overturns Trump’s decision to fire court-appointed attorney in SeattleA judge on Thursday overturned U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to fire the court-appointed top U.S. prosecutor in Seattle, the latest development in a legal tug-of-war over the administration’s efforts to control who occupies the powerful Justice Department posts.
Read more »
Judge Overturns Trump's Decision To Fire Court-Appointed U.S. Attorney In SeattleSeventeen judges unanimously selected Roger Rogoff as the top U.S. prosecutor in Seattle. President Trump fired him an hour later.
Read more »
Gas Malaysia targets investment decision on Kedah LNG terminal by second half of 2027Gas Malaysia aims to make a final investment decision on plans for its first regasification terminal by the second half of next year, with the facility due to come online by the end of 2030, its CEO said.
Read more »