Upcoming Webinar: May 7, 2024 @ 12:00 P.M. (ET) | Cultural Initiatives in Policing: Part 2 – Calgary Police Service | Register Today!
A complainant files a harassment or discrimination complaint and then quits. A respondent says the allegations are ridiculous and refuses to participate.
What do you do when the individuals who have the most important information refuse to participate in a workplace investigation?
Most people never think that one day they’ll have to recount for an investigator every time a colleague rolled his eyes or responded sarcastically to a question. However, a recent case from the Alberta Court of Appeal, MacLeod v. Alberta College of Social Workers, illustrates just how important the specifics are.
Recently, in the town of Lorette, Manitoba (Pop. 3,208), which is 25 kilometres southeast of Winnipeg, a little inside joke made a very big public splash. The medium? Cake icing. The platform? Snapchat. At a time when employees constantly scroll through their IPhone notifications, mean jokes blasted over social media easily infiltrate the workplace.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently heard an application for judicial review of a decision of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board) in which the Board had found that an employer – the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) – failed to provide a harassment-free workplace for one of its employees.
Most workplace investigation decisions focus on the psychological harm to complainants suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct. We have written about this issue before – see our discussion of the importance of a trauma-informed approach for victims of sexual assault here.
Workplace investigations and workplace accommodations are two distinct procedures. The former is a fact-finding process that occurs in response to a complaint or incident of harassment. The latter is a procedure by which an employer and an employee work together to accommodate an employee’s limitations as a result of an injury, illness or disability. But when the accommodation relates to an illness that has an impact on an employee’s interpersonal behaviour, such as a mental illness, these two distinct procedures may intersect.
The hostile respondent. The complainant who answers every question with dripping sarcasm. The witness who, for whatever reason, is getting on your last nerve. Almost every workplace investigation has a difficult personality (or two, or three). Learning to handle difficult people with professionalism is a critical skill for any investigator.
In putting together our submission on what changes to the policy would help the Senate identify and address harassment in the workplace, we had to turn our minds to what makes working on Parliament Hill unique. This is a workplace that lends itself to extreme power imbalances between Senators and staffers; it is a space where harassment allegations can be both public and political; and it is an environment in which many staff members are skeptical that bad behaviour will result in real consequences for the perpetrator.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2024
