A Quebec labour arbitrator has recently held that an employer engaged in abuse of authority and harassment against an employee by allowing a complaint against the employee to proceed to investigation in the absence of clear allegations.
Background
In Syndicat du personnel enseignant du campus de Saint-Lawrence, the respondent employee worked as a teacher in post-secondary education and was an active member of several boards of governance as a teacher representative. In her capacity as a board member, she challenged certain decisions made by school management. She was later informed that the management team had submitted a harassment complaint against her in her capacity as a teacher.
The employer retained a third-party lawyer to investigate the complaint. The investigator did not receive particulars of the allegations from the employer until three months after the beginning of the investigation, and the employee was interviewed multiple times by the investigator before she was provided with a full list of allegations against her.
Decision
The arbitrator concluded that the harassment complaint had been filed vexatiously, in response to the employee's comments during board meetings, which should have been obvious to the person conducting the initial assessment of the complaint. The arbitrator therefore concluded that the employer failed to provide a safe work environment for the employee by allowing vexatious allegations to proceed to investigation, therefore exposing the employee to a stressful, drawn-out process. Of note, while the arbitrator concluded that the investigator had a duty not to proceed to investigation without sufficiently detailed allegations, the arbitrator ultimately held the employer responsible for the conduct of the investigation as a whole.
Key Takeaways
Although from Quebec, this case serves as a warning for employers across the country on the importance of assessing complaints before commencing investigations. Employers have obligations towards both parties to a workplace harassment complaint, and failure to ensure a fair process for the respondent may result in consequences for the employer.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.