Workplace Investigations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) imposes several obligations on employers to investigate complaints of workplace harassment.
When there is an incident or complaint of workplace harassment, OHSA requires the employer to conduct an investigation that is appropriate in the circumstances. An employer has a legal obligation to make the workplace safe so if there is any indication of behaviour that would make the workplace unsafe, the employer must address it. The investigation must be conducted by someone who has received information and instructions on how to conduct an investigation.
The OHSA requires that complaints of workplace violence or harassment, whether formal or informal, must be investigated. To reduce legal exposure and save costs, employers should ensure that at least one employee receives workplace investigation training.
When should an employer conduct an investigation?
Workplace harassment occurs when a person engages in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace which is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. The definition of workplace harassment also includes sexual harassment.
Examples of workplace harassment include spreading malicious rumours or gossip, excluding or isolating someone socially, physically abusing or threatening abuse, making offensive comments or jokes, yelling or using profanity, constantly criticising a person, belittling a person’s opinions or displaying or circulating offensive pictures or materials.
Two of the most common examples of workplace harassment are bullying and sexual harassment.
Example 1: Bullying
A group of employees deliberately spread malicious rumours about a colleague’s personal life and make belittling comments about her physical disability. The employee does not file a formal complaint but her supervisor witnesses her colleagues engaging in this conduct.
Example 2: Sexual Harassment
An employee is subject to repeated jokes and comments about his sexual orientation. He files a complaint with his human resources representative.
What are an employer’s obligations in these circumstances?
Under OHSA, the duty to investigate will be triggered by “incidents” of workplace harassment, even if there is no formal complaint. The Code of Practice produced by the Ministry of Labour suggests that the obligation arises whenever a supervisor becomes aware of an incident, even if the supervisor fails to pass that information on to the employer. When the employer becomes aware of an incident of harassment, a trained investigator must complete an investigation and provide the employer with a written report of the results of the investigation.
Consequences of a failure to investigate?
Failure to investigate or appointing an untrained investigator could result in the Ministry of Labour ordering the employer to hire an external investigator at the employer’s expense. External investigators are typically very costly. Further, despite their high fees, there is currently a shortage of workplace investigators.
Failing to conduct a proper internal investigation could not only have consequences under OHSA, but could also lead to costly consequences at both the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Courts.
If an employer does not have an internal investigation procedure then an employee is much more likely to file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal where an employer can be ordered to pay damages for failing to conduct an adequate investigation. Courts have also ordered employers to pay punitive damages for conducting faulty investigations.
Workplace investigations training
On Thursday February 14, 2019 we will be hosting a Workplace Investigation Training Session. This session will be moderated by Monica Jeffrey of JMJ Workplace Investigation Law LLP. The cost is $399 plus H.S.T. for the day. Registration is limited. If you are interested in attending please contact us at 647) 204-8107 or at [email protected]
There are many ways to attack the termination clause in an employment contract.
I am now surprised if employee counsel does not claim that their client’s termination clause is not legally enforceable - usually because the termination clause does not allegedly comply with the Employment Standards Act.
This blog considers a case, McKercher v Stantec Architecture Ltd., 2019 SKQB 100, where an employee successfully attacked the termination clause in his contract because he did not explicitly agree to it after being promoted.
The Facts
In 2006, Mr. McKercher commenced employment as a staff architect. The termination clause in his employment contract stated:
Termination other than for cause will be with notice or pay in lieu of notice, based on your length of service. If the Employer terminates your employment for other than just cause you will receive the greater of:
- a) Two weeks notice or pay in lieu of notice during the first two years of employment increasing by one week for each additional completed year of employment to a maximum of three months notice or pay in lieu of notice.
or
- b) The minimum notice of termination (or pay in lieu of notice) required by applicable statutes.
Eleven years later, when Mr. McKercher was employed as a Business Centre Sector Leader, his employment was terminated. The employer paid him the three months termination pay he was owed under his employment contract.
Another way to attack a termination clause: What is the changed substratum doctrine?
An Ontario judge in a 2012 case, MacGregor v National Home Services, 2012 ONSC 2042 (CanLII), described this legal doctrine as follows: "The changed substratum doctrine … provides that if an employee enters into an employment contract that specifies the notice period for a dismissal, the contractual notice period is not enforceable if over the course of employment, the important terms of the agreement concerning the employee’s responsibilities and status has significantly changed."
The rationale for this doctrine has been described by one judge, Schmidt v AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd., 2004 BSCS 2012 (CanLII), as follows: "In my view, it was incumbent on the defendants to advise Mr. Schmidt that they intended to continue to rely upon the termination provision set out in the Agreement when substantial changes in his employment occurred. This would have allowed him to consider the matter and to negotiate for other terms. If the defendants wished to continue to rely on the termination provisions there ought to have been a ratification of the provisions as the nature of Mr. Schmidt’s employment changed."
Decision
The judge hearing this case relied on the following factors when deciding not to enforce the termination clause in the employment contract: ”...there is no evidence that (the employer) made it clear to the (employee) that the notice of termination provisions were intended to apply to the positions to which he was promoted. The employment agreement contains no express wording to this effect, nor does it contain any wording to support the inference of such an intent. Further, and in keeping with the analysis in Schmidt, the Court received no evidence that, as it promoted the plaintiff, SAL reasserted its understanding and expectation that the notice of termination limit would remain in effect.”
Lesson to be learned:
An employer should make it clear that the termination clause in an employment contract applies when an employee is promoted. This expression of this intent should be in writing and should be clear and unambiguous. I recommend that an organization’s employment be reviewed by an employment lawyer every year or two. If your employment contract does not address this issue then think about doing so the next time it is reviewed.
For 30 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]
The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.
Tags: Bullying Doug MacLeod employer employment lawyer Barrie employment lawyer Toronto Harassment Human Resource Policies Human Rights MacLeod Law Firm occupational health & safety Occupational Health and Safety Act OHSA Sexual Harassment Sexual Harrassment training workplace harassment workplace investigation workplace policy workplace safety
Recent Posts
Duty of Good Faith: Do Employers Have a Duty to Disclose Material Facts to Employees Who are Making Employment Related Decisions?
The Facts Mr. Jonasson, a 55 year old engineer with 22 years’ service with Nexen Energy was thinking about either retiring or taking a leave of absence. He decided to request a six month leave of absence. The employer agreed to his leave request if he entered into the...
read moreEmployment Contracts: Unenforceable Termination Clause Costs Employer over $ 400 000
A recent case underscores the importance of including a properly drafted termination clause in your organization’s employment contract. The Facts In March 2010, CIGI hired Mark Menard, a chartered accountant, as Senior Director of Finance. He was responsible for the...
read moreDirectors Sent to Jail for Failure to Pay Employee Wages
If you are a director or a party to a unanimous shareholder agreement did you know that you are personally liable for unpaid wages and you could go to jail for up to one year for failing to pay them? So if you are a small business owner, have signed a unanimous...
read more