Thomas Perry

Barrister and Solicitor

Thomas Perry is an employment and labour lawyer in Toronto, Ontario. He has experience with management-side employment and labour issues, and providing strategic HR advice to businesses.

He can be reached at thomasperry88@gmail.com

Any information provided should be considered for entertainment purposes only and is not legal advice. You should seek independent legal advice before making any decisions. Use of this website does not create a client relationship.

Summary and Analysis of Shannon Horner v. Stelco Inc. Lake Erie, 2024 CanLII 16448 (ON LRB)

By

This decision from the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) addresses an appeal by Shannon Horner, an employee of Stelco Inc. Lake Erie, regarding the adequacy of the employer’s response to her workplace harassment complaint. Horner argued that Stelco failed to comply with its obligations under section 32.0.7(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) by not providing sufficient details about the results of the investigation and the corrective actions taken. The OLRB ruled in Horner’s favor, finding that Stelco’s response was insufficient and ordering the employer to provide more detailed information. This decision has significant implications for employers, particularly regarding their obligations to investigate and address workplace harassment complaints.

Key Facts

  1. Background:
    • Shannon Horner, a long-term employee of Stelco and a member of the United Steelworkers Union, filed a workplace harassment complaint in August 2022, alleging that she had been harassed on social media by several co-workers.
    • Stelco conducted a joint labour-management investigation, as required by the collective agreement, and concluded that workplace harassment had occurred. Corrective actions were taken, and mandatory training was planned for all employees.
    • On October 12, 2022, Stelco sent Horner a letter summarizing the investigation’s outcome, stating that harassment had been found and that corrective actions had been or would be taken. However, the letter did not specify which of the five respondents were found to have engaged in harassment or what specific corrective actions were taken.
  2. Complaint to the Ministry of Labour:
    • Horner was dissatisfied with the lack of detail in Stelco’s letter and filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour. A Ministry inspector investigated but declined to issue any orders, finding that Stelco had complied with its obligations under the OHSA.
    • Horner appealed the inspector’s decision to the OLRB, arguing that Stelco’s response did not meet the requirements of section 32.0.7(1)(b) of the OHSA, which mandates that employers inform complainants of the results of the investigation and any corrective actions taken.

OLRB’s Analysis and Decision

  1. Interpretation of Section 32.0.7(1)(b) of the OHSA:
    • The OLRB interpreted section 32.0.7(1)(b), which requires employers to inform complainants and alleged harassers in writing of the “results of the investigation” and “any corrective action that has been taken or that will be taken as a result of the investigation.”
    • The OLRB found that Stelco’s October 12, 2022 letter did not comply with this provision because it failed to specify which of the five respondents were found to have engaged in harassment and did not detail the corrective actions taken.
  2. Purpose of the OHSA:
    • The OLRB emphasized that the OHSA is public welfare legislation designed to protect workers’ health and safety. The disclosure requirements under section 32.0.7(1)(b) are intended to ensure that complainants are fully informed about the outcomes of harassment investigations and the steps taken to address the issue.
    • The OLRB rejected Stelco’s argument that the letter’s general statements were sufficient, noting that without specific information, complainants cannot be assured that their concerns have been adequately addressed.
  3. Scope of Disclosure:
    • The OLRB clarified that section 32.0.7(1)(b) does not require employers to provide a full investigative report or disclose all factual findings. However, it does require employers to inform complainants of:
      • Which respondents were found to have engaged in harassment.
      • The specific corrective actions taken or planned.
    • The OLRB also noted that employers are not required to disclose the specific level of discipline imposed, as this information is confidential and not necessary for protecting workers from harassment.
  4. Confidentiality Concerns:
    • Stelco argued that disclosing detailed information about the investigation could breach confidentiality and undermine the integrity of the investigative process. The OLRB acknowledged these concerns but found that the limited disclosure required under section 32.0.7(1)(b) would not compromise confidentiality or the investigation’s integrity.

Disposition

The OLRB granted Horner’s application in part, ordering Stelco to reissue a closure letter that complies with section 32.0.7(1)(b) by providing the following information:

  1. Which of the five respondents were found to have engaged in harassment.
  2. The specific corrective actions taken or planned as a result of the investigation.

Impact on Employers

  1. Detailed Disclosure Requirements:
    • Employers must provide complainants with specific information about the results of harassment investigations, including which respondents were found to have engaged in harassment and what corrective actions were taken. General statements about corrective actions are insufficient.
  2. Confidentiality vs. Transparency:
    • While employers must protect the confidentiality of investigative processes, they cannot use confidentiality as a justification for withholding information required by the OHSA. Employers must strike a balance between transparency and privacy.
  3. Corrective Actions:
    • Employers must clearly communicate the corrective actions taken in response to harassment complaints. This includes detailing whether disciplinary actions, training, or other measures were implemented.
  4. Compliance with the OHSA:
    • Employers must ensure that their harassment policies and investigative procedures comply with the OHSA’s requirements. Failure to provide adequate disclosure can result in orders from the OLRB and potential reputational damage.
  5. Proactive Measures:
    • Employers should proactively review and update their harassment policies and investigative procedures to ensure compliance with the OHSA. Training for HR and management on these requirements is essential to avoid legal risks.
  6. Employee Trust:
    • Providing detailed and transparent information about harassment investigations can help build trust with employees and demonstrate the employer’s commitment to addressing workplace harassment.

Conclusion

The Shannon Horner v. Stelco Inc. Lake Erie decision underscores the importance of employers complying with the OHSA’s disclosure requirements when addressing workplace harassment complaints. Employers must provide complainants with specific information about the results of investigations and the corrective actions taken. This decision serves as a reminder for employers to ensure that their harassment policies and investigative procedures are transparent, compliant with the law, and designed to protect employees’ health and safety.