Too Much Too Fast
An Employer is found liable for conducting a full-blown investigation into vague allegations of racism.
Sometimes, clients who hire me are surprised (and relieved) to learn that a complaint of harassment or discrimination they received doesn’t need to be investigated. After I’ve interviewed the complainant, and the complainant hasn’t provided enough information to demonstrate that someone has violated the client’s policy or applicable legislation, the “investigation” concludes. There’s no need to interview anyone else.
The case is closed.
It’s something many other investigators do. Like much of the world of workplace investigations, there’s limited legal guidance compelling anyone to take this approach. It just makes sense. Now there’s a case to support it.
A Remote Health Centre and the Nurse-in-Charge
This case[1] stems from a grievance raised by the former Nurse-In-Charge (the Grievor) at the Deninu Kųę Health Centre in Fort Resolution, a community of 400 residents located directly south of Yellowknife on the shore of Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories.
The Health Centre faced staffing shortages, a reduction in its services, and a history of hostility from community residents who viewed it as a symbol of colonialism and an untrustworthy institution that failed to meet their healthcare needs. Residents readily expressed their frustrations to the Grievor. One example (among many) included a patient telling the Grievor, “It’s just excuses for not doing your f---- job because you are a f---- lazy b----.”
The Complaints about the Grievor
In November 2022, the Health Centre received letters from three community leaders demanding that they terminate the Grievor because of “allegations of racism, disrespect and lack of professional support.” There was only one example of the Grievor’s behaviour in these letters: the Grievor allegedly “told a patient…loudly and in an angry voice, ‘you’re not coming back here again because you’re going to die in Yellowknife from cancer.”
The Investigation
The employer promptly suspended the Grievor and hired two lawyers to investigate the allegations. About a month into her suspension, after interviewing 14 individuals, the lawyers provided the Grievor with a letter summarizing the allegations under investigation, and requested an interview with her.
Here are some of the allegations outlined in the lawyers’ letter to the Grievor:
Being racist towards the people living in the community of For Resolution who seek health services.
Not engaged or willing to work with community members or leadership.
Refusing to see community members or sending them home undiagnosed with medication (Tylenol).
No allegations included specific details about what the Grievor actually did, to whom, where, or when (a great example of how not to write a summary of allegations in a workplace investigation).
According to the Grievor, she “went in blind” to her interview with the lawyers. The evidence she heard during that interview was as vague as the allegations.
After interviewing the Grievor, the lawyers decided to interview another complainant: Richard Edjericon, the local MLA. Mr. Edjericon had written one of the three complaint letters that initiated the investigation (and it was later confirmed that he actually authored the two other letters submitted by community leaders). It is unclear why the lawyers interviewed another complainant after speaking with the Grievor, as this would likely lead to new allegations, require additional interviews with the Grievor, and prolong the investigation. And that’s exactly what happened.
Mr. Edjericon raised several new allegations and identified 21 other individuals with complaints against the Grievor. The employer then expanded the investigation's scope to include these additional complaints.
The lawyers interviewed the Grievor a second time. The lawyers asked her about even more allegations that were “vague, generalized, out-of-context incidents from years before that she had no way of providing a meaningful response to.”
The investigation lasted 81 days. The lawyers’ investigation report, which was 1052 pages long, stated that all complaints against the Grievor were unsubstantiated. But because the Grievor had been suspended for so long, community residents believed the Health Centre dismissed her for misconduct.
Instead of facing a community that wanted her fired (and thought she was), the Grievor took a new job in another community 750 km away and, eventually, left the region entirely.
The Key Takeaway from the Arbitrator’s Decision
The Arbitrator determined that the employer’s investigation was procedurally unfair, harmed the Grievor, and breached the employer’s obligations under its collective agreement and health and safety legislation.
The Arbitrator stated that the employer was obligated to “investigate” the community residents’ allegations against the Grievor, but they should not have undertaken a full investigation. Instead, the employer should have conducted a preliminary assessment of the complaints by interviewing residents and determining whether there was enough evidence of specific incidents indicating that the Grievor engaged in misconduct.
If you’re an employer and you receive a vague complaint, make sure your investigator performs a preliminary assessment before suspending someone and initiating a costly, time-consuming, rumour-spreading, morale-busting investigation.
Epilogue
The Grievor filed a complaint against Mr. Ejdericon, the MLA. The NWT Integrity Commissioner investigated her complaint and determined that Mr. Ejdericon violated the MLA Code of Conduct by "blindly and wilfully repeating unsubstantiated allegations" against the Grievor.
Mr. Ejdericon accepted the Integrity Commissioner’s findings but still does not accept the investigation's findings about the Grievor.
[1] Northwest Territories v Union of Northern Workers, 2025 CanLII 91062 (NT LA)