Distinguishing Between Disciplinable Gossip and Actionable Good Faith Concerns in the Workplace
March 30, 2026
Article by:
Julia Bell
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Applied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers), Local 1-184 v. Doepker Industries Ltd. (Hind Grievance), [2025] S.L.A.A. No. 11 (Wallace), Arbitrator Wallace, K.C. ordered the reinstatement to employment of a manufacturing technician who had been discharged for “malicious gossip” as a result of sharing his suspicion that a supervisor was using substances at work.
Background
Over the course of several months, the Grievor observed one of his supervisors to be acting unusually and uncharacteristically at work. He began to suspect that the supervisor was possibly using substances or intoxicated at work.
The Grievor was not sure how to address his concerns. When he privately approached a colleague, the Occupational Health & Safety Co-Chair, he was told that he would need proof to make such an accusation. The co-chair said he would get back to the Grievor about next steps. A few days later, the Grievor had a relatively private conversation with another colleague, during which they discussed their general frustrations with the supervisor. He raised his concerns about possible substance use. He was again told that he should have proof of such an accusation.
While the Grievor had previously considered going to management, he now felt he had to have proof before raising his concern. He did not know how to obtain such proof. Before the Grievor took further action, his colleague reported to the supervisor that the Grievor was making allegations about him. The supervisor took the matter to senior management.
The Employer conducted a brief and inadequate investigation into the Grievor’s claims and, after it had determined that the supervisor was not using drugs, the Employer concluded the Grievor’s suspicions were unreasonable and he was acting maliciously. The Employer then discharged the Grievor for just cause on the basis that he had engaged in malicious gossip giving rise to a poisoned work environment.
Discharge for Just Cause
At the hearing, the Employer attempted to rely on additional grounds, which were either condoned by the Employer or not proven. Importantly, none of those additional grounds had been asserted as a basis for just cause at the time of discharge. The arbitrator therefore only considered the issue of whether the Grievor had engaged in the behaviour alleged at the time of termination of his employment and, if so, whether that behaviour gave rise to cause.
No Basis for Discipline
Arbitrator Wallace’s analysis rested on the distinction between malicious gossip (a form of bullying and harassment which often justifies discipline) and raising genuine concerns in an appropriate manner in the workplace.
The arbitrator accepted that “malicious” in the workplace means “the deliberate spreading of false or harmful misleading rumours, criticisms or innuendos with the intention to cause harm or embarrassment to an individual”. She concluded that the Employer had entirely failed to prove the Grievor’s concerns constituted malicious gossip, and he had instead raised genuine workplace concerns in an appropriate way. She emphasized the following:
- The Grievor initially raised his concerns in a private conversation with the OH&S Co-Chair, who has a role in maintaining workplace health and safety standards. It would be “absurd” to say that an employee could not confidentially raise a health and safety concern in this way. Although he later discussed his suspicion with another colleague, this was also done in a private conversation and arose from his difficulty in knowing how to proceed. There was no evidence to the effect that he had shared his concerns broadly or to create rumours.
- The Grievor had a reasonable basis for his suspicions arising from his observations of the supervisor in the workplace. The Employer’s substance use policy, which included a notification requirement, set the standard which engaged the requirement to notify as “reasonable suspicion”. It would be inappropriate to require the Grievor to have proof before raising a health and safety concern.
Arbitrator Wallace expressly noted that the Employer could not conclude that the Grievor was engaging in malicious gossip simply because the Employer had determined (after a deficient investigation) that the supervisor was not in fact using substances. The question is whether the individual raising concerns in the workplace had a reasonable basis for those concerns, raised them in a private forum and was not intending to cause harm or embarrassment to the individual.
Takeaways
Employers have an obligation to ensure the health and safety of the workplace, including an obligation to ensure a respectful workplace free of bullying and harassment. In carrying out those obligations, employers should be aware of the distinction between unsubstantiated complaints and complaints which are improper or vexatious and act accordingly. Employers should avoid making assumptions regarding the motivations of a complainant unless there is clear evidence that there is no reasonable basis for the complaint or concerns being raised.
March 30, 2026
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
In United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Applied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers), Local 1-184 v. Doepker Industries Ltd. (Hind Grievance), [2025] S.L.A.A. No. 11 (Wallace), Arbitrator Wallace, K.C. ordered the reinstatement to employment of a manufacturing technician who had been discharged for “malicious gossip” as a result of sharing his suspicion that a supervisor was using substances at work.
Background
Over the course of several months, the Grievor observed one of his supervisors to be acting unusually and uncharacteristically at work. He began to suspect that the supervisor was possibly using substances or intoxicated at work.
The Grievor was not sure how to address his concerns. When he privately approached a colleague, the Occupational Health & Safety Co-Chair, he was told that he would need proof to make such an accusation. The co-chair said he would get back to the Grievor about next steps. A few days later, the Grievor had a relatively private conversation with another colleague, during which they discussed their general frustrations with the supervisor. He raised his concerns about possible substance use. He was again told that he should have proof of such an accusation.
While the Grievor had previously considered going to management, he now felt he had to have proof before raising his concern. He did not know how to obtain such proof. Before the Grievor took further action, his colleague reported to the supervisor that the Grievor was making allegations about him. The supervisor took the matter to senior management.
The Employer conducted a brief and inadequate investigation into the Grievor’s claims and, after it had determined that the supervisor was not using drugs, the Employer concluded the Grievor’s suspicions were unreasonable and he was acting maliciously. The Employer then discharged the Grievor for just cause on the basis that he had engaged in malicious gossip giving rise to a poisoned work environment.
Discharge for Just Cause
At the hearing, the Employer attempted to rely on additional grounds, which were either condoned by the Employer or not proven. Importantly, none of those additional grounds had been asserted as a basis for just cause at the time of discharge. The arbitrator therefore only considered the issue of whether the Grievor had engaged in the behaviour alleged at the time of termination of his employment and, if so, whether that behaviour gave rise to cause.
No Basis for Discipline
Arbitrator Wallace’s analysis rested on the distinction between malicious gossip (a form of bullying and harassment which often justifies discipline) and raising genuine concerns in an appropriate manner in the workplace.
The arbitrator accepted that “malicious” in the workplace means “the deliberate spreading of false or harmful misleading rumours, criticisms or innuendos with the intention to cause harm or embarrassment to an individual”. She concluded that the Employer had entirely failed to prove the Grievor’s concerns constituted malicious gossip, and he had instead raised genuine workplace concerns in an appropriate way. She emphasized the following:
- The Grievor initially raised his concerns in a private conversation with the OH&S Co-Chair, who has a role in maintaining workplace health and safety standards. It would be “absurd” to say that an employee could not confidentially raise a health and safety concern in this way. Although he later discussed his suspicion with another colleague, this was also done in a private conversation and arose from his difficulty in knowing how to proceed. There was no evidence to the effect that he had shared his concerns broadly or to create rumours.
- The Grievor had a reasonable basis for his suspicions arising from his observations of the supervisor in the workplace. The Employer’s substance use policy, which included a notification requirement, set the standard which engaged the requirement to notify as “reasonable suspicion”. It would be inappropriate to require the Grievor to have proof before raising a health and safety concern.
Arbitrator Wallace expressly noted that the Employer could not conclude that the Grievor was engaging in malicious gossip simply because the Employer had determined (after a deficient investigation) that the supervisor was not in fact using substances. The question is whether the individual raising concerns in the workplace had a reasonable basis for those concerns, raised them in a private forum and was not intending to cause harm or embarrassment to the individual.
Takeaways
Employers have an obligation to ensure the health and safety of the workplace, including an obligation to ensure a respectful workplace free of bullying and harassment. In carrying out those obligations, employers should be aware of the distinction between unsubstantiated complaints and complaints which are improper or vexatious and act accordingly. Employers should avoid making assumptions regarding the motivations of a complainant unless there is clear evidence that there is no reasonable basis for the complaint or concerns being raised.