Harassment and Workplace Complaints
Track harassment complaints and investigations with confidentiality controls, escalation paths, and collective agreement alignment.
Why harassment complaints are different
Harassment complaints do not look like ordinary grievances. They carry privacy expectations that the rest of the grievance workflow does not, they sit at the intersection of the collective agreement and provincial human rights codes, and the investigation itself is often what counsel and arbitrators will scrutinise most closely. A complaint workflow has to recognise all of that from the intake form forward.
The legal architecture is more layered than a typical grievance. Most Canadian jurisdictions now require employers to investigate every harassment and workplace-violence complaint under occupational health and safety legislation, regardless of whether the complaint becomes a grievance. Ontario's amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and British Columbia's WorkSafeBC framework both set detailed expectations on investigation quality, respondent rights, and reporting back to the complainant. Provincial human rights codes add a further layer: harassment based on a protected ground can be pursued as a grievance, as a human rights complaint, or as both in parallel, and Canadian arbitrators routinely apply human rights legislation when resolving a grievance.
Respondent rights are a critical and sometimes overlooked part of the framework. A harassment investigation must be fair to the respondent as well as the complainant: the allegations must be communicated with enough specificity that the respondent can answer them, the investigation must be timely and procedurally sound, and the outcome must be supported by the evidence gathered. Where the investigation falls short on respondent rights, any subsequent discipline is vulnerable at arbitration even where the underlying allegations might otherwise have been sustained. Sertus supports the investigator role with a structured workflow — intake, scoping, witness interviews, respondent response, findings, and closure — so the procedural fairness requirements are visible as checkpoints rather than as afterthoughts.
The duty to accommodate runs alongside the investigation itself. A complainant may need a scheduling change, a work-location change, or a leave of absence during the investigation; a respondent may need an adjusted role if the allegations are serious. Accommodation decisions made under pressure during an active investigation can themselves become grievable if they are not handled carefully. Sertus keeps accommodation tracking connected to the complaint record so the two workflows do not drift apart, and the audit trail captures who decided what, when, and on what basis — exactly the kind of record an arbitrator expects to see on a complaint that escalates to a grievance.
How Sertus handles harassment files
Sertus is built by the co-author of Canadian Labour Arbitration(Brown & Beatty), and the harassment complaint workflow reflects the distinct expectations that apply to these files in Canadian practice.
- Confidentiality: The complainant, the respondent, and the investigator each need a view of the file that is scoped to their role. A general case view is not acceptable for a harassment complaint.
- Investigation independence: Arbitrators and human rights tribunals look hard at whether the investigation was fair, independent, and thorough. The audit trail matters as much as the conclusions.
- Human rights overlap: Harassment complaints frequently also raise human rights code protections — discrimination based on protected grounds, duty to accommodate, and sometimes parallel human rights complaints.
- Duty to accommodate: Where the complaint involves disability, family status, or another protected ground, the duty to accommodate runs in parallel with the investigation.
- Complainant and respondent rights: Both parties have legitimate interests in procedural fairness, and those interests sometimes pull in opposite directions.
- Workplace violence: Where the complaint alleges violence or threats, occupational health and safety obligations kick in alongside the collective agreement.
- Intake workflow: A structured complaint intake separate from the grievance workflow — with the complainant, respondent, incident, and policy captured on the record from day one.
- Role-based access: Evidence and correspondence are visible only to users whose role requires them. Investigators, counsel, and senior labour relations staff each see what they are entitled to see and no more.
- Complaint-to-grievance escalation: When a harassment complaint warrants a grievance, Sertus escalates the file into the grievance workflow with the record intact. Nothing is re-typed.
- Audit trail for investigations: Every action on the file is logged — who accessed the complaint, who uploaded evidence, who drafted the investigation report. The audit trail is available for counsel, arbitrators, and regulators.
- PIPEDA-aligned data handling: Data residency in Canada, strict access controls, and deletion policies that align with Canadian privacy legislation.
Related reading
See how harassment complaints connect to the wider grievance workflow: grievance management, collective agreement navigator, and arbitration decisions.
Last updated: April 2026
Run harassment files on a platform built for them
Book a 30-minute demo and see Sertus run a harassment complaint workflow with role-based access and a full audit trail.