CHAUDHRI: Employers must protect workers from misconduct

Article content

A 35-year veteran Toronto Police Gun and Gang Task Force officer has been criminally charged with 10 offences – including four charges of sexual assault.

Article content

Det. Jason Kondo, who is currently suspended with pay, also faces eight professional misconduct charges under the Police Services Act.

The charges relate to accusations of misconduct and workplace harassment that include allegedly inappropriately touching four junior officers.

The allegations date back to September 2020 and have not been proven in court.

Police service rarely suspend officers without pay, likely as a result of legislative limitations to do so. Instead, officers who are suspended are kept on the police payroll and participate in lengthy and involved disciplinary tribunal proceedings. This can often run parallel to a criminal proceeding on the same allegations – like in the case of Kondo.

Article content

Article content

When a harassment complaint is made in the private sphere, employers are legally required to investigate the allegation immediately. Naturally then, when an employee is criminally charged for misconduct at work, the issue has already been investigated by the employer. Many times the employer has, by the time the charge is laid, terminated the employee if the allegations of misconduct have been substantiated.

Article content

The consequences are serious for employers that don’t investigate on time, including court sanctions.

There are good reasons to investigate early. The employer does not want to attract any further liability for the alleged misconduct and more than that, the employer rarely sees a path for the charged employee to continue to work under its banner. Employers don’t want to be seen as having any tolerance for serious misconduct.

After all, if an employee is criminally charged for conduct at work, it is naturally assumed the employer was aware of the alleged misconduct for many months beforehand.

Employers must zealously protect their own ecosystems from being poisoned by misconduct. Failing to do so leaves employees vulnerable and open to further mistreatment.

Article content

The burden to investigate is a heavy one. Small employers do not often budget for the cost and disruption that investigations can create. But my experience with corporate clients is that they take their obligations to investigate very seriously. Even small organizations find the means to not only meet their legal duties but to eliminate misconduct from their environments.

It’s not easy but it has to be done.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Play Video

Kondo’s case will not be resolved for some time, perhaps well over a year. Officers impacted by the allegations will be required to give evidence and participate in the proceedings for a long time to come. That doesn’t sound appealing or fair. In fact, it could disincentivize other officers from reporting misconduct in the future.

Article content

Sometimes following legislative guided procedures results in bizarre outcomes. If small and medium-sized employers are expected by our laws and our courts to put in the resources to conduct swift and fair investigations of workplace harassment, then why are larger, government-funded organizations not held to the same standard?

If every day employers have found ways to protect employees from misconduct, perhaps it’s time to overhaul what our larger institutions are doing to address the same issues.

Have a workplace question? Maybe I can help! Email me at sunira@worklylaw.com and your question may be featured in a future column.

The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.

Article content