Toronto, ON – October 21, 2026 – Workplace gossip may seem like a routine people-management issue, but employers should not assume it is harmless. A recent Ontario arbitration decision, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1922 v Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, shows that persistent and pervasive gossip, particularly when it comes from a person in authority, can cross the line into workplace harassment.
This decision caught my attention because it offers a useful example of how seemingly ordinary workplace conduct can create legal and organizational risk. As the newest member of the firm, it also provides an opportunity to introduce myself through an issue that reflects what draws me to labour and employment law: the practical impact of workplace relationships, culture, and day-to-day decision-making.
Workplace disputes are not always driven by dramatic incidents or obvious misconduct. They often develop through patterns of behaviour that are easy to dismiss in the moment, including everyday interactions, communication practices, and accepted workplace norms. Decisions such as this one help clarify when those patterns require an employer’s attention.
For employers, the decision offers a practical reminder: conduct that appears minor in isolation can create significant risk when it is repeated, widespread, or reinforced by workplace power dynamics.
The Facts: Crossing the Line into Harassment
Several employees filed grievances alleging that the Executive Director had created a poisoned work environment through widespread and persistent gossiping about staff. According to the complaints, the Executive Director regularly made negative comments about employees and discussed their personal and workplace matters with others. The employees alleged this conduct violated both their Collective Agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”).
The complaints did not concern an isolated comment or occasional workplace banter. Rather, they described a sustained pattern of conduct that employees viewed as pervasive and unavoidable, creating an atmosphere of mistrust throughout the workplace.
Among other things, the Executive Director was alleged to have:
- spread rumours about an affair between two employees;
- referred to an Executive Board member as “crazy”, “drunk all the time”, “mentally unstable”, and “aggressive”;
- described a colleague as “incompetent and “inexperienced”, while also suggesting the colleague had “multiple issues that make her crazy”, a “chemical dependence”, and “mental health challenges”; and
- referred to another staff member as an “anti-vaxxer” and “regressive”.
Taken together, these allegations painted a picture of a workplace where gossip was a regular feature of daily interactions.
A workplace investigator substantiated some of the complaints and found that the gossiping created a psychologically unsafe workplace. The parties agreed that the investigator’s factual findings would be accepted by the arbitrator and they would focus the hearing on whether those findings constituted a breach of the collective agreement or the OHSA.
The Key Distinction: Context Matters
The arbitrator focused not on any single comment, but the cumulative effect of the Executive Director’s conduct. The gossiping was neither isolated nor occasional. Rather, it formed a sustained pattern of behaviour that permeated the workplace, and, importantly, came from a person in a position of authority.
In finding that the conduct constituted workplace harassment, the arbitrator considered the nature of the comments and their impact on the workplace. The repeated gossip created a culture of mistrust where employees felt psychologically unsafe. They felt that exposure to the gossip was virtually unavoidable.
This aspect of the arbitrator’s decision is particularly noteworthy. Viewed in isolation, some of the comments might have been dismissed as workplace gossip or poor judgment. Considered cumulatively, however, the conduct amounted to workplace harassment. The arbitrator awarded $5,000 in damages to the first grievor and $12,500 to the second.
Three Practical Lessons for Employers
- Culture Issues Rarely Stay Culture Issues: Employers should address rumours, cliques, disrespect, and persistent negative commentary before they escalate into formal complaints or legal claims. Workplace harassment policies should identify gossip and inappropriate disclosures as potential concerns, while training should equip managers and senior employees to recognize their heightened influence on workplace culture and intervene early.
- Gossip is Not Always Harmless: Not every instance of workplace gossip constitutes harassment. When gossip is repeated or becomes part of the workplace culture, however, it can contribute to mistrust, psychological harm, and legal risk.
- Managers Set the Tone: Senior employees have an important role in modelling professional conduct and shaping workplace culture. Comments that may be viewed differently among peers can carry greater weight when they come from someone with authority.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces an important lesson from my early practice: workplace concerns are best assessed in context. A single comment may appear insignificant, but a repeated pattern, especially when it involves a manager, can undermine trust, affect psychological safety, and create legal exposure.
Employers should respond early to recurring rumours, disparaging comments, and inappropriate disclosures rather than waiting for a formal complaint. Clear expectations, appropriate training for managers, and timely intervention can help prevent everyday conduct from becoming an entrenched culture problem or a harassment claim.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact any of the lawyers at Protea LLP with your questions about workplace culture and misconduct.
