news and events
Sexual Harassment, Social Messaging and the Workplace: Key Takeaways from Metrolinx Arbitration Decisions
The Metrolinx V. Amalgamated Transit Union case has had another milestone with the recent (October 2025) decision by a new arbitrator upon rehearing which upheld Metrolinx’s authority to investigate and discipline but substituted lengthy unpaid suspensions for termination. This may mark the end of a long road that has provided a lot of clarity on the responsibilities of employers when it comes to addressing sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as the rights of employees to fair discipline.
A quick recap: Beginning in the late fall of 2019, 5 unionized employees of Metrolinx shared in a private chat group on the WhatsApp platform messages of a sexual nature that were demeaning and dismissive of other employees, mostly female. The messages were exchanged after hours.
One of the employees, “Ms. A,” obtained copies of some of these messages, and provided them to management. Ms. A did not make a formal complaint, a fact that later became central to the legal analysis of whether an employer’s statutory duties are triggered in the absence of a complaint. Nonetheless, management undertook an investigation, determined that the conduct was not in keeping with Metrolinx Workplace Harassment and Discrimination policy, and terminated the 5 employees.
The union grieved, arguing that because the messages were delivered outside work hours and were not intended for the workplace, the employer had no right to terminate the employees.
Decisions rendered in July, 2023 (initial arbitration), April, 2024 (Divisional Court judicial review), August, 2024 (related procedural reasons), June, 2025 (Ontario Court of Appeal), and October 2025 (re-hearing arbitration) have provided excellent insight into employer’s responsibilities with respect to investigation and disciplining employees for sexual harassment in the workplace.
The decisions in this case make it clear that off-duty conduct can be a workplace issue, if it manifests in the workplace or impacts co-workers. We have seen many examples of this in the media over the past few years, where private group chats become public, and there are unhappy consequences for both the employer and the workers. Think the Blue Hackle Mafia, the Coquitlam RCMP Signal Chat, or the UWindsor Delta Chi chat.
It is also reaffirmed that employers have a duty to investigate incidents of sexual harassment when they become aware of them, regardless of whether a complaint was made or not. Employers cannot implement policies that attempt to contract out of the statutory obligations imposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, or the Human Rights Code. It also deepens the understanding that there is no one way to be a ‘victim.’ One cannot equate a decision not to file a complaint to mean that the victim was not impacted by the actions. A victim’s decision not to complain does not negate the harassment, nor does it relieve the employer of their statutory duty to undertake an investigation and take appropriate corrective action.
Finally, the most recent arbitration decision illustrates that, once an employer has properly exercised its authority and fulfilled its statutory duties, an arbitrator may still assess whether the penalty imposed is proportionate in the specific circumstances. It’s important to state that this decision does not mean that termination is inappropriate in cases of sexual harassment, nor does it diminish the seriousness of the misconduct. Discipline short of termination should not automatically be viewed as condoning the behaviour; rather, it may reflect an arbitrator’s assessment of mitigating factors after the employer has met its statutory duties.
While this series of decisions has provided employers with valuable insights into their responsibilities, it may not bring victims as much comfort. Although it can generally be viewed as positive that an employee is not required to make a complaint in order to trigger an investigation, some victims may feel that this removes agency from them to speak freely to their employer without wanting a remedy to be imposed. Victims may fear negative consequences in the workplace for triggering an investigation, and may now feel it is better to say nothing. Victims may fear that despite an investigation that substantiates the harassment, there will be a reluctance on the part of employers to impose stiff penalties. Many workers do not feel that harassment investigations are done in fair and impartial ways, and an employer suggesting that the ‘totality of the circumstances’ merits a light disciplinary action may reinforce the sentiment that the system is unfair. Coupled with a recent trend at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario of dismissing a significant number of applications on procedural grounds, some victims may begin to feel that justice is not readily accessible.
Notwithstanding, we are pleased that these decisions have provided clarity over the issues raised above.
If you have been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, we can help. Call 1-833-677-5146 for free, confidential legal advice.
