Most complaints do not arrive as a formal document. They arrive as a sentence in a hallway, a message to a supervisor, or a request for a private conversation the employee is clearly dreading. What a manager does in the following ten minutes shapes whether the issue gets resolved, escalated, or turns into a human rights or occupational health and safety problem. Receiving a complaint well is a skill, and it can be learned.
Why the first conversation matters
Employees decide very early whether reporting was a good idea. If the first response is disbelief, defensiveness, or a promise to "look into it" that is never followed up, most people stop talking. Some file externally instead. Others go quiet and the behaviour continues.
The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires employers to have a written policy on workplace harassment and a program to implement it, including measures for workers to report incidents and a process for how complaints will be investigated and responded to. The Ontario Human Rights Code adds a duty to keep the workplace free of discrimination and harassment based on protected grounds, and to accommodate employees. Poorly handled intake can breach both.
Know your obligations before a complaint arrives
You cannot receive a complaint well while learning the rules on the spot. Know which framework applies to your organization before anyone sits down in front of you.
Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act
The OHSA defines workplace harassment as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. The definition includes workplace sexual harassment. Employers must have a written policy, a complaint program, and must investigate and respond to incidents and complaints appropriately. Supervisors carry their own duty to report incidents to the employer.
The Ontario Human Rights Code
The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment tied to grounds such as race, sex, disability, creed, age, family status, and gender identity. Employers have a duty to investigate complaints and a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Reprisal against someone for raising a concern is itself a violation, which is why the way you respond matters as much as the substance of the allegation.
Federally regulated employers
Organizations in sectors such as banking, telecommunications, air and rail transport, and federal Crown corporations fall under the Canada Labour Code. Regulations under the Act includes workplace violence and harassment prevention obligations and requires a written policy and a process for investigating complaints. If you are unsure which statute governs your workplace, confirm that with your legal advisor before intake, not after.
Build a reporting pathway people will actually use
A complaint process that only exists in a binder does not help anyone. Make the route visible and low friction.
Offer more than one way to report, including in person, in writing, and by phone, so people are not forced into a single channel.
Name an alternative contact for complaints about a manager or about the person who normally receives them.
Explain confidentiality honestly, including who will need to know and why.
Train every person who might receive a complaint, not only Human Resources. Front line supervisors hear things first.
Review the process at least annually, and after any complaint that did not go smoothly.
The first conversation, step by step
Set the frame before anything else
Open by thanking the person, acknowledging that speaking up takes courage, and stating clearly that you are not making any findings today. Explain what you will do with the information and who else will see it. Predictability reduces the sense of risk, and a person who feels safe gives you a clearer and more useful account.
Listen more than you speak
Let the employee finish. Avoid interruptions, avoid asking why they did not report sooner, and avoid signaling doubt with phrases like "are you sure that is what happened." Your job in this meeting is to understand the concern, not to test it.
Ask open questions first, then specifics
What happened, in your own words?
When did it happen, and how often?
Who was involved or present?
Is anything written, such as messages or emails?
How has this affected your work or your health?
What would you like to see happen?
Is there anything you would like me to avoid doing?
Do not investigate during intake
An intake meeting is not an investigation. Confronting the respondent, gathering statements, or drawing conclusions in the first conversation compromises fairness to both people and can undermine any later process. If you are the manager and you are implicated, or you are close to the person named, say so and hand the matter to someone else.
Explain what happens next
Cover the practical points before the person leaves:
What you will do, and roughly when.
Who else will be informed and on what basis.
What interim measures may be available, such as schedule changes or a different reporting line.
Where to get support, such as an employee assistance program, a union representative, or a health professional.
What to do if there is a further incident, or if there is any risk to safety.
That reprisal is prohibited, and who to contact if they experience it.
What to document
Take notes during the meeting and tell the person you are doing so. Write the date, time, location, and who was present. Record the account in the employee's own words where possible, keep your own opinions out of it, and note what you said you would do. Offer to provide a copy of the summary so the record can be corrected if it is inaccurate. Store the notes securely and limit access, because these records may later be reviewed by an investigator, a tribunal, or a court.
Procedural fairness starts at intake
Fairness runs in both directions. The person complaining needs to be heard and taken seriously. The person named needs to know the substance of the allegation and have a genuine opportunity to respond. That means no promises of a particular outcome, no discussing the matter with colleagues, and no telling the respondent before there is a plan for how the process will run. Assuring a complainant that "something will be done" and then delivering nothing is worse than saying nothing at all.
A trauma-informed approach in practice
Consider a common scenario. An employee asks for a private meeting, closes the door, and discloses repeated comments from a senior colleague. Their voice shakes. They say they do not want anything to happen and just wanted someone to know.
Trauma-informed intake means offering choice where choice exists, avoiding repeated retelling of the same account, and not treating a delay in reporting as evidence that nothing happened. It means recognizing that a complaint about a senior person carries a power imbalance, and that fear of reprisal is reasonable rather than paranoid. Practical accommodations help: a support person in the room, breaks, written questions instead of oral ones, and a clear explanation of each step before it happens.
It also means being honest about limits. You cannot promise silence where there is a risk to someone's safety or a legal duty to act. Say that plainly, and explain why, so the person is not blindsided later.
Mistakes that turn a complaint into a liability
Promising absolute confidentiality when you cannot keep that promise.
Delaying because the matter feels awkward or the respondent is well liked.
Investigating internally when the complaint involves senior leadership or the person conducting the process.
Warning the respondent before a plan exists, which invites interference with evidence.
Treating a pattern of small incidents as unimportant because no single one seems serious.
Failing to follow up, so the employee concludes that reporting achieved nothing.
When to bring in an outside investigator
Some matters are better handled by a neutral third party. A real or perceived conflict of interest, an allegation involving an owner or senior leader, a complaint involving violence, or a situation where internal credibility is in doubt all point that way. An external investigator supports procedural fairness for both parties, and the employer keeps responsibility for the findings and any remedial steps.
Closing the loop
Follow up even when you cannot share details. Let the complainant know the process has concluded, the results of the investigation, remedial outcome , if any, what support remains available, and how to report anything further. Do the same for the respondent. Record the follow-up. The way a complaint ends shapes how people talk about the process for years, and it usually determines whether the next person speaks up at all.
*This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
