While investigations must be fair and reasonable, they do not need to be flawless. A recent arbitration decision serves as a useful reminder of how arbitrators assess investigative adequacy, particularly where serious misconduct is alleged and certain evidence cannot be obtained. In Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 30 v Semple Gooder Roofing Corporation [Local 30], the labour arbitrator upheld the for cause dismissal of a unionized employee on the basis that imperfections with the employer’s workplace investigation were not fatal.

BACKGROUND

The grievor was participating in a return-to-work program following a workplace injury. As part of the accommodation, the employer arranged and paid for daily Uber transportation to and from work.

On July 16, 2024, during one such ride, the Uber driver alleged that the grievor engaged in inappropriate conduct, including making personal comments and masturbating in the back seat of the vehicle. The incident was reported through Uber, which notified the employer.

The employer placed the grievor on a paid administrative leave and initiated a workplace investigation. Following the investigation, the grievor’s employment was terminated for cause. The union grieved the dismissal, arguing that the employer failed to establish just cause due to a flawed and unfair investigation.

DECISION

The arbitrator upheld the termination, finding that the employer had just cause and that the investigation, while not perfect, was fair, reasonable, and conducted in good faith.

Central to the decision was the arbitrator’s assessment of credibility: the Uber driver’s evidence was consistent, detailed, and corroborated by Uber records, including emergency app activity immediately following the incident, whereas the grievor’s explanations evolved over time and key alternative explanations only emerged at the arbitration hearing, significantly undermining his credibility.

The union challenged the adequacy of the investigation on the grounds that the investigator was unable to obtain video footage of the incident. Although the investigator was unable to obtain the alleged video footage, it was clear that the investigator took reasonable steps to do so, including repeated requests to Uber and retaining a private investigator to attempt to obtain the footage directly from the driver. The arbitrator confirmed that employers are not required to obtain every possible piece of evidence before concluding an investigation, particularly where third-party evidence is beyond their control and sufficient reliable information is otherwise available.

The union’s argument that the investigation was unfair because it was conducted by employer-retained legal counsel also failed; the arbitrator found that the grievor was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations during his interview and that there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Finally, the arbitrator rejected the suggestion that the employer was barred from relying on the investigator’s findings when deciding to dismiss the grievor without directly discussing the incident with the grievor. Rather, the arbitrator noted that it is entirely appropriate for employers to rely on information gathered through a workplace investigation.

Any alleged imperfections in the process did not prejudice the grievor or undermine the reliability of the findings, and accordingly, the grievance was dismissed.

Local 30 confirms that employers that investigate promptly, act reasonably, and rely on credible evidence can successfully defend termination decisions—even where investigations are aggressively challenged and evidence is incomplete.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Workplace investigations must be fair and reasonable, not flawless: Arbitrators assess investigations contextually, not against an idealized checklist. Minor gaps, missteps, or missing evidence will not invalidate an investigation where the process is overall fair, timely, and conducted in good faith. What matters most is whether the employer acted reasonably based on the information available at the time—not whether the investigation could have been done better in hindsight.
2. Make and document reasonable efforts to obtain key evidence: Local 30 confirms that employers are not required to obtain every conceivable piece of evidence, especially where that evidence is controlled by third parties. However, employers must be able to demonstrate that they took reasonable, good-faith steps to try and documentation is essential.
3. Credibility assessments carry weight: Where direct evidence is incomplete, arbitrators will closely scrutinize credibility. A well-reasoned credibility analysis can carry significant weight, even where some evidence is missing.

This blog is provided as an information service and summary of workplace legal issues.

This information is not intended as legal advice.