Employment lawyers explain how to prevent ‘ordinary’ employee venting from turning into legally discriminatory behaviour – and how to tell the difference
In a B.C. RCMP board hearing last week, constable Mersad Mesbah said he used a private group chat as a “landfill” to vent built-up resentment over what he said was a pattern of “file-dodging” by other officers.
Mesbah told the board the group chats he participated in allowed him “a place where I could just unload this level of animosity and anger because I was watching these same things happen over and over,” according to the CBC.
Dating back to at least 2021, the chats in question, both in private groups and RCMP Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), were found by an investigation to include sexist, racist and homophobic comments exchanged among a group of officers posted in Port Coquitlam.
Along with Mesbah, two other constables, Ian Solven and Philip Dick, were found by RCMP adjudicator Louise Morel to have violated the RCMP’s code of conduct by failing “to treat people with respect and courtesy”.
Employee venting: from ‘ordinary’ to coachable
As David Brown, partner at Ascent Employment Law in Kelowna, B.C., explains, some employee venting in the workplace is to be expected, even in healthy environments.
However, when venting crosses over into being discriminatory or targeted it becomes problematic. To help discern the line, Brown suggests employers look for a few core characteristics – for example, “ordinary, occasional venting” tends to be situational, non-recurring and focused on facts or events, such as a certain project or increased workload.
He also stresses that everyday venting should not target protected groups.
Vancouver area employment lawyer Daniel Sorensen, partner at Sorensen Truong, frames the issue as a spectrum or continuum rather than a hard line.
“You will have what I'll call pure venting, where you have complaints about workload or decisions or processes,” he says, describing one end of the spectrum.
“Like ‘This project is chaotic’ or ‘This is too much work,’ just general things of that nature … it's not targeted. There aren't slurs, there's no threats, no sexualized content, no discriminatory content.”
In the middle of the spectrum, Sorensen places conduct that is problematic but potentially coachable.
“That can be things like gossiping, mocking, snide commentary, ridiculing, that sort of thing, or comments that rely on stereotypes or humiliation,” he says.
“It might be that … with some coaching, that it can be corrected, but often it depends on the context and the on the situation.”
When employee complaining becomes toxic
At the far end of Sorensen’s spectrum are behaviours that cross into clear misconduct and contribute to a poisoned or toxic workplace in legal terms. These are no longer just unwise comments but actions that can trigger human rights, health and safety or code of conduct consequences.
He describes these as remarks that make for a poisoned or toxic workplace, where there are discriminatory comments or jokes, sexually explicit jokes, statements that degrade colleagues or people, threats or intimidation, “things that I guess go along the lines of exclusion or shunning or sabotage. Things that would be clear abuses of authority.”
Brown adds that when venting or complaining is allowed to continue, it becomes a symptom of bigger, potentially serious issues, “where it's chronic or it's ongoing, because that's going to signal that you've got rot within your business culture.”
Trust, roles and power: why context matters for employers
Brown says the standard for acceptable behaviour is tied closely to the trust at the heart of an employment relationship. Even beyond the specific language used, some conduct can be damaging because it signals that trust has broken down.
The question for HR, he states, is often whether a particular pattern of venting shows normal tension or a deeper breakdown in good faith.
“The employment relationship, it's a contract, but it's founded on trust. Thatreally is at its core,” Brown says.
“Like a personal relationship, or a marriage relationship, it doesn't mean that there are no fights and that there's no ebbs and flows … the fact that there's some venting is, I think, expected, but where someone's behaviour fundamentally undermines or ruptures the trust, that would be problematic.”
He notes that employers already treat breaches of trust seriously in other contexts, and that the same logic can be applied to toxic chat behaviour: “If it's very serious, if it's racist, if it's homophobic, if it's cultivating hostility within the workplace, that's going to go a lot further in breaking trust than if it's somebody saying, ‘Can you believe John gave me another assignment?’”
Sorensen highlights the importance of position and power in assessing the impact of venting – the same words may land differently when they come from a frontline employee versus a manager or supervisor. For employers, he says, that means closely examining who is driving the behaviour inside group chats and whether power dynamics are playing a part.
“Supervisors or leaders generally have a higher duty with respect to these sort of things,” he says.
“In terms of it becoming poison or toxic, there's often a pattern of repetition, where it's not just an isolated occurrence.”
Duty to act: ignoring toxic venting key misstep
As Sorensen bluntly puts it: “The most common misstep is ignoring it.”
Once an employer becomes aware of problematic venting, he says, doing nothing is a serious mistake that can worsen the situation and increase legal exposure. Awareness can come through complaints, screenshots, bystander reports or even rumours that are credible enough to warrant a closer look.
However allegations come to light, the duty is to act, and act immediately.
“We see employers that have become aware of things like this, and they just turn a blind eye to it or ignore it,” Sorensen says.
“HR, when they become aware of something like this going on, they have a responsibility to deal with it, and if they don't, it can often snowball into a situation where the workplace starts to become poisoned.”
Reviewing and updating policies is also crucial; as Sorensen explains, many organizations still rely on respectful workplace or social media policies drafted before encrypted apps and informal group chats became ubiquitous.
Meaningful feedback to address employee venting
He stresses that striking a balance between not monitoring every private comment, and defining when something becomes a workplace issue, is integral to keeping policies up-to-date.
Employers should also default to taking complaints and feedback seriously, he adds, rather than dismissing them as mere griping – when employees feel unheard, frustrations are more likely to ferment and go underground.
“It's not going to work for every workplace, but it can often make sense to have a truly anonymous survey, or a consultant who could come in and essentially collect feedback from employees,” he says.
“Meaningful feedback, where employees are comfortable sharing that, and actually considering it.”
