BC Workplace Bullying and Harassment Policy: A Plain-English Employer Guide for 2026

Every British Columbia employer needs a working system for preventing and responding to workplace bullying and harassment. A short statement saying “we do not tolerate harassment” is not enough. WorkSafeBC expects employers to develop a policy statement, prevent or minimize the hazard, establish reporting and investigation procedures, train workers and supervisors, follow up after investigations, keep records and review the system every year. This guide explains those requirements in plain English. It is built around Canada Policy Manual's detailed British Columbia template and focuses on what an employer must do before, during and after a workplace bullying or harassment report. Ready to put the B.C. program into practice? Start with the jurisdiction-specific policy and program template, then replace every placeholder with your workplace details. Download the Free B.C. Workplace Bullying and Harassment Policy Under the occupational health and safety provisions of the Workers Compensation Act and WorkSafeBC's policies, a B.C. employer should have all of the following: a policy statement saying workplace bullying and harassment is not acceptable or tolerated; practical steps to prevent bullying and harassment where possible and otherwise minimize it; reporting procedures explaining how, when and to whom workers report; an alternate reporting route when the employer, supervisor or employer representative is accused; procedures describing how and when investigations will occur; clear roles for employers, supervisors, workers, investigators, witnesses and representatives; investigation follow-up, including corrective action, timeframes and attention to adverse effects; investigation documentation and record-keeping rules; information and training for workers and supervisors; and an annual effectiveness review of the policy statement, reporting and investigation procedures, and prevention steps. The system applies to more than conflicts between employees. WorkSafeBC's definition can include conduct by an employer, supervisor, co-worker, customer, client, patient, contractor or member of the public toward a worker. This article is general information, not legal advice. Workplaces with unions, regulated services, vulnerable people, complex privacy obligations, serious violence or federally regulated operations should obtain advice suited to their circumstances. WorkSafeBC Policy P2-21-2 defines workplace bullying and harassment as including inappropriate conduct or comment by a person toward a worker when the person knew or reasonably ought to have known the conduct or comment would cause the worker to be humiliated or intimidated. The definition excludes reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the place of employment. Several parts of this definition matter. A single incident may be enough Unlike a definition that requires a repeated “course” of conduct, the B.C. wording refers to any inappropriate conduct or comment that meets the test. Repetition can make a case stronger, but a serious single incident may qualify. For example, one public threat, degrading slur, unwanted sexual touch or humiliating initiation may require an immediate response. The employer should assess the actual conduct and context instead of assuming that bullying must continue for weeks before the policy applies. The test includes what a reasonable person should have known The person does not escape responsibility simply by saying, “I did not mean to upset anyone.” The question includes whether that person reasonably ought to have known the conduct would humiliate or intimidate the worker. Context matters. Consider the language, tone, setting, power difference, worker's vulnerability, audience, previous interactions, work purpose and whether the conduct was public, digital or repeated. The worker does not always have to confront the person Some policies mistakenly require a worker to tell the alleged bully to stop before making a report. That can be unsafe or unrealistic when the alleged person is an owner, manager, aggressive customer or someone controlling shifts, income, housing, transportation or immigration-related work conditions. Workers should be encouraged to speak up when they feel safe, but direct confrontation should not be a condition for using the reporting process. Third-party behaviour can be covered The definition uses the word “person,” not only “employee.” A customer shouting degrading insults, a patient directing racist comments at a worker, a contractor sending intimidating messages or a member of the public repeatedly targeting an employee can engage the employer's prevention and response duties. An employer may have less control over a non-worker than over an employee, but it still needs reasonable controls. Those controls may include client-conduct notices, service limits, security, staffing changes, contract terms, escalation proc