blog

blog

Dylan Hill
March 1, 2013

Two Sentences End Career

How the burdens of Leadership extend to appropriate language

An arbitration was held related to the modified discipline given to a Fire Captain (Mr John) in a large city Fire Department. The arbitration panel heard details of the events leading to the ter- mination of a Mr John, which relate to comments he made about female firefighters on the way back from a call.

The events of that day are not in dispute. The Association and the Employer agree to the content of the comments Mr John made that day and agree that serious discipline ought to have been imposed.

Mr John was riding back to the Station in a fire engine with a number of firefighters. One of the firefighters was female. Mr John asked, “Why are there so many gashes at your hall?” He was asked to repeat his comment because one firefighter could not believe what he had heard. He replied and referred to women in an extremely derogatory way using a term that was exception- ally offensive.

On making his second comment, a male firefighter pointed to the back seat, and Mr John, seeming to realize a woman was in the vehicle said, “I’m sorry, I forgot you were here.” No ac- knowledgement of the comments were made and no further discussion ensued.

Once back at the station, Mr John approached the female firefighter and said, “I’m sorry, I thought you were on another rig.”

The employer learned of the comments that day and met with Mr John the following day. He admitted to making the comments and indicated that he should not have done so. The Chief re- viewed the case and ultimately decided that Mr John should be terminated. In his testimony, the Chief described the very high priority placed on the department and himself on creating an in- clusive work environment. It was a high priority of the department to increase the number of female firefighters. The Chief stated he had high expectations of Fire Captains. They were to lead by example and set a tone to promote a culture of professionalism, teamwork and respect. The Chief considered the serious nature of the misconduct and the need to

make a forceful statement to the members of the department that such conduct would not be tolerated. He also took into account that Mr John had 33 years with the department and a discipline- free record. He acknowledged that while Mr John had apologized, he did not con- sider the apology genuine in that he considered Mr John to be sorry for making the comments in the presence of a female fire-fighter but not for making the statements overall.

Grievance

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of Mr John.A Deputy Chief was assigned to hear the Step One Grievance.

Subsequent to his termination, Mr John had prepared a handwritten letter of apology to the entire department. Management decided not to circulate the letter to the entire department but did share it with the leadership group. Mr John’s letter showed genuine remorse for what had happened, including the fallout from the conflict and took full responsibility for his actions.

The Deputy Chief considered the letter to be very sincere in nature. He considered the 33 years of service by Mr John and his clean disciplinary record. He considered the misconduct to be very serious but concluded that a combined suspension/demotion would send a suffi- cient message “to the culture”.

The substituted discipline was an 8 week unpaid suspension and a temporary demotion for 6 months in length.

The Association still considered the discipline to be excessive and advanced the Grievance to Step Two where it was denied. The Grievance was subsequently advanced to arbitration.

Arguments

The Employer argued that as a Captain and a leader, Mr John had the responsibility to model appropriate professional behaviour. Creating an inclusive work environment is a high priority for the department. The Employer referenced training sessions for leaders in the organization. They argued that while Mr John had long service free from discipline,the comments he made were highly offensive and entirely inconsistent with the expectation to serve as a role model. Not only were the comments vulgar and demeaning, they sent a message that in Mr John’s view,women did not belong in firefighting.

The Association acknowledged that the comments were inappropriate, vulgar and deserving of discipline. However, they considered the discipline too severe and stated that a modest suspension without the temporary demotion in rank would have been an appropriate disciplinary response taking into account a number of factors. First,the crew itself did not see the need for any further action. Second, Mr John immediately apologized to the female firefighter. Third, Mr John candidly admitted the comments and acknowledged that he was wrong. Fourth, the conduct was isolated in nature. Fifth, Mr John was remorseful as evidenced in his handwritten letter of apology.

Split Decision

The arbitration panel entered a majority decision with a partial dissension. Writ- ing for the majority the Chair commended both the Employer and the Association for theconductofthehearing,inthatthey agreed to submit the written witness state- ments to the comments rather than have the firefighters appear and give evidence, since the substance of the comments was agreed to.

The Chair considered three factors. First, the context of the workplace. He stated that the Employer had a duty to take all reasonable efforts to maintain a workplace free of discrimination and harass- ment. Firefighting is a male dominated profession with only 30 female firefighters in a total workforce of 1300.He wrote that negative attitudes towards women and hostile conduct towards women undermined the efforts of the Employer to make pro- gress on the important objective of creat- inganinclusiveworkenvironment.Sec- ond, he considered the leadership position Mr John was in. He stated that a Fire Captain was expected to lead by example. Third, he considered the content of the comments themselves. He wrote that the message from Mr John was very clear: The Fire Station was very unfortunate to get stuck with 3 women firefighters. He wrote that the female firefighter would have been demoralized by the comments and understood that her supervisor was prepared to refer to her in a repugnant and demeaning way. He stated Mr John was sending the message to the crew that it was acceptable to refer to female colleagues using degrading and demeaning terms.

The Chair considered mitigating factors and found that the initial apology was not sincere. He found that the second apology was sincere but had already had the effect of reducing the discipline from termination to a suspension and demotion.

The majority found that the modified discipline was not excessive and dismissed thegrievance.

What do you think? Tell us on Twitter @HillAdvisory 

Dylan Hill
December 1, 2012

Split Decision

featured image

How a case about age related comments split the Arbitration Panel

The Arbitration relates to a complaint by the Union on behalf of Mr Glen. It is alleged that the CEO (Mr Ray) of the Employer violated the Employer’s harassment policy by yelling at and verbally abusing a long-time employee. The allegation is that Mr Ray called Mr Glen a “dog f**ker” and said “why don’t you older employees f**k off”. Mr Glen became emotionally distraught, broke down and cried over the incident.

Mr Ray denies the specific allegation but does admit that the F-word was used in the exchange but not attributable to any person.

The incident in question stemmed from a manufacturing concern. Mr John, son of Mr Ray was the general manager of Sales and Marketing and assigned Mr Glen to produce a piece of equipment for a customer who had not been satisfied in the past. The customer was giving the Company a second chance. Mr John told Mr Glen that the equipment should be perfect and said that it would be gone through with a “fine tooth comb” before it left the plant. Mr John said that he would personally inspect the equipment.

The work was done and presented to Mr John for approval. However, Mr John completely rejected it. Mr John testified that the work was “unacceptable”, the paint job was “horrific” and he was embarrassed to think that Mr Glen would think this was acceptable work, especially in the circumstances. Mr John’s rejection took part near the end of the day. Mr Glen’s work had been rejected and he was faced with having to completely re-do the work. Mr Glen was frustrated and waved his arms in the air, threw some tools down and said he didn’t care and was going to go home to get drunk and forget about it.

Mr John told his father Mr Ray about the incident and Mr Glen’s comments. The equipment was re-done and there was some discussion during the inspection. Mr Ray joined the discussion and is said to have made the comments regarding older workers as well as saying that Mr Glen “did not give a f**ck anymore” and that Mr Glen “got paid for every f**king hour” he worked.

Nothing Done

Mr Kan was the production supervisor and Mr Glen’s direct manager. Mr Glen reported the incident the same day and was so distraught that he broke down and cried. Mr Kan told Mr Glen that they would talk about it on Monday.

Mr Glen saw Mr Kan on Monday but Mr Kan appeared to not want to do anything about the incident. Mr Kan never did get back to Mr Glen. There was no evidence that Mr Kan pursued the matter or that the Workplace Harassment Review Board, referred to in the Workplace Harassment Policy, became involved.

Denial

Mr Ray testified that he did have a discussion with Mr Glen about the equipment and that the conversation got heated. Mr Ray stated that Mr Glen became defensive right away and refused to listen to him. He stated that any comments he made about Mr Glen drinking were in relation to Mr Glen saying that he was going to go home and get drunk. Mr Ray denied saying that Mr Glen was a “dog f**ker” and volunteered that he had never used that expression in his life. Mr Ray denied the comment “why don’t you older employees f**k off” and said that this would not be the Company’s objective. Mr Ray did not think he called Mr Glen a name and, in his view, did not demean him.

In cross examination Mr Ray tempered his denial of ever using the expression “dog f**ker” by saying he “didn’t remember it”, “didn’t think so”, and “would not have used the word”. Counsel for the Union put to Mr Ray the circumstances of a prior meeting where Mr Ray used the expression. Mr Ray replied, “I don’t recall”

The Arbitration panel observed that Mr Ray did not take lightly to the questioning and at times became very belligerent to counsel for the Union. At one point Mr Ray lost his temper and blew up.

Company Response

The Company did not attempt to resolve the situation with Mr Glen, nor did they conduct an investigation into the incident. It did not appear that there was any real interest in carrying out any investigation and addressing the impact of the incident on Mr Glen. The focus was on the equipment instead.

Mr Ray first heard of the harassment complaint when he received the grievance with the memo attached. He immediately attempted to contact Mr Glen to apologize and did provide an apology followed by a letter. Mr Ray sent another letter responding to the grievance shortly thereafter. In that letter he denied having made the comments in question.

Mr Glen testified that he did not fell Mr Ray’s apology was sincere.

The Finding

The Arbitration Panel considered the Company Policy on Harassment and Discrimination, the Collective Agreement with the Employees, the grievance, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The Panel considered their authority and jurisdiction in the matter and determined that they did have the jurisdiction.

The Panel moved to the question of the specific behaviour and considered whether it was harassment. The Panel concluded that for the most part Mr Glen’s recollection of what occurred during the incident “is better and more in line with the facts than…” Mr Ray’s recollection. The Panel found as a fact that during the exchange Mr Ray called Mr Glen a “dog f**ker” and made the statement “why don’t you older employees f**k off”.

The Panel were of the view that it was also significant that the Company did not pursue the issue when brought to the attention of Mr Kan and that nothing further was done until the grievance was filed.

The Panel concluded that the comments did constitute harassment according to the OHSA policy. The Panel further concluded that the comments were a breach of the Employer’s harassment policy.

Split

The majority ruled that harassment had occurred and the grievance was sustained.

The minority (Employer’s Nominee) disagreed with a number of the conclusions reached by the majority. The minority expressed that there was no breach to the OHSA because there was no evidence to satisfy the part of the Act that requires the conduct to constitute a threat to the Health and Safety of the Grievor.  The minority disagreed as to whether the conduct amounted to harassment. He noted that harassment requires an objective standard rather than a subjective one and cited Arbitrator Luborsky in Re Cara Operations Ltd. and Teamsters Chemical, Energy and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 647, [2005] 141 L.A.C. (4th) 266 at 274. The minority stated that “Although the Grievor may have been personally offended by statements made…that is not the test to be applied. Applying an objective standard, the evidence does not satisfy me that there was any harassment.”

What do you think? Would you side with the Majority or the Minority? Tell us on Twitter @HillAdvisory

Dylan Hill
November 1, 2012

The Swinging Pendulum

Employer’s action disproportionate to offense

Gary worked in an industrial environment for a major employer for 31 years. He was terminated for making a comment at a meeting of technical staff attended by about 16 em- ployees, eight of whom were women. In response to a suggestion that the Employer hire four new technicians, Gary said words to the effect: “yeah, men only”. One of the women (Jane) at the table immediately stood up and challenged the comment.

That woman and another took the matter to their supervisor, Jim, immediately after the meeting. Jim, who had chaired the meeting and was sitting beside Gary said that he had not heard the comment but he said that he would speak to Gary.

The two women were dissatisfied with Jim’s response so they decided to take the matter to the Human Resources Department. HR conducted an investigation, which included an interview with Gary. The Employer determined that Gary had made the remark and failed to appreciate the seriousness of his misconduct. Gary held a prior record for similar behavior. That discipline was a three day suspension (about a year prior) for a vulgar remark he made about the woman who raised the issue about his comment in the meeting. Because of this prior record, the Employer concluded that termination was now the appropriate penalty.

The Union filed a grievance regarding the termination on Gary’s behalf. The Union position was that the Employer’s disciplinary response was a gross overreaction to what was a minor offense, and that Gary should have received “counseling at most…”. The Union sub- mitted that terminating an employee with 31 years of service, who had one disciplinary blem- ish on his record, was both egregious and unsustainable and that it was grossly disproportion- ate to the offense. The Union also submitted that the Employer failed to follow their own Respectful Workplace Policy with respect to the investigation. Finally, the Union submitted that the Employer’s disciplinary response to Gary was clearly discriminatory based on other cases that were addressed by the Policy, or should have been but were not.

Prior remark

About a year earlier, Gary made a comment about Jane. Jane was pregnant and he made a comment to a group of men that was described as “extremely vul- gar”. The remark was brought to Jane’s attention and she filed a formal complaint. The Employer hired an external investiga- tor and Gary was suspended for three days at the conclusion. In the Employer’s pro- gressive disciplinary process, a three day suspension was step four in a five step process; step five was termination.

Gary was also directed to supply a written apology to Jane and to undergo mandatory counseling. He completed these requirements.

Concerns

At the outset of the arbitration, Jane and another woman filed a letter with the Employer, who supplied it to the Arbitra- tor. The letter referred to their fear of re- prisals both inside and out of the work- place should the termination stand. They also expressed concern about Gary return- ing to the workplace, the message that would send, and the plan for reintegration. The letter referred to Gary’s continuos comments and attitudes regarding women.

Current remark

In the meeting, the technicians were discussing training with particular attention to the lack of training for new employees and the effect that had on the current em- ployees. Gary was the longest serving em- ployee and was at the top of the overtime list. The technicians rotated through cer- tain duties, some of which were less desir- able. Some junior technicians were not trained in these less desirable duties, so more senior technicians like Gary had to perform them more often. Gary had been

raising that as a concern with the Em- ployer for years. Gary also thought the training issues were gender based, as the two newest hires were pregnant and could not perform those less desirable duties for a time. It was with this context that the dis- cussion of new hires came up. There was some dispute as to the exact wording word- ing of Gary’s comment. During the inves- tigation, Gary denied that he had said “only men” should be hired and instead indicated that he said, “Yeah, you want to hire three guys.”

It is undisputed that Jane immediately challenged Gary’s remark. She stood up, shook her finger at Gary and told him that he had “just segregated” all the women in the room. Jane testified that Gary just looked at her without responding.

Gary testified that, when challenged by Jane, he sat back in his chair, put his hands up and said “sorry”.

Investigation

During the investigation by the Em- ployer, it was determined that Gary had indeed made the remark more consistent with the version that Jane recalled. In ad- dition, evidence was submitted about a conversation between Jim and Gary after Jane had complained.

Jim met with Gary and told him that the comment he made was not acceptable. Gary told Jim that the comment was meant only as a “quip” to another male employee. He apologized for the comment and said that he had not meant to offend.

Lacking Remorse

A significant part of the Employer’s case against Gary related to his failure to appreciate the seriousness of his miscon- duct and his accompanying lack of re- morse. The Employer also relied on Gary’s remarks, when first interviewed, that he thought the Company was making “a mountain out of a molehill”.

Decision

The arbitrator found that Gary’s re- mark was not a termination offense. He found that the words were uttered in the nature of a quip and without any intended malice or defined target. He noted that Gary had 31 years of service, only one blemish on his record and had no ability to affect the hiring and firing decisions of the Employer.

However, the arbitrator considered the letter filed at the beginning of the arbitra- tion by the Employer on behalf of Jane and the other female employee. He noted that the letter suggested Gary was guilty of a systematic course of harassment against women, and that he was capable of retalia- tory violence against women. The letter made him believe there was far more to the case than the remark itself.

The arbitrator waited for the Em- ployer to draw a more complete picture. He was waiting for proof that Gary’s re- mark was but an expression and culmina- tion of a systematic course of misogynistic conduct by Gary. He waited in vain.

Instead, the Employer indicated the decision to terminate Gary was based on his remark at the meeting only and nothing else.

The arbitrator found that the Em- ployer failed to prove Gary’s remark was part of a series of events and was not seri- ous enough by itself to warrant termina- tion. He imposed a 5 day suspension, which he characterized as an additional step of progressive discipline, taking into account the 3 day on his record. Gary was reinstated immediately, reimbursed for all lost wages (8 months), without any loss of seniority or benefits.