Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER JULY 2019 NEWS 5 Worker's on-site 'self-love' doesn't fl y Washroom activities breach Halifax employer's harassment policy, code of conduct BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A NOVA SCOTIA arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a worker who unsettled many of his colleagues with too much self-love in the offi ce washroom. e worker was employed as an aircraft log controller at I.M.P. Group, a company that operates aircraft repair, maintenance and upgrade facilities at Halifax Stanfi eld International Airport. Hired in 2000, the worker was stationed at a hangar space that could accommodate several air- craft and a three-storey offi ce structure. I.M.P. Group had a code of business conduct and a policy and procedures manual that made it clear the company ex- pected employees "to conduct themselves with honesty and in- tegrity, and to treat others with fairness, dignity and respect" and prohibited harassment. Harassment was defined as "any improper conduct that is directed at and off ensive to an- other employee, by a person who knew or ought reasonably to have known would be unwel- come." e worker had a copy of the code and had acknowledged he understood harassment in- cluded embarrassing others. Shortly after the employee started working at I.M.P. Group, he began masturbating in the toilet stalls if no one else was in a stall beside him. It was a habit he had developed when he was in the military, where there was a lack of privacy on tours of duty. e worker later testifi ed he didn't make any noises when he did this, but he sometimes watched pornography on his smartphone. He said no one ever told him it bothered them and should stop. He didn't believe it af- fected his work and I.M.P. Group had no problems with his work performance. Employees complain However, in January 2016, two employees asked a production manager for guidance on how to deal with someone masturbat- ing in the washroom. ey both identifi ed the worker. The complaint reached the vice-president of HR and the manager of production control, who met with the worker about "unusual noises" he had made in the washroom and inquired if there was a medical reason. e worker felt it was a private issue and didn't say anything about it. After the meeting, a union shop steward talked to the worker about "rumours about inappropriate noises in the bath- room" brought to him from oth- er union members. e worker denied doing anything wrong but mentioned he was going to seek medical help. The worker stopped his bathroom activities for a while, but then resumed them while trying to be "more cautious." By April 2018, more I.M.P. employ- ees complained about "a male masturbating in the bathroom… for a few months now" that had became "more frequent and bra- zen" as time passed. I.M.P. Group conducted an investigation that included in- terviews with several employees. Some reported hearing heavy breathing, moaning, and moans likely coming from pornograph- ic videos on the smartphone. Some employees said they refused to use the washroom because of what they had heard going on inside. After the investigation, the VP of HR and senior manager of HR met with the worker and a union steward. Management explained the investigation had determined the worker was the person mas- turbating in the washroom and the worker admitted the same. He acknowledged he had been told his actions were inappropri- ate, but he couldn't explain why it was still happening. Management asked him if there was anything it should take into consideration or need to know, but the worker shook his head. He later testifi ed he felt what he did "behind locked doors was my business and no one else's." e worker was pre- pared to clean out his desk, but the meeting concluded with management telling the worker to go home pending a deci- sion by the company on how to proceed. e worker felt stressed about the situation, as he considered himself a private person and was uncomfortable with know- ing co-workers had complained about his behaviour. He contact- ed the company's employee as- sistance program for referral to a counsellor. e worker didn't believe he had a sex addiction, but told the counsellor he had a problem. The counsellor thought the worker could have a sex ad- diction, though the counsellor wasn't licensed to diagnose psy- chological conditions. e counsellor suggested the worker try to distract himself e arbitrator found the worker partook in an activity that he knew, or ought to have known, would cause embarrassment and distress to his co-workers. Jeff rey Smith LEGAL VIEW SEX > pg. 34

• Cover