Canadian Employment Law Today

4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 employer puts end to union representative's harassment Union unsuccessfully tried to stop worker's intimidation and harassment internally By JEffREy R. SMiTh A British Columbia arbitrator has upheld a worker's termination for years of bullying and harass- ment of his co-workers. Bruce Heuring, 55, worked as a tractor- trailer driver for a Port Coquitlam, B.C., liquor distribution centre operated by Brewers Distributors. He worked with the company for 24 years, working in other positions such as warehouse work- er and truck driver. His discipline con- sisted of two written warnings and a one- day suspension for driving infractions. In August 2012, Heuring began having issues with a female co-worker with whom he had gotten along at work. One day, fol- lowing the daily floor meeting in which the supervisor assigns work based on seniority, the co-worker went to claim the forklift she normally used but she couldn't find the key. After about 30 minutes of looking, Heur- ing came up to her at the forklift, held up the keys and asked, "Are you guys looking for this?" e co-worker was irritated and said she "told him off." ey didn't speak for the rest of the day, but the co-worker heard that Heuring had talked to others about it over the course of the day. Later that week, the co-worker over- heard Heuring in the lunchroom making derogatory comments about the union plant committee and its chair in particular. Several weeks later, the same co-worker was walking in the parking lot when she saw Heuring in his car. She claimed he swerved towards her, gunned his engine, made eye contact with her and laughed as he drove away. is upset her and she reported it to the plant committee chair. She also felt un- comfortable around Heuring following the incident but had to see him every day. She felt he was often staring at her and laugh- ing at her. Some time later, the co-worker was talk- ing to another driver in the warehouse when Heuring drove up on a machine. He told her that she "better watch what you say because it will get back to the union." e co-worker angrily told him off and swore at him, at which point she claimed he lunged forward, trying to scare her. He said "what did you say to me?" and she repeated her comment. Heuring drove off, laughing. Later that same day, the co-worker tes- tified Heuring once again drove up to her on a machine and asked her what her prob- lem was. e co-worker mentioned the in- cident earlier that day and Heuring called her a rat who "didn't know anything about union loyalty." He also made a vulgar com- ment about her. On Nov. 27, 2012, the co-worker went to the parking lot and saw Heuring in his car. She started to cross the laneway but testified Heuring drove straight at her. She said she defiantly refused to change her pace and just made it as Heuring drove by, headed towards the back of the ware- house where employees weren't permitted to park. She saw him laughing at her again. e co-worker had had enough and re- ported the incident to the plant committee chair again. e committee encouraged employees to come to it rather than the company to resolve workplace issues, as it preferred to solve things internally. After several weeks went by with no action from the committee, the co-worker filed internal charges against Heuring under the union's constitution. Heuring then approached her to discuss the matter but the co-worker said it was too late by then. apology not trusted e plant committee finally arranged a meeting in January 2013 to discuss the charges. Heuring admitted to the initial parking lot incident and said he was try- ing to intimidate her. However, he denied the second parking lot incident in No- vember multiple times before finally ad- mitting to it. In that one, he claimed the co-worker shared responsibility because she jumped in front of him and provoked him by slowing her pace. He also admit- ted to the vulgar comments and apolo- gized for them. However, the co-worker didn't trust it as she felt he had "a habit of doing something, apologizing, and doing something again the next day." He was also known by her and others to be in- timidating to co-workers through physi- cal means and vulgar comments. e next month the union held two meetings to discuss collective bargaining proposals. At the second meeting, Heuring criticized the plant committee chair's prac- tice of meeting with a manager by himself. Others told him to sit down because the chair was away on vacation and not there to defend himself. e co-worker was an- gry because she felt Heuring had made up stories about the chair in the past and she felt he had broken his promise to not speak badly about herself or other workers, so she reintroduced her complaint. e plant committee chair confronted Heuring after hearing about the comments and they exchanged words, including pro- fane comments. e chair had issues with Heuring as well, as Heuring accused him of being too cozy with the employer and had made vulgar comments about him to others. He was also familiar with Heuring's conduct through the complaints of the fe- male co-worker. Heuring claimed the committee chair threatened him when he refused to apolo- gize for his comments and filed a harass- ment complaint with the company. e company placed the committee chair on paid leave and launched an investigation. Employer takes action after union can't address harassment e investigation determined that the committee chair posed no real threat to Case in Point: HARASSMENT eMployeRS are becoming more sensitive and aware of harassment and bullying in the workplace – both through their own initiative and increasing legal pressure from governments and interest groups looking to protect employees. Increased awareness of mental health in the workplace is also linking it as a contributing factor to the condition. It all means that employers find themselves having to take measures to address harassment, bullying and violence in the workplace when they become aware of it and have policies in place to prevent it. There is an added factor in a unionized workplace but ultimately, it's the employer's responsibility to protect its employees from harassment – even if the union prefers to handle things internally. BaCkGRoUnd

• Cover