Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 ture" that fell under both the respectful workplace and workplace violence poli- cies. It found Gramescu breached both of these policies as well as its code of con- duct, which had all been reviewed with Gramescu when he was hired. ough Akera never took his concerns directly to Gramescu and never told the city he felt threatened, it considered the nature of the comments — particularly the reference to Akera's skin and a steering wheel – to be serious. Akeri had also made it clear he didn't want Gramescu removed from the workplace but he wanted him to stop making such remarks. interview didn't go well In his interview, Gramescu denied call- ing Akera a monkey and then refused to answer any further questions, acting ag- gressively. He kept interrupting the labour relations consultant who was doing the interviewing and the foreman had to tell him to be respectful. e meeting ended with Gramescu no longer answering ques- tions and not making eye contact, accord- ing to the foreman. Gramescu also made no offer of an apology. e city determined Gramescu com- mitted serious breaches of its respectful workplace and workplace violence poli- cies and violated Akera's human rights by discriminating against him with racial slurs and making a threatening remark about his skin. It terminated Gramescu's employment on March 26, 2012. e arbitrator found that from the be- ginning, the city was concerned with fol- lowing its respectful workplace policy, as the foreman who notified management of Akera's complaint brought it up im- mediately. ough the policy set out pro- cedures for addressing harassment and discrimination claims through mediation and resolution, the collective agreement did not bind the city to follow the policy. e city retained its right to investigate and take a course of action it deemed ap- propriate as part of its managerial respon- sibilities, said the arbitrator. e arbitrator found Gramescu's deni- als to be lacking in credibility, as he was evasive both in his interview and in his testimony. e other employees who were interviewed were straightforward and had little motivation to lie. As a result, the ar- bitrator reached the same conclusion as the city – Gramescu had made the racist comments to Akera. e arbitrator noted that profanity in itself wasn't necessarily reason for disci- pline in the environment of the city ga- rage, and if the circumstances were only "a simple verbal exchange with shop floor language," lesser discipline might have been appropriate. However, in this case Gramescu had made "clear racist com- ments coupled with a salacious comment about Mr. Akera's mother." In addition, they were ongoing slurs that went on for three straight days and made Akera sad and fearful of Gramescu. e other em- ployees interviewed agreed Gramescu had "crossed the line with his comments." Since Gramescu had less than two-and- one-half years of full-time service, his co- workers didn't want to work with him, he failed to apologize in a timely manner, he failed to acknowledged making the com- ments, and he didn't show respect for the interview process, the arbitrator found dismissal was an appropriate response to Gramescu's racial harassment of Akera. For more information see: • Edmonton (City) and CUPE, Local 30 (Gramescu), Re, 2015 CarswellAlta 105 (Alta. Arb.). march 4, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today AbOuT THE AuTHOR JEFFREY R. smiTH Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www. employmentlawtoday.com for more information. credit: rommel canlas/shutterstock

• Cover