the women tolerated his behaviour, it didn't
mean it was welcome.
Gray also found no evidence indicating
Mummery suffered from a disabling addic
-
tion. Mummery chose to drink alcohol at the
event and was likely well-versed in its effects,
said Gray. In addition, Mummery didn't say
he might not have done it if he hadn't been
drinking.
Arbitrator Gray found Mummery's ac
-
tions were vexatious conduct that Mum-
mery ought to have known to be unwelcome
— meeting the definition of harassment in
the Ontario Human Rights Code and the
company's harassment policy. In addition,
he should have expected that posing naked
on someone's car, whether he knew whose
it was or not, was likely to be unwelcome
by the car's owner. ough Mummery said
he didn't intend the female employee to see
what he did, it was possible she might see
video or hear about it, said Gray.
Gray also found that while Mummery said
he was embarrassed and ashamed, he didn't
do anything to show he wouldn't commit
similar misconduct in the future. He said he
regretted that the female employee saw the
video — not that he actually did it.
"My sense is that (Mummery's) only true
remorse is that his behaviour was recorded
by video cameras of which he was unaware,
and that that had led to his discharge," said
Gray.
ough Mummery had a clean record
and long service with Innophos, this didn't
overcome the risk he would do something
similar in the future and the fact he didn't
seem to recognize his misconduct. Arbitra
-
tor Gray upheld the discharge and dismissed
USW's grievance.
For more information see:
• Innophos Canada Inc. and USW, Local 6304
(Mummery), Re, 2016 CarswellOnt 8165
(Ont. Arb.).
CREDIT:
PAUL
VASARHELYI/SHUTTERSTOCK
Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016
August
17,
2016
|
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.
