February 2012
FROM LOVE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT – NO REALLY MEANS
NO.
Station Mont-Tremblant and Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) de la Station de MontTremblant (CSN), (T.A., Claude Fabien), December 19, 2011 decision.
The complainant, a housekeeping worker, filed two grievances challenging the decision
of his employer to suspend him for five days and to subsequently dismiss him. The two
disciplinary measures were in response to the complainant’s harassment of one of his
fellow workers, a room attendant. Among other things, the complainant had developed a
chronic pattern of sitting at his colleague’s table during coffee and meal breaks, staring at
her without uttering a word. He also followed her home in his car at the end of the work
shift, then repeated the precise pattern in reverse the following morning. Furthermore, he
insisted on obtaining job duties which positioned him closer to her and neglected his own
tasks in order to devote as much time as possible to cleaning the floor where his
colleague
carried
out
her
work
duties.
The arbitrator ruled that the conduct of the plaintiff effectively constituted psychological
harassment. Due to the refusal of the complainant to alter his conduct notwithstanding
repeated requests by both his colleague and the employer, the disciplinary measures
imposed by the employer were justified. Furthermore, the arbitrator considered that
neither the prior romantic relationship between the complainant and the victim, nor his
good faith, lack of malice nor the mundane nature of his acts could be deemed proper
excuses for his conduct. The employer had the duty to take reasonable measures to put an
end to the offensive conduct of the complainant. The chronic nature of his offences and
his refusal to comply with earlier interventions by the employer confirm that suspension
was appropriate and that dismissal was the inevitable outcome. Finally, “the employer
would have been remiss to wait until a more serious incident occurred”. Both grievances
were dismissed.