Canadian Safety Reporter

MARCH 2014 8 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 Published 12 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. Subscription rate: $129 per year Customer Service Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto) (800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto) Fax: (416) 298-5106 E-mail: carswell.customerrelations @thomsonreuters.com Website: www.carswell.com One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4 Publisher: John Hobel Managing Editor: Todd Humber Contributing editors: Zachary Pedersen Liz Foster Sabrina Nanji Marketing Manager: Mohammad Ali mm.ali@thomsonreuters.com (416) 609-5866 Circulation Co-ordinator: Travis Chan travis.chan@thomsonreuters.com (416) 609-5872 ©2014 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd/ ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-7798-2810-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publi- cation may be reproduced, stored in a re- trieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopy- ing, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher (Car- swell, a Thomson Reuters business). Canadian Safety Reporter is part of the Canadian HR Reporter family: • Canadian HR Reporter (www.hrreporter.com) • Canadian Occupational Safety magazine (www.cos-mag.com) • Canadian Payroll Reporter (www.payroll-reporter.com) • Canadian Employment Law Today (www.employmentlawtoday.com) • Canadian Labour Reporter (www.labour-reporter.com) See carswellmedia.com for more info www.safety-reporter.com The arbitrator noted that harass- ment was defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code as "a course of vexatious comment or conduct" that the perpetra- tor ought to reasonably know is unwel- come and "the employer is ultimately liable for discrimination in employment arising from the acts of its employees." The arbitrator found the supervisor's conduct against AB — and a history of previous conduct known to the HSR — both sexualized and not, was based on the fact AB was a woman. AB made it clear to the supervisor his behaviour was unwanted and therefore it met the definition of sexual harassment. This be- haviour — and the humiliation AB felt as a result of it — created "an oppressive situation" and a poisoned work environ- ment, said the arbitrator. The arbitrator found the supervisor's comment "it works both ways" in re- sponse to AB's statement she would file a formal complaint was hearsay and did not find it was a threat of reprisal, but an instance AB brought forward regarding the denial of an overtime shift by the su- pervisor following the filing of the griev- ance constituted a reprisal. The arbitrator also found the supervi- sor was part of the "directing mind" of the HSR, and as a result it could be con- sidered the conduct of the city as AB's employer, making the city "ultimately responsible" for the workplace harass- ment. In addition, the city didn't follow the procedure in its own harassment policy by not properly investigating AB's complaint and not adequately disciplin- ing the supervisor. Also, AB wasn't kept appraised of the status of the investiga- tion and, from her perspective, there was no discipline at all. This led to a continuance of the supervisor working with AB and the poisoned work environ- ment, which in turn led to a deteriora- tion in AB's emotional and mental state. "It is reasonable to conclude that the damage to AB's dignity, feelings and self-respect was only exacerbated by the city's half-hearted and insensitive response (to her complaints)," said the arbitrator. The city was ordered to pay AB $25,000 for violating her right to be free from discrimination in her workplace and injury to dignity, feelings and self- respect. In addition, it was required to compensate her for any sick days for which she wasn't paid that were linked to her poisoned work environment, and remove those absences from her atten- dance management plan. In addition, the city was ordered to evaluate its human rights training pro- gram and provide discrimination and harassment training to inspectors, su- pervisors and managers of the HSR. See City of Hamilton and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 107 (Sept. 18, 2013), K. Waddington — Arb. (Ont. Lab. Arb.). Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. Human rights training evaluated Safety for armoured car staff Continued from page 7 Continued from page 3 prepare and must rely completely on their training. "You become complacent, and that's the problem. It's human nature," Carson said. "You've done this 1,001 times be- fore and the 1,002 time is the day your life ends." Because employees are at risk every day, Unifor is calling for their training to reflect the inherent danger. Safety prac- tices should be continually upgraded, similar to the constant training police officers and firefighters undergo. If these standards were mandatory nationwide, companies would be un- able to cut corners — and ultimately put employees in danger — in an effort to stay competitive. "Take away the incentive to race to the bottom," Armstrong said. "We don't begrudge people making money, that's fine. Employers can make all the money in the world, the paramount thing we have to think about is the health and safety of the men and women who do the work."

• Cover