Supervisor can’t put harassment complaint behind him, leading to second complaint
A British Columbia worker faced additional harassment and discrimination following a grievance settlement when a supervisor told her at a meeting how the earlier matter had affected him, an arbitrator has ruled.
Meghan Henderson was an apprentice welder for I.G. Machine and Fibres, a manufacturer of granules for roofing shingles in Ashcroft, B.C. Henderson’s employment with I.G. Machine began in 2005 and she became a welder about six years later.
In 2014, Henderson and another female employee were having issues with the company. Henderson felt she wasn't getting enough opportunities to complete her apprenticeship and become a journeyperson welder. They filed a human rights complaint and a grievance under the collective agreement.
On Aug. 20, 2014, a settlement agreement was reached in which I.G. Machine agreed to provide Henderson with sufficient opportunities to train and work as a welder so she could work her way towards achieving status as a journeyperson welder. To this end, the agreement stipulated Henderson would meet with her supervisors to identify areas she needed to work on and follow through with proper training and meet regularly to evaluate progress.
The agreement also stipulated the company and the union would jointly meet with all employees to communicate their commitment to a workplace free of harassment and discrimination, including how complaints would be handled.
Henderson was satisfied with the settlement and felt she and the company had put the issues behind them. She returned to work two days after the settlement, on Aug. 22, 2014.
Matter had not been put behind them
On Aug. 30, Henderson attended a “tool box meeting” with the maintenance supervisor in the morning. These meetings were regularly held at the beginning of each day with employees for discussion and going over any instructions.
There was a discussion in the meeting on how to make the company a better place to work. According to Henderson, the supervisor -- who had been involved in Henderson’s grievance and complaint – looked at her and said, “That mediation…you guys don’t realize how it affected me.” Henderson responded, “I do have an idea how it affected you.”
Henderson testified she felt singled out in front of her co-workers at the meeting and said the others looked at her after the comment was made.
After the meeting, Henderson and a co-worker went to a welding table to start work. Henderson and the co-worker both testified that the supervisor came over to them and told them the mediation had affected him personally and financially, as the company was blaming him for the complaint and his raise was being delayed. He claimed that “until that grievance was filed, the superintendent’s job was mine.” Henderson said she told the supervisor it wasn’t about him and his name was never on the grievance.
Henderson’s next shift was on Sept. 4, and she reported the supervisor’s comments at the tool box meeting and at the welding table to the human resources plant co-ordinator. The co-ordinator told her she shouldn’t have waited until her next shift to report it and said he would talk to the plant manager about it, after which he would get back to her.
After a couple of weeks, Henderson hadn’t heard anything so she saw the plant manager and told him she was upset about it. A meeting was held and the plant manager asked the new maintenance supervisor to conduct an investigation after which he would inform Henderson of the results.
Henderson later met with the plant manager and investigating supervisor and they told her after talking to some people, they couldn’t find any corroboration of her allegations. The shop steward with Henderson suggested there were others present who should be interviewed, so the supervisor talked to two more employees before issuing his final report.
The investigating supervisor’s report indicated all but one employee either said nothing was said at the tool box meeting or they couldn’t remember. The one differing employee said Henderson’s co-worker had pressured the other supervisor for comments about the arbitration. The two additional employees he talked to indicated the arbitration was brought up in the tool box meeting and agreed the other supervisor had mentioned something about how it had affected him.
In his interview, the other supervisor denied making the comments in the meeting or approaching Henderson at the welding table afterwards. Instead, he claimed Henderson and her co-worker had come to his office to tell him the earlier grievance had not been about him, and at that point he told them about the negative impact it had had on him. Henderson and the co-worker both denied going to the office.
The investigation report noted that the accounts of the tool box meeting and the meeting at the welding table by Henderson and her co-worker were “almost an exact retelling of the train of events with some of the same words,” and the co-worker's account seemed rehearsed. In addition, the maintenance supervisor said he thought the other supervisor was experienced and “I can’t see him doing what they allege particularly right after an arbitration.”
The report concluded that Henderson and her co-worker had made up the story about the comments in the tool box meeting and there was no independent verification of the incident at the welding table. Henderson filed another grievance alleging further harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the wake of the settlement agreement from the first grievance.
Flawed investigation
The arbitrator found there were flaws in the investigation in that the investigating supervisor focused on the lack of corroborating witnesses with regard to the welding table encounter. However, there was evidence there were some comments made regarding the mediation in the tool box meeting, including the other supervisor mentioning the effect it had on him.
In addition, the investigating supervisor’s only reason for determining Henderson and her co-worker were colluding and lying about the welding table encounter was that their stories were too similar, “yet he does not consider that their stories might be similar because they both heard the same things.”
The arbitrator found the other supervisor had made a comment about the effect of the mediation on him in the tool box meeting and the employer ignored the evidence that pointed to it actually happening. This comment – and the alleged additional comments at the welding table – came only a few days after the settlement agreement when feelings were still sensitive. This made Henderson feel as though the supervisor wasn’t letting go of things and was getting back at her for filing her grievance – which wasn’t appropriate under the settlement agreement, I.G. Machine’s harassment policy, or the B.C. Human Rights Code ground of discrimination based on gender, said the arbitrator.
“I believe that (the first supervisor’s) intent was not to hurt Meghan Henderson but rather he was expressing his own hurt feelings in a form and manner which were inappropriate,” said the arbitrator. “(His) actions were a breach because they had the effect of upsetting Meghan Henderson in circumstances that a reasonable person would perceive as harassment and retaliation for making her original grievance, or the human rights complaint that she withdrew.”
The arbitrator also found I.G. Machine accepted the report and treated the matter as if Henderson’s complaint was only about the welding table encounter, while ignoring the part of her complaint about the tool box meeting. The company was ordered to pay Henderson $2,000 for injury to her dignity and feelings from the additional harassment and the arbitrator recommended the first supervisor be trained on dealing with the issues stemming from the grievance that were causing him angst.
For more information see:
