Workers' mental health negatively affected; supervisor showed no awareness of inappropriate behaviour
A superior officer’s repeated yelling, aggressive behaviour, and demeaning comments towards two workers constituted harassment and bullying in breach of the collective agreement and occupational health and safety legislation, an adjudicator with the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board has ruled.
The two female workers were correctional officers at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC) who were temporarily assigned as programme officers in “segregation review” during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their duties were to provide inmates in segregation with meaningful interactions outside of their cells on a regular basis, such as counselling, life-skills training, anger management courses, or entertainment. While they filled these roles, the workers reported to a sergeant in charge of the programme.
The sergeant emphasized giving segregation inmates time out of their cells over meaningful interaction, while the workers disagreed and believed that the interaction was more important to help the inmates be in a better situation when they left the TSDC.
This disagreement led to confrontations with the sergeant, which the workers claimed resulted in persistent conduct and comments from him that were demeaning, belittling, and intimidating. They reported being yelled at, criticized unfairly, and subjected to derogatory remarks. One incident involved the sergeant allegedly slamming his hand on a desk and pointing aggressively at one of the workers while questioning her understanding of policy.
Toxic work environment
The workers were also involved in the TSDC’s Black History Month committee, which they both felt was important work. Their meetings were usually during lunch breaks, but occasionally they were held at times when they would normally be performing their segregation review duties. When that happened, the sergeant would get angry, criticizing their participation in the committee, questioning their priorities, and becoming hostile, according to the workers. On one occasion, the sergeant called one of the workers to ask where they were and, when she responded that they had been busy with the committee, the sergeant said he wasn’t interested and hung up on her.
Both workers also said that the sergeant’s actions created a toxic work environment and left them feeling demoralized. One described a confrontation as the worst workplace interaction of her career, while the other said that her mental health had been negatively affected, resulting in increased anxiety and low self-esteem.
The workers filed multiple occurrence reports and spoke with supervisors, who told them they could file complaints under the employer’s Workplace Discrimination and Harassment policy. However, after some discussion with the union, they opted to file grievances claiming that the sergeant’s conduct violated the collective agreement, the policy, and the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
The grievances also alleged that the employer - the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General – failed to adequately address the workers’ complaints. They claimed that the only employer response to their occurrence reports was a brief comment reminding the sergeant of the importance of acting appropriately with them.
Workplace behaviour
The adjudicator found that the workers’ accounts were consistent and credible, but the sergeant largely denied the allegations, describing himself as loud and direct but not abusive. He attributed some of the conflict to cultural differences and defended his management style as necessary for ensuring inmates in segregation received sufficient time out of their cells. As for his attitude towards the Black History Month committee, he claimed that he supported their work but he felt like he didn’t always know where the two workers were or when they would be back, believing that it should be scheduled farther in advance.
However, the adjudicator also found that the sergeant’s repeated yelling, aggressive gestures, and demeaning comments went beyond permissible workplace behaviour. The sergeant claimed that he was trying to improve compliance with policy standards, but this didn’t justify his aggressive behaviour, said the adjudicator.
The adjudicator said that the sergeant’s actions should be viewed holistically, looking at his interactions with the officers in their day-to-day duties as well as his response to their work with the Black History Month Committee. The collective agreement defined workplace harassment as engaging in a “course of vexatious comment or conduct against an employee in the workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome” - similar to the definitions in the OHSA and the employer’s respectful workplace policy, the adjudicator said.
Harassment, bullying
The adjudicator determined that the sergeant’s conduct “was a marked departure from what could be called ‘reasonable behaviour’” and constituted harassment and bullying, violating the collective agreement and the OHSA. The repeated yelling, slamming his hand on the desk, and questioning of the workers’ integrity and professionalism didn’t serve a legitimate workplace purpose or was performance management, said the adjudicator, adding that the sergeant didn’t demonstrate any awareness that his conduct was inappropriate.
However, the adjudicator found no evidence to support claims of a gendered element to the harassment other than the workers’ subjective perception. The adjudicator also didn’t support the allegations that the employer failed to adequately respond to the worker’s complaints, pointing to meetings with supervisors who informed the workers of their options to report.
The adjudicator allowed the grievances and remitted the matter to the parties to determine a remedy, with the matter coming back to the adjudicator if they couldn’t reach a resolution.
