B.C. worker didn’t learn lesson; claimed cat calling was innocent

A British Columbia arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of an employee in a male-dominated working environment who whistled at a female employee.

Ross Elliott was an instructor at a heavy equipment training site in Winfield, B.C., for Interior Heavy Equipment Operator School. He was initially hired in 2007 and worked on and off over the next 13 years.

During Elliott’s tenure, there were concerns about his interaction with females in the workplace. The number of female students had increased over time, so Interior had a zero-tolerance policy for harassment. Though Elliott had been trained on the policy, he had to be told to watch his language and there were multiple incidents of inappropriate comments, catcalls, and other questionable behaviour.

On Jan. 11, 2020, a female student enrolled in the heavy equipment training program — and who was also a long-time employee — complained that Elliott had whistled at her with “a wolf-whistle, like when you see a pretty lady” as he drove by in a company vehicle. It had surprised her since she knew that Elliott had been spoken to about this kind of behaviour. It also made her think that she wasn’t respected as an equal, wondering what people were saying behind her back.

The employee recognized that the incident could be seen as minor, but she said “it’s insulting to women who want to be treated with respect and are serious about pursuing a male-dominated position/role.” She said she was thinking of withdrawing from the program partly because of behaviour like Elliott’s.

Management called a meeting with Elliott on Jan. 16. He didn’t know the purpose of the meeting until they asked him if he remembered whistling at a student. He claimed that he had been giving a tour to the new onsite student administrator — who had been warned by her predecessor to “nip it in the bud” if Elliott said anything inappropriate — when he saw the employee coming out of the student lounge. He thought that instead of using the vehicle’s horn to warn her that the vehicle was coming, he would whistle at her.

He claimed he made a whistle like a chickadee or for someone calling chickens, but another instructor who was with him looked at him and said his name. At that point, he realized that it appeared like he was “whistling at women.” He acknowledged that he should have used the horn and said he felt “horrible, sorry if I’d offended anyone.” He demonstrated the whistle for management.

Elliott said he recalled receiving sexual harassment training, but it was “vague” and “chaotic.” He also said he was aware of the policy posted around the worksite, but said: “I likely didn’t read them.” He acknowledged that he sometimes told “borderline” jokes, but “never anything derogatory.”

Elliott was sent home while management conducted an investigation. The employee who was with Elliott at the time reported that Elliott had made a “catcall whistle” that didn’t sound like the one Elliott had demonstrated in the investigation meeting.

Interior terminated Elliott’s employment on Jan. 20 for sexually harassing the female student.

The arbitrator found that the other employee’s description of the whistle was more credible, as he had no motive for falsely maligning Elliott and the female student’s reaction was consistent with that type of whistle. As a result, the whistle was “of a sexual nature” and interfered with the student’s confidence, said the arbitrator.

The arbitrator noted that as an instructor, Elliott occupied a position of trust with students and was largely unsupervised. His behaviour betrayed that trust and potentially harmed Interior’s reputation as a training site. In addition, the arbitrator found that Elliott displayed no remorse for the whistling incident or any of his previous inappropriate conduct towards women.

The arbitrator upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.