Ontario lab technician’s complaint about sexist comment in interview dismissed

An Ontario worker’s complaint that a manager made an inappropriate comment during a job interview has been dismissed by an arbitrator.

LifeLabs operates several laboratory testing facilities across Canada. The company hired Natka Brestovanska in 2014 as a part-time lab technician at an Ontario location.

In 2019, Brestovanska applied for a regular full-time medical lab technician position. She was granted an interview on July 31 with her manager — who was male — and a female client services supervisor. Although she knew the manager, she didn’t have much contact with him as she reported directly to her own supervisor.

The interview was conducted in a relaxed atmosphere with both the manager and the supervisor asking questions. At one point, they asked Brestovanska how she would handle a “chatty customer” who didn’t want to leave.

According to Brestovanska, the manager said that was “what I used to do with women as a bachelor in my 20s when I was done with them” and the female supervisor giggled. She ignored the comment, answered the question, and they moved on with the rest of the interview without any issues.

However, the manager’s comment made Brestovanska feel uncomfortable and she believed it was derogatory to her, the female supervisor, and women in general. She didn’t initially report it to anyone until she learned that she didn’t get the position.

At that point, she filed a grievance alleging that LifeLabs had violated the collective agreement, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and company policies “by making comments [that] ought [to have been known] to be unwelcome during my interview... ”

Brestovanska explained that she didn’t initially report the incident because she felt that people “don’t believe women” and she believed that there would be repercussions for her.

LifeLabs investigated the allegation and interviewed all three individuals who had been at the interview. The manager said he didn’t recall asking the question, but he knew he wouldn’t make a comment such as that which was alleged. He said things proceeded professionally and there were light jokes but nothing inappropriate. The supervisor also didn’t recall the exact question, but she said it was a standard interview question. She also didn’t recall the manager making the comment and believed it was unlikely he would have, as it would have been unacceptable to her.

LifeLabs concluded that Brestovanska’s claim was unsubstantiated. The union proceeded to arbitration, with Brestovanska claiming that the investigation was flawed because it didn’t assess “probability” and “took a man’s word over a woman.” She said she no longer felt comfortable in the manager’s presence and avoided staff meetings if there was a chance he would be there. She also changed her status from part-time to casual.

The arbitrator stated that the circumstances were a classic “he said/she said” conflict where credibility must be assessed. Both sides were adamant about their versions of the incident and neither had a motive to lie — there was no history of animosity and they had previously gotten along, said the arbitrator.

The arbitrator found that the deciding factor in determining credibility was the third person in the interview — the supervisor. The supervisor was firm in that the interview was professional and the manager didn’t make the comment — it was likely that she would have remembered it and condemned it if he had, the arbitrator said.

The arbitrator also noted that there was no evidence that the manager had a history of making inappropriate comments and it was unlikely someone with his experience and position would make such a comment in an interview with two women.

The arbitrator determined that the union failed to prove that the manager made the comment. While Brestovanska may have been upset about the conclusion of the company’s investigation, there was no evidence that it wasn’t the right outcome, the arbitrator said in dismissing the grievance.