A patrol officer employed by a municipal housing corporation was fired in the wake of allegations that he sexually harassed the guest of a tenant. The union grieved the termination, questioning the substance of the charges and the quality of the employer’s investigation into the events.
Employed by a municipal housing corporation since 2003, it was F.J.’s job to monitor and provide security services for a number of buildings owned by the municipality.
During the course of a conversation with a woman outside one of the buildings one evening in July 2006, F.J. learned that the woman was staying with a friend who lived in the building.
Make the problem “go away”
F.J. informed her that if her name was not on the lease she was not permitted to stay there. He then asked the woman to accompany him to the office where he questioned her. She was joined by her friend who was also questioned by F.J. During the questioning F.J. asked to see their identification and asked for their phone numbers. According to later testimony, F.J. told them that they could be evicted but that he could make the problem “go away.” F.J. did not log the encounter or any details of an inappropriate sublet.
He did, however, begin to call the guest on her cellphone — usually late at night — to ask if she wanted to go out on a date.
F.J. persisted in spite of the woman’s attempts to put him off.
About one month later, F.J. circulated an e-mail to his colleagues and supervisors alerting them to the presence of the woman by fabricating an encounter with her that morning.
A subsequent investigation by another officer into F.J’s allegations led to an impromptu eviction for the woman. However, the two women told the officers about their troubles with F.J. and then followed up their complaints with formal letters.
While an initial, cursory investigation by F.J.’s supervisor dismissed the complaints as “frivolous” and “unjustified” and likely motivated by a desire to “retaliate” for the eviction, the women’s persistence pushed the complaint until it reached the employer’s manager of human rights and equity, who conducted a full investigation.
Full investigation
This investigation, which included interviews with the principals and a review of the evidence, produced a different conclusion.
F.J. was fired on February 16, 2007. The termination letter alleged sexual harassment, which constituted a breach of the employer’s “Code of Conduct,” along with breaches of the provincial Human Rights Code.
Where credibility was an issue, the Arbitrator favoured the testimony of the complainants.
F.J. was in the wrong from the get go. It was not part of F.J’s duties to be making judgments or determinations with respect to compliance with tenancy agreements. “He abused his authority and position when he told [the two women] … they were unlawfully subletting,” the Arbitrator said.
F.J. then sexually harassed one of the women, the Arbitrator said, by asking inappropriate questions and making personal comments about her appearance. His abuse continued with unwanted phone calls and surprise confrontations.
“[F.J.’s] behaviour was also in breach of the [employer’s] Code of Conduct, which applies to all employees and which prohibits making threatening comments, threatening to withhold services, or acts of harassment or discrimination contrary to the [Human Rights] Code.”
F.J.’s conduct was unacceptable for any employee but was particularly “offensive” in this case because F.J. was a security guard in a position of authority over the persons being threatened and harassed, the Arbitrator said.
F.J. compounded his misconduct by lying to the employer and lying during the arbitration process — fabricating stories to account for the lack of documentation to support his stories and even seeking to put blame on the woman for “coming on” to him, the Arbitrator said.
“In light of [F.J.’s] discriminatory, harassing, threatening and abusive behaviour, the Employer was justified in terminating [his] employment … It is not apparent how it could reasonably have done otherwise in the circumstances. [F.J.’s] conduct was completely incompatible with the proper exercise of his duties as a security guard.”
The grievance was dismissed.
