Concerned that a missing property report inappropriately singled him out racially and implicated him in a theft, an airport Security Officer filed a grievance. The union claimed that the worker was the victim of racial harassment and discrimination contrary to the collective agreement.
Six months after being hired as a Security Officer at a regional airport, D.K. worked a regular shift screening baggage. A few days later, a call from a passenger came through to the airport reporting that a ring had gone missing from a passenger’s baggage.
While there was no allegation of theft either from the passenger or from airport management, the passenger was invited to fill out a claims form. The form, which was completed and faxed back to the airport, detailed the missing property, the date and flight number and the name or, in this case, a description of the Security Officer who screened the baggage. The form identified D.K. simply as “male, native.”
Only First Nations person on staff
Made aware of the contents of the claims form, D.K. became despondent. He interpreted “missing” to mean stolen and — as the only First Nations person on staff — felt he had been unfairly singled out and accused of theft.
D.K. acknowledged the efforts of the site manager and his direct supervisor to reassure him that the investigation into the claim was routine and that he was not being accused of theft. However, D.K. was convinced that the claim was a fabrication and part of an attempt by his supervisor to see him terminated in retaliation for an earlier complaint he had made alleging that his supervisor had called him an “ignorant, f——— Indian.”
Two weeks after the claims form was filed, D.K. filed a grievance claiming that he was the victim of harassment.
An investigation conducted by the employer in response to the grievance affirmed that there were no allegations of theft or recommendations for discipline stemming from the filing of the missing property claims form.
Nevertheless, D.K. persisted in maintaining that he was being harassed. His supervisor, he said, had “changed her way of looking at him.” D.K. implied that she was subjecting him to heightened scrutiny by sitting close to him in the lunchroom and by monitoring his work excessively, approaching him up to 10 times on a shift while he was screening baggage.
D.K. was not harassed, the Arbitrator said.
There was no evidence to support the idea that management had cooked up the missing ring story. The missing property report was real and the details on the form — including the description of D.K. as “male, native” — were generated by a passenger, not management.
“Not necessarily pejorative”
“[W]hile ‘native’ may not be the descriptor preferred by [D.K] and may even be outdated, it is not so pejorative a term that the Employer could not transmit it in a fax communication. Indeed, some terms used to describe ethnic, racial or ancestral origin may be outdated, but not necessarily pejorative,” the Arbitrator said.
Though neither the passenger nor management had made any allegations of theft, once the claim had been made, the employer was obliged to follow it up.
Despite the fact that D.K.’s supervisors went out of their way to reassure him that he was not being accused of theft, D.K. believed he was being accused of theft because of his First Nations status.
D.K. also believed that he was being subjected to increased scrutiny following the incident. Even if he was, the Arbitrator said, D.K. was not being monitored more than any other similarly situated employees.
“As of September 14, 2008, when the ring apparently went missing, [D.K.] had not yet completed his final training to become a fully qualified Security Officer. He was also the second most junior Security Officer on site at [the airport]. Accordingly, it would not have been inappropriate if [his supervisor] had monitored his work more closely than that of experienced Security Officers.”
The supervisor was simply doing her job when she followed up on an inquiry from a passenger, the Arbitrator said.
Moreover, D.K.’s allegations of harassment were taken seriously and an investigation was conducted. “While the Grievor is justly proud of his heritage, neither his heritage nor his integrity was ever impugned.”
The grievance was dismissed.
