Harassed employee’s constructive dismissal claim belongs in arbitration: Court

Employee's complaint was for constructive dismissal, not the harassment, so collective agreement had jurisdiction

An Alberta court has refused to hear a woman’s complaint of constructive dismissal due to harassment, ruling it should be handled though the grievance process outlined by her collective agreement.

Tracy Granter worked for Hood Packaging Corporation in Calgary. In September 2006, while training her on new equipment, a co-worker harassed her with inappropriate behaviour and comments. Granter complained to her supervisor, who told her he would discuss it with the co-worker.

When the harassment continued and two more complaints didn’t get her anywhere, Granter brought the matter to the HR department in October 2006. The harassment stopped for a while but soon resumed. In November, she requested a transfer to a different work crew but her supervisor denied the request.

The harassment continued and in January 2007 another worker saw Granter’s co-worker touch her inappropriately. The co-worker was warned but the harassment didn’t stop until Granter started having panic attacks. She “begged and pleaded” to be moved but she was told to ignore the co-worker and continue working as normal. The harassment continued for several months.

Granter went on short-term disability leave for seven weeks starting on June 1, 2007. She gave a written complaint to the plant manager, the HR co-ordinator and a union member. She asked what she could do to stop the harassment but the plant manager told her “the issue was dead.” The HR department said it investigated her complaint and disciplined the co-worker in August 2007 for situations where there were witnesses.

The collective agreement provided for a grievance procedure for disputes between the company and any employee and the right of the company to discipline or dismiss employees for “neglect of duty, insubordination and dishonesty.”

Granter felt the way her supervisors were handling the situation rendered the grievance process useless and the causes for dismissal in the collective agreement didn’t include sexual and emotional harassment. As a result, she filed a claim in court for constructive dismissal based on the harassment she faced and management’s lack of action.

“Ms. Granter’s allegations, if proven, describe a working environment at Hood Packaging that was appalling: conduct that was abusive, sexist and intolerable and a callous disregard by management of both the situation and the inaction of her supervisors,” the court said. However, it continued, her claim was for constructive dismissal against Hood, not the harassment, which was within the jurisdiction of the collective agreement. Therefore, the court denied her claim.

“The essential nature of Ms. Granter’s dispute with her employer relates to the improper constructive termination of her employment and therefore alleges a violation of a term of the agreement that the employer will discharge her only for cause,” the court said. “It comes within the terms and provisions of the collective agreement.” See Granter v. Hood Packaging Corp., 2008 CarswellAlta 364 (Alta. Master).

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!