Summary of Issue: Harassment

Decision 77536 Full Text of Decision 77536

The employer terminated the claimant's employment because the claimant threatened another employee. An investigation was conducted and the claimant was then dismissed. The employer stated that, each time an employee receives a disciplinary reprimand, they are given a certain number of demerit points. When a employee reaches 60 points, he or she is dismissed. In the claimant's case, the incident in question put him at the 60-point mark but he would have been dismissed in any case because the employer has a zero-tolerance policy for threats and harassment in the workplace. An employer cannot take threats lightly and the claimant's behaviour constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the Act. The Commission therefore imposed an indefinite disqualification on the claimant under section 30(1) of the Act. The BOR upheld the Commission's decision to the effect that the claimant's behaviour, namely, the fact that the threatened someone, constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Act because the claimant had acted wilfully and knowingly. Ths claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 76044 Full Text of Decision 76044

The claimant says he voluntarily left his employment. The employer says he dismissed the employee after he had a verbal exchange at work by making death threats with a knife in hand pointed at a fellow employee. He then, repeated verbal threats to the foreperson present at the time. The employer’s decision is based on the employee file, which is replete with incidents reflecting aggressive behaviour and disrespect for your co-workers and employer. The appeal by the Commission is allowed.

Decision 75839 Full Text of Decision 75839

The claimant stated that he started giving rides to work and buying lunch to a female co-worker and this resulted in a threatening phone call from the co-worker's husband to the claimant. The husband met the claimant in the parking lot at work and told claimant to leave his wife alone. Finally the female co-worker called to the office of the employer and requested not to have any more involvement with the claimant who in turn was called to the office and told not to talk to the female co-worker. The claimant admitted having signed a final written letter of warning from his employer which stated that any further attempts to contact that co-worker inside or outside of the workplace would result in his immediate dismissal. The claimant having contacted the female co-worker again was suspended and on his last attempt, the employer terminated the claimant’s employment. The appeal was dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision 74281 Full Text of Decision 74281

On February 6, 2009 the claimant lost his employment due to misconduct. The claimant attest, and, in a letter reveals his distress, he describes the events that led to his dismissal. It is alleged that the claimant made harassing telephone to a co-worker. The claimant acknowledged the fact but argued that it was outside his hours of work. The Commission determined that those actions, even outside working hours, constitute acts of misconduct. The employer added "that it could not keep the claimant in his job because of the restrictions imposed, since both individuals worked in the same office. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision A-0344.05 Full Text of Decision A-0344.05

The BOR concluded that the harassment committed by the claimant, including sexual harassment, was not wilful or deliberate despite the evidence presented by the employer. The Court stated that the BOR could not ignore relevant evidence or reject it without explaining the reasons for doing so or for which he felt he was warranted in ignoring such evidence. In this case, this evidence concerned the reasons for the claimant's dismissal, the numerous warnings he received in connection with his misconduct, a suspension that was applied and the incidents which ultimately led to the dismissal. Such a conclusion on the part of the BOR appears to be either arbitrary and abusive or mistaken in law in the absence of explanations that may have justified it.

Decision 67295 Full Text of Decision 67295

This was a situation where the claimant specifically targeted one of the students, had a bag prepared with chocolates and flowers and then placing his card with his phone number written on it. This in my view was an ultimate act of misconduct. By doing so, he was inviting the young lady to call him. The claimant is a mature man and the student was only 14 years of age. He was also in a position of trust, being a bus driver and entrusted with the safe transportation of these students.

Decision 65559 Full Text of Decision 65559

Claimant was dismissed after he failed to heed an earlier warning that harassing a female co-worker, by making personal comments of a sexual nature, would result in the termination of his employment. He argued that the complaints made by the female complainants were not submitted in writing and can only be regarded as hearsay. The Umpire stated that, not only is hearsay evidence acceptable before a Board of Referees - the evidence obtained from the complaints and recorded is supported and made credible by the admissions made by the claimant. The judge concluded that there is ample evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant's conduct was wilful and constituted misconduct.

Decision 56385 Full Text of Decision 56385

Claimant dismissed after repeated sexual harassment incidents. Due to the parties’ contradictory versions, BOR gives claimant benefit of the doubt. BOR erred in fact according to the Umpire. Following an investigation which seriousness and breadth are not disputed, le claimant offers no evidence disproving the incidents described, except for denying they occurred. The BOR could have rejected the evidence but would have had to justify such rejection. Commission’s appeal allowed.

Decision A-0516.99 Full Text of Decision A-0516.99

The FCA held that the Umpire erred in law when he decided that the claimant's behaviour could not amount to misconduct because it did not come within a definition in the Harassment Policy of the employer. It is misconduct within the meaning of the EIA which is relevant. Further, the Umpire took too narrow a view of the employer's rules on harassment when stating that there was no harassment unless the victim complains to the employer. Reference made to the definition of harassment drawn from the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Decision 45132 Full Text of Decision 45132

See summary indexed under FCA A-0516.99

Decision 41732 Full Text of Decision 41732

Clmt qualified his behavior towards a female employee as an error in judgement. Umpire stated that an error in judgment occurs by a person, who in the course of his duties, fails to properly balance or assess information available when having to select between two or more alternatives and in the result errs in his selection. Clmt's behavior amounted to miconduct as it was calculated, wilful, deliberate and in violation of the employer's harassment policy.

Decision A-0130.96 Full Text of Decision A-0130.96

Claimant suspended following a charge of sexual assault. Only evidence in the record: employer's vague and speculative version of the facts. BOR asked the Commission to investigate further but the Commission refused. Disqualification upheld by the BOR and by the Umpire, who was satisfied with the body of evidence. FCA disagreed: to show misconduct and the link between misconduct and employment, not enough to raise the filing of criminal charges not yet proven at the time of separation from employment and to rely solely on the employer's speculations, with no further verification. References to Joseph (A-636-85), Langlois (A-94-95), Choinière (A-471-95) and Fakhari (A-732-95).

Decision 31899 Full Text of Decision 31899

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0130.96

Decision 25991 Full Text of Decision 25991

I have no doubt that sexual harassment can constitute misconduct for which people should be dismissed. But this does not excuse the Commission from making serious efforts to prove it. It has the duty to do so if it wishes to deprive claimants of potentially many thousands of dollars in benefits. Ambiguous statement put on file by CEIC officer following phone conversation with employer. The disgusting and repulsive nature of sexual harassment does not justify a finding that it existed simply on second or third-hand reports in the face of direct denials by a claimant.

Decision 23544 Full Text of Decision 23544

On numerous night shifts when claimant was in charge, there were incidents of sexual harassment of staff and inappropriate actions related to the care of residents. Dismissed because she was aware of these actions and did not stop them nor notify management so that action could be taken.

Decision 18258 Full Text of Decision 18258

It is not misconduct to respond in a loud and angry voice if one is being harassed. An employer does have a responsibility to adopt a stance of prohibiting dangerous practical jokes in the work place. Mutual incompatibility. Both parties wanted to terminate the relationship.

Decision 12500A Full Text of Decision 12500A

The Board unanimously agrees that employer did act in good faith, and upon reasonable grounds did dismiss claimant for misconduct. 6-week disqualification upheld. I can see no error of law. The onus is not the criminal onus but merely a balance of probabilities.