Human Rights Legislation Group
Queen's University-
Meeting Highlights
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
- Red Button Issue: Written Complaint
- Red Button Issue: Verbal Complaint
- Excuse: Workplace culture of joking
- Excuse: Promise of confidentiality
- Excuse: Alleged harasser does not work here
- Excuse: Complainant does not work here
- Excuse: Alleged harasser is a manager
- Excuse: Complainant did not come forward
- Inadequate Response for coworkers
- Inadequate Response for Complainant
- Remedial action leads to retaliation
- Meeting the Test: Employer's Response
- Accessibility
- Non-Code Harassment
-
Meeting #3: Accessibility and Accommodation
- Hydro-Quebec
- McGill University
- Honda v Keays
- Hayes v Yukon College
- United Brotherhood
- Senyk v WFG Agency Network
- Kerr v Boehringer
- ADM Milling Co
- ADGA Group
- Toronto Police Association
- Hill v University of Waterloo
- Unger v B.C. College of Optics
- Lenihan v British Columbia
- CB v Emergency
- MF v Capilano Golf and Country Club
- J.B. v Fraser Milner Casgrain
- Gooding
- Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers
- Direct Energy and Communications
- Manitoba Government
- Communications, Energy and Paperworkers
- Das
- Hickey
- Harris
- Meeting #4: Religious Discrimination and Accommodation
- Meeting #5: Sexual Harassment and Assault
- Meeting #6: Bill 168
- Meeting #7: Roundup
- Meeting #8: Mental Disability and Bill 168 Roundup
- Meeting #9: Roundup (including Bullying)
- Meeting#10: Aboriginal Issues
- Meeting #12 Accommodation Roundup
-
Meeting #2: Workplace Harassment
Excuse: Alleged Harasser is a Manager
Bottom Line
The "traditional right to manage" can not be used as a defense for harassing conduct.
Workplace Harassment
In Teamsters Canada, Local 419 v Tenaquip Ltd (, the complainant (a warehouse labourer) was subjected to bullying behaviour by his supervisor.
Failure to Respond
The labourer complained. During the investigation, the company admitted to having hired the supervisor because he was a bully and therefore capable of handling problematic employees (like the labourer). In its grievance, the union claimed that the company had breached its obligation to provide a safe and healthy place of employment. In its defense, the employer claimed the manager was simply exercising his tradition right to manager as he saw fit.
Arbitrator's Ruling
The Arbitrator awarded a complete remedy. A complete remedy, it ruled, can include discipline on a member of management, if such a remedy is necessary in order to restore the environment. The "traditional right to manage" can not be used as a defense for harassing conduct.