No (reinstatement) means no (reinstatement)

Court reverse’s arbitrators ‘dangerous step backwards,’ upholds termination of sexual harasser
By Adrian Jakibchuk
|Canadian Labour Reporter|Last Updated: 07/04/2013

It has been three years since Bill 168, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace) 2009, took effect in Ontario, extending the reach of the act into the realm of workplace violence and harassment.

Since its enactment, Bill 168 has increasingly been relied upon by employers, courts and arbitrators in support of a "zero tolerance" approach to violence and harassment in the workplace. Which is not to say courts and arbitrators will now always give deference to an employer’s discipline of a workplace harasser. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Bill 168 has empowered adjudicators to take a harder line when it comes to ensuring a workplace free from violence and harassment.

Recent ruling

In Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. CEP, Local 3011, Mr. Haniff, a unionized mail room clerk with six years of service and no prior discipline, was dismissed for cause after a woman employed as a cleaner in the same building complained about a disturbing incident that had taken place in the elevator.