About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 C.H.R.R. [i] (1982)

handle is hein.journals/chhr3 and id is 1 raw text is: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER CASES OF NOTE Summaries of Recent Decisions and Settlements Volume 3. C.H.R.R. January 20, 1982 DECISIONS OF NOTE Sexual Harassment Discriminatory Condition of Employment An Ontario Board of Inquiry has ruled that two female employees were discriminated against as a result of sexual harassment by their employer. Teresa Faye Cox and Debbie Cowell terminated their employment with Super Great Submarine and Good Eats after repeated physical and verbal abuse by their employer, Jagit Singh Gadhoke. The Board found that Mr. Gadhoke's explanation and defences were not credible and ruled that the harassment constituted discrimination with regard to a term or condition of employment on the basis of sex. The Complainants, it found, could only continue to be employed if they subjected themselves to sexual harassment, a condition forced upon them because they were female. The sexual advances were, in effect, the cause of termination of the Complainants' employment. The Board awarded the Complainants two hundred dollars each in compensation for lost wages. In addition, 750 dollars was awarded to Debbie Cowell and 1500 dollars to Teresa Faye Cox in compensation for the humiliation and intimidation they endured. (See Decision 131) Prior Arbitration Award No Grounds For Dismissing Complaint An Ontario Board of Inquiry has dismissed objec- tions that a prior grievance arbitration award rendered the complaint before it res judicata. The Complainant, Walter Hyman, alleged that Southam Murray Printing discriminated against him because of race when it suspended and later ter- minated his employment. He also alleged that his un- ion, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, local 419, discriminated against him because of race when it failed adequately to pursue his grievance aris- ing from this. The Respondent employer argued that the prior arbitration award rendered the complaint against it res judicata, but the Board dismissed this preliminary objection on the grounds that the Ontario Human Rights Code is intended to provide rights separate from those provided through collective agreements. The Board also dismissed objections by both the Respondents that the Inquiry should not proceed because of unreasonable delay in initiation of the complaint. It found that undue delay had not been es- tablished, and that no significant prejudice to either Respondent had resulted from what delay did occur. The Board further ruled that, unlike a Board of Arbitration, it did not have the discretion to dismiss a complaint because of unreasonable delay. (See Decision 132) Uniform Requirement Results in Sex Discrimination Two female employees were discriminated against because of their sex when required to wear uniforms as a condition of their continued employment, a New Brunswick Board of Inquiry has ruled. The uniforms consisted of tuxedo-style jackets and shorts. Marianne Doherty and Cynthia Meehan testified that on the 2 or 3 nights when they waitress- ed wearing the uniforms they received verbal and physical harassment. After repeated protests they were advised ihat they must, as a condition of continued employment, wear the uniform as provided. The Complainants then left the premises and did not return. The Board ruled that the Complainants had been required to accentuate their sexuality by the wearing of the uniform to a greater degree than had previously' been required, and that this had been required of them because they were women. The Board emphasized that its ruling was not that the New Brunswick Human Rights Code proscribed the imposition of uniform requirements by an employer, including those that served to accentuate the sexuality of employees. It concluded, however, that the employer must be prepared to demonstrate comparable treatment of both male and female employees, or that any disparity in treatment is based on reasons which do not include the gender of the employees. The Board awarded 1000 dollars to each Complainant in compensation for lost wages. (See Decision 133)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most