Arbitrator cites ‘increased awareness of pervasiveness of sexual misconduct’
While employees accused of sexual harassment should be presumed innocent before proven guilty, an employer must consider its reputation when responding to such allegations.
That was evident in a recent decision in Ontario, when an arbitrator concluded Ryerson University in Toronto was justified in restricting an associate professor’s presence on campus during its investigation.
The professor had worked for the university since 1987 but in June 2018, he was advised that a student had made a complaint against him under the school’s Sexual Violence Policy. The allegations said the professor participated in drinking activities with students between 2007 and 2010 where he “directed unwanted attention to the complainant, including offering her drinks, flirting, putting (his) arm around her, and slow dancing with (his) arm on her lower back.”
The complaint also said the professor entered the student’s home in April 2010 and had “inappropriate contact with her, including unwanted physical contact, remarks, behaviours or communications of a sexually oriented nature.”
As a result, certain interim measures were imposed. For one, the professor was placed on leave with pay for the duration of the investigation. He was also prohibited from contacting or communicating with the student; he was banned from attending the Ryerson campus; and he was prohibited from having any unsupervised in-person contact with students, on or off campus.
Two sides
The Ryerson Faculty Association filed a grievance, saying the latter two restrictions were “unwarranted and unprecedented.” It cited the fact the student was no longer attending Ryerson (though she did take counselling there), the incident happened eight years ago, and no history of misconduct was involved.
The association also said this involved “an indirect allegation of sexual assault.”
The adverse impact of the interim measures would be “quite significant,” said the association, and the scope of the campus ban was particularly broad. Overall, the professor would not be able to fulfil his duties, it said, and while the professor has not been suspended, “the case at hand is analogous to those cases involving a scenario of an employee being suspended in light of outstanding criminal charges or an investigation of misconduct.”
But in this case, “there was no preliminary assessment as to the overall veracity of the allegations prior to the imposition of the interim measures,” said the association.
Further, while some criminal charge cases face publicity and have an adverse impact on the reputation of the employer, in this case, there had been no such thing, it said.
However, Ryerson said its actions were “entirely without prejudice” and the nature of the allegations “dictate that it is incumbent upon the employer to take certain steps restricting the activities of the (professor) in furtherance of its obligation to provide for the safety of its employees and students and to ensure the integrity of the investigation process.”
Additionally, “from a reputational perspective, there is a legitimate concern with respect to the perception of the Ryerson community and the public generally, if the employer allows the (professor) to have ongoing student contact while the investigation of his alleged sexual misconduct is taking place.”
Arbitrator weighs in
In the end, the arbitrator agreed with Ryerson’s actions, saying the university endeavoured to take the appropriate steps to provide for the safety of its community members.
“There is no doubt that the employer was acting in good faith with respect to the imposition of the interim measures. As attested by the Challenging Sexual Violence Act, taking steps to ensure for the safety of its students and employees is indisputably a fundamental obligation of any college and university in Ontario,” said Brian Sheehan.
It was also incumbent on the employer to balance its legitimate interests and the interests of the professor, he said.
“Specifically, the onus is on the employer to establish it acted in good faith; and that the imposed measures were ‘reasonable and justifiable.’”
The professor was paid while the interim measures were in effect, so Ryerson was recognizing the interests of its employee, said Sheehan.
As for the lack of publicity around the allegations, “it is understandable and quite legitimate for the employer to be concerned about the impact on its reputation and image,” he said. “The relevant question is whether a fair-minded and well-informed public would have lost confidence in the employer if the disputed interim measures had not been imposed.”
Article written by: Sarah Dobson
Article posted in: HR Reporter- Canadian/ March 21,2019
Article spotted by: Louise Burden
No comments:
Post a Comment