• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank

opcougar

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
How social media brought workplace harassment rules into play for men who lewdly heckled reporter

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto-tv-reporter-fights-back-against-obscene-on-the-job-hecklers/article24390881/

But wait, what happened to Gord......

CityNews' top news anchor is Gord Martineau.

This Gord Martineau.

https://youtu.be/riOPZILwwH8?t=3m40s
Hilarious showing of hypocrisy.
 
Mr Simoes learned a valuable lesson: free speech may not have limits, but it does have consequences.

Still, I don't see how a video from 2008 relates to these current events.
 
"Mayor John Tory said if a City of Toronto employee did that kind of thing he would want them fired."
http://www.citynews.ca/2015/05/13/mayor-tory-speaks-out-against-fhritp-vulgarities/

In Ontario, the "Millhaven Test" ( 1967 ) seems to be what the arbitrators still use:

(i) the conduct of the grievor harms the Company’s reputation or product;
(ii) the grievor’s behaviour renders the employee unable to perform his duties satisfactorily;
(iii) the grievor’s behaviour leads to refusal, reluctance or inability of the other employees to work with him;
(iv) the grievor has been guilty of a serious breach of the Criminal Code and thus rendering his conduct injurious to the general reputation of the Company and its employees;
(v) places difficulty in the way of the Company properly carrying out its function of efficiently managing its works and efficiently directing its working forces.

"In upholding the termination, the arbitrator noted that any one of the above factors, if severe enough, may warrant discipline or discharge."
http://www.ontarioemployerlaw.com/2015/01/21/terminated-for-tweeting-a-tale-of-two-toronto-firefighters/


Does Hydro One have the right to fire TFC fan Shawn Simoes?
Employment law experts weigh in on the FHRITP incident at Sunday’s Toronto FC game.
A Sunshine List employee is losing his job after a vulgar televised incident at Sunday’s Toronto FC game – sparking debate over whether someone should be fired for what they do away from the office.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html
 
I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."

I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".

I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.
 
Technoviking said:
I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."

I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".

I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.

Apparently employment lawyers disagree...

Howard Levitt, who specializes in employment law, told CTV's Canada AM that the termination is an example of how social media is changing employment.

"It sends a message that what you do in what you think is your private life, has everything to do with whether you’re going to keep your job or not,"


Shared  with the usual caveats.....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/fhritp-outbursts-can-easily-cost-your-job-lawyer-1.2371690

'FHRITP' outbursts can easily cost your job: lawyer

Canadian politicians, employment lawyers and the public have all weighed on a viral video that has cost a man his job.

Hydro One announced Tuesday that they are firing an employee caught on video yelling a profanity at Toronto TV reporter Shauna Hunt.

In the video, the local news reporter is speaking on camera when a group of men yell out, "F--- her right in the p---."

MLSE takes stand on fans yelling vulgar phrases at reporters

Over the last year, it has become a trend to shout the vulgar phrase into female reporters' microphones. Pranksters call it a joke, but in the video, Hunt says she is fed up with the frequent interruptions.

"When you talk into my microphone and say that into my camera to viewers at the station I work at, that is disrespectful and degrading to me," she tells a group of men who say they were also planning on yelling the line. She then asks why they would find the phrase funny.

One of the men, later identified as a Hydro One employee, tells her that he finds the line "F---ing amazing," and that, if his mother heard him yelling it, she would also find it hilarious "eventually."

Video of the confrontation posted online earlier this week was quickly distributed around the world, later prompting Hydro One to tell CTV Toronto that it was "taking steps to terminate the employee for violating our Code of Conduct."

"Respect for all people is engrained in the Code of Conduct and in our Core Values and we are committed to a work environment where discrimination of harassment of any type is met with zero tolerance," the company said.

Howard Levitt, who specializes in employment law, told CTV's Canada AM that the termination is an example of how social media is changing employment.

"It sends a message that what you do in what you think is your private life, has everything to do with whether you’re going to keep your job or not," Levitt said Wednesday.

He said it is legal for employers to fire people caught showing the type of sexist behaviour captured in the video. A union could fight for an employee to keep their job, but there is no guarantee the union would want to champion such a cause.

And, if the former employee isn’t unionized, Levitt said, their only hope is to change their name and try to start fresh.

Muneeza Sheikh, another employment lawyer, said she would also argue the termination is fair.

"They absolutely did the right thing," Sheikh said. "Generally speaking, if you’re going to terminate an employee on the spot for misconduct, that misconduct has to be fairly egregious. I think there (are) a lot of people who are going to agree with me when I say ‘I think it meets that test.'"

Politicians also responded to the video on Wednesday.

Justice Minister Peter McKay commended Hunt’s decision to speak up, and said that the widespread video could be a tool to deter others from using the phrase.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, NDP leader Tom Mulcair and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne also applauded Hunt’s actions.

"I would like to congratulate Shauna Hunt for her courageous stand," Trudeau told reporters. "I think Hydro One acted appropriately and properly in demonstrating that there is zero tolerance for the kind of harassment and misogyny that was demonstrated in that video."

In my opinion, the concept of personal responsibility has gone out the window. Good on Hydro One in my books.



Cheers
Larry
 
Of course the real secret is that we don't have freedom of speech. We have license of speech. Breach the license and face the consequences.

I would submit that there's no society on earth that has true freedom of speech. Governments everywhere have put varying degrees of limits on speech. Even the US with it's much vaunted First Amendment has limitations on free speech.
 
Technoviking said:
I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."

There is no guarantee a union would represent a member in such a case.

“Interestingly the unions don’t have to take cases. The union could decide it doesn’t believe in this cause and doesn’t want to be associated with this person. The person may be left without a remedy.”
Employment law expert Howard Levitt

"My guess is the union’s not going to touch this just based on the public backlash.”
Labour lawyer Andrew Langille.

Toronto Star May 13 2015

 
For whatever it is worth, he is an engineer. Therefore he is a member of a self-regulating profession, like doctors, dentists and lawyers. This means his actions, statements and, of course, performance of his duties are subject to scrutiny by the regulating board of his professional group. I may be talking out of my butt, but I suspect above all the rest of the crap that has overtaken his young life, he may very well have to justify his retention as a practicing member of the profession.

Note: I am not sure of how and why the PEng thing works, but he seems to have skated over the line of what is acceptable for a practicing engineer.
 
Playing devils advocate a bit, I'm surprised he was fired and I can see him getting his job back if the union gets involved.

People say a hell of a lot worse stuff online every second. Racist, anti-gay, death threats etc... I've seen it happen quite a few times where someone says something online and people run screaming to the persons employer to get them fired.  I'm not sure how different it is simply because it's in person.

Should this woman's job be next on the chopping block?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL6r6JBlOHQ

"online trials" and online bullying seem to be all the rage.
 
Glad he got fired being a public servant and all.  Imagine the hostile work environment the women who worked for him would be feeling each and every day were he still around to supervise them.  I'd just want to gag all the time even having to look at his mug each day.  Not acceptable.

As a female, if he wants to behave in such a manner publicly, all the power to him, but I'd be finding it pretty darn uncomfortable to have to work next to him each day exactly because of those same publicly made sentiments --- because you know how contemptible and disrespectful of women he is.

This female-host-bomb "joke" has been going on for quite some time now; it's disgusting and the fact that he even began to think it was acceptable tells me his mama didn't raise him right; bet she's really proud of him these days.
 
Technoviking said:
I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."

I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".

I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.

I beg to differ. This dude should have known better. He is educated...we think....and is a member of a profession.

If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?
 
Hamish Seggie said:
If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?

Yep, he should have known better.

Well, I'd immediately issue the caution. 

My thoughts are that everyone has the right to free-speech, and they also benefit of the right to deal with the consequences of such.  Want to act/talk like a broken tool, then banishment from the toolbox is absolutely acceptable.
 
ArmyVern said:
Yep, he should have known better.

Well, I'd immediately issue the caution. 

My thoughts are that everyone has the right to free-speech, and they also benefit of the right to deal with the consequences of such.  Want to act/talk like a broken tool, then banishment from the toolbox is absolutely acceptable.

Sec 129 of the NDA would suit this. And an administrative action as well....RW at a minimum.

Besides, this statement this jerk made was so close to encouraging rape.....maybe a shot in the chops would be in order as well.
 
Hamish Seggie said:
If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?

This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.

So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this? 

MC
 
MedCorps said:
This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.

So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this? 

MC

What this guy did is clearly sexual harassment; he could end up punted if he were CAF too. And "yes" - a 129 covers it and it is electable and of that I have direct experience.
Anyway, none of us know his work-history --- it is entirely possible that something akin to your para 2 has already occurred with this fine specimen of a 'gentleman' in his actual workplace owing to something of this nature.  I have no idea, but I do know that if he is comfortable with, and feels it is OK, to actually do/say such a thing in the public realm while being filmed to a reporter - just because she's female - that he's just probably pretty much overall "comfortable" with such behaviour in non-filmed occasions too.

 
I bet his behaviour is worse in non filmed moments.
MedCorps said:
This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.

So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this? 

MC

Charge, I'd say 129 for sure. If he were found guilty the punishment could be severe in order to deter others from behaving like this jerk did.
If a CAF member did this and was identified, I do believe DMCA could perform an AR on him.
 
MedCorps said:
This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.

So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this? 

MC
Court Martial Results

(c)                A person found guilty of an offence under section 129 of the National Defence Act is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service.  This offence is objectively serious.  However, it must be noted that the facts surrounding the commission of the offence or of the offences are at the lower end of gravity for similar matters, not that this constitutes any excuse to the improper behaviour; and

Give it a read.  Note that the possibility of dismissal exists.
 
Interesting read.  The 129 dismissal did not occur in this case, which is more serious then the case we are talking about IMHO. See the Colonel Dutil's comment on the 129 below in the mitigating circumstances as to why dismissal was not on the cards for this charge.

So the case:

We have PO2 Rayment who not only made an inappropriate comment to Cpl Goodwin in contravention  Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5012-0 but also touched her.

Mitigation: He was in a position of trust and authority with the victim of his harassment (not a random reporter on the street).

He was in a deployed environment. 

And the judges comment.. A person found guilty of an offence under section 129 of the National Defence Act is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service.  This offence is objectively serious.  However, it must be noted that the facts surrounding the commission of the offence or of the offences are at the lower end of gravity for similar matters, not that this constitutes any excuse to the improper behaviour.

He gets a reprimand and $1000 fine.

We could substitute aggravating circumstances of being a dork on national TV while a CF member, but we still do not get touching (which is more severe IMHO), no position of authority over the victim and not deployed. 

Again, I think it would be interesting to see how this would turn out if this guy was a CF member (although I hope we never see it in the CF). My opinion is, if this was used as case precedence he would get maybe a similar outcome or lesser not more.

MC
 
Back
Top