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

[armyvern]

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 Aggravating: 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

Fixed your above for you. 

Note that the judge noted it was his first offence.  There's some good studies on the CM site --- with more severe outcomes than the one I linked.  It just happens to be the one I am familiar with and thus easy for me to google.

Like I said, who knows what, if anything, was already on file in this guys workplace. Perhaps this "public" gaff was just the straw that broke the camels back.  Oh well.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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'm with you 110% Dave, I'm sure Ms. Hunt loves all the hits her twitter account is getting on this  : some people will do anything for a story.  I am not condoning what these guys said but the media are scum.  A professional reporter would/should have walked away.   

What I saw was a couple of drunk guys running their mouths off.  People are so petty nowadays, it's ridiculous.  I'm so sick and tired of listening to all the self-righteous, holier than thou, talking heads. 

This whole social media shaming is the modern day equivalent to pillory IMO... perhaps we aren't as "civilized" as we think we are?

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?

People say and do dumb crap sometimes, doesn't mean they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.  I've said and done some pretty stupid things in my life and haven't had my livelihood taken away because of it.  We know nothing about this guy other than he said something really stupid and crass to a reporter and now we are already making him walk the plank.  Note, it wasn't even on live tv but the News channel released it after the fact..... hmmm wonder why they would do such a thing  :  surely not for more views? 

Would you feel so good about your decision to fire him if he had a child who he now can't support because he is out of job? 






 

 

[Sigs Pig]

I too am with Technoviking and you, RoyalDrew.
Internet Pillory

Stay cool
ME

 

[OldSolduer]

I too am with Technoviking and you, RoyalDrew.
Internet Pillory

Stay cool
ME

Again I beg to differ. This was a deliberate verbal attack on a woman that encouraged sexual violence. This was no slip of tongue. This was thought out and executed. He deserves what he got.

 

[Valhrafn]

Again I beg to differ. This was a deliberate verbal attack on a woman that encouraged sexual violence. This was no slip of tongue. This was thought out and executed. He deserves what he got.

I would have to agree with you. This type of behaviour is disgusting and has no place in society.

Also, for those questioning what would happen in the CF, I remember signing legal documents for my interview that prohibited any racism and sexism...it's a no-tolerance policy...
Oh and not too long ago...http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/04/30/corrosive-sexualized-culture-in-canadas-military-report

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

Actually it's not sexual harassment, it's disturbing the peace. 

Sexual Harassment isn't a criminal code offence, rather it is litigated under civil law i.e. federal/provincial legislation, human rights codes, and/or labour legislation or policies

Sexual harassment generally has three major characteristics:

the behaviour is unwanted and unwelcome,
the behaviour is sexual or related to the sex of the person,
the behaviour occurs where one person has more formal power or authority than the other (like a teacher or a boss) or more informal power (like an older student or co-worker). 

Key part highlighted for you.  They definitely hit the first two but it would be pretty tough to prove the last one. 

I would lawyer up if I were these guys

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

EDIT:

If buddy was in the military you could charge under 129 but he would most likely be allowed to elect for a summary trial (rank dependent of course).  I seriously doubt you would be able to kick him out as a result of summary trial proceedings.  More than likely he would receive a fine and some other minor punishment.  He would also be placed on administrative measures, most likely IC or maybe even RW.  I seriously doubt he would be put on C&P.

For the record, I think these guys acted like idiots but I'm not about to launch the lynch mob on them.  I think Hydro One probably doesn't have just cause to fire him but believe that the positive PR they are receiving outweighs the potential legal reprecussions.  More than likely, he will take them to court and they will settle. 

Moral of the story, friends don't let friends talk to reporters.

 

[mariomike]

Also, for those questioning what would happen in the CF,

Interesting to read the varying opinions.

The department I was a member of would tolerate almost anything, unless you became a public disgrace.

They might find you another job behind the scenes ( if you were not too toxic for the other employees ), or in another classification. But, the amount of public indignation this generated would most likely end your career as an operational paramedic in the city. And good luck trying to get hired by any of the out-of-town municipalities after being let go by Metro.

Even TFS is starting to crack down:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2014/2014canlii76886/2014canlii76886.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALbWF0dCBib3dtYW4AAAAAAQ

 

[ModlrMike]

I seriously doubt you would be able to kick him out as a result of summary trial proceedings.  More than likely he would receive a fine and some other minor punishment.  He would also be placed on administrative measures, most likely IC or maybe even RW.  I seriously doubt he would be put on C&P.

Given the current climate, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

 

[opcougar]

Scandinavian countries????? They are way more civilized than most

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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

Possibly-QR&O 19.14

19.14 - IMPROPER COMMENTS


(2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:

    if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
    if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.

 

[Ex-Pat FlagWagger]

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.

He is actually not a licensed engineer - it seems that a reporter found his actual job title too long and shortened it to "engineer" for reasons of brevity.

As regards the PEO, the complaints process covers professional competence  and conduct/behaviour. Harassing reporters would likely fall under this category.

 

[opcougar]

Additionally, he studied "business" at Wilfried Laurier in KW. He works for hydro one in a position of systems engineer management, so he is isn't really an engineer by studies or professionally unless he is has the P.Eng designation.

It's illegal to call yourself an "engineer" like most regulated professions, when you aren't one, which is akin to imitating a mbr of the CAF like Mr Gervais on remembrance day

He is actually not a licensed engineer - it seems that a reporter found his actual job title too long and shortened it to "engineer" for reasons of brevity.

As regards the PEO, the complaints process covers professional competence  and conduct/behaviour. Harassing reporters would likely fall under this category.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Interesting to read the varying opinions.

The department I was a member of would tolerate almost anything, unless you became a public disgrace.

They might find you another job behind the scenes ( if you were not too toxic for the other employees ), or in another classification. But, the amount of public indignation this generated would most likely end your career as an operational paramedic in the city. And good luck trying to get hired by any of the out-of-town municipalities after being let go by Metro.

Even TFS is starting to crack down:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2014/2014canlii76886/2014canlii76886.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALbWF0dCBib3dtYW4AAAAAAQ

Again, an organization can let you go, with or without just cause; however, if it's without just cause and that's proven in civil court, they should expect to pay you out and the payout will not be an unsubstantial sum.

What Hydro One did is against the advice most lawyers would give them; however, they probably think the PR bonus outweighs the potential legal ramifications.  This will be taken to court and will most likely be settled with a payout to Mr Simoes who will win. 

 

[armyvern]

Actually it's not sexual harassment, it's disturbing the peace. 

Sexual Harassment isn't a criminal code offence, rather it is litigated under civil law i.e. federal/provincial legislation, human rights codes, and/or labour legislation or policies

Sexual harassment generally has three major characteristics:

the behaviour is unwanted and unwelcome,
the behaviour is sexual or related to the sex of the person,
the behaviour occurs where one person has more formal power or authority than the other (like a teacher or a boss) or more informal power (like an older student or co-worker). 

Hmmmm, me thinks you'd better watch the video again. Also note that it says "generally".  Also note that a construction worker whistleing at a woman walking down the street is also sexually harrassing her.  I'm sure if some dude pulled off the above filmed incident on your wife and it upset her, your response wouldn't be, "no worries, it's just a guy thing so learn to like it and put up with it".


Note the "generally" bit of number 3.  I can assure you that a woman can be sexually harassed by someone other than a teacher or boss (thus NOT meeting standard 3) or authority figure - just as a man can be.  Vern shakes head slowly and walks away.  :

 

[opcougar]

Ack. I think so too, with the amount of lawyers coming out of the woodwork to give their 2cents. However, you can expect the public to be the ones having to pay back any legal costs, in the form of inflated hydro one charges...as if it isn't high enough as is  :

Again, an organization can let you go, with or without just cause; however, if it's without just cause and that's proven in civil court, they should expect to pay you out and the payout will not be an unsubstantial sum.

What Hydro One did is against the advice most lawyers would give them; however, they probably think the PR bonus outweighs the potential legal ramifications.  This will be taken to court and will most likely be settled with a payout to Mr Simoes who will win.

 

[opcougar]

So can a male / man. I am sure you are aware of the recent (most in the US) female teachers that have been convicted for having sexual encounters with male students. Again, I personally don't condone any form of harassment be it gender, sexual or race.

Hmmmm, me thinks you'd better watch the video again. Also note that it says "generally".  Also note that a construction worker whistleing at a woman walking down the street is also sexually harrassing her.  I'm sure if some dude pulled off the above filmed incident on your wife and it upset her, your response wouldn't be, "no worries, it's just a guy thing so learn to like it and put up with it".


Note the "generally" bit of number 3.  I can assure you that a woman can be sexually harassed by someone other than a teacher or boss (thus NOT meeting standard 3) or authority figure - just as a man can be.  Vern shakes head slowly and walks away.  :

 

[captloadie]

Oh, if I was a member of the media, I wonder what kind of story I could spin by reading this forum. Combine the comments from the sexual harassment thread with the comments on this one and voila "Military Members Still Don't Get it or maybe CAF Members Make Excuses for Sexual Harassment

We all say or do stupid things in our lives, true. But when we are confronted we can choose to accept responsibility, sincerely apologize if required, and accept any repercussions. Or we can be like the clowns on the video and say meh, everybodies doing it.

And to those blaming the reporter, screw you. You come off as the same sort who would blame a rape victim because the way they dressed. Listen to the reporter's interviews after the incident. All she wanted to do was stand up for herself. She didn't seek out the guy's identity or place of work. She didn't get him fired. His facebook friends did that.

 

[exgunnertdo]

We all say or do stupid things in our lives, true. But when we are confronted we can choose to accept responsibility, sincerely apologize if required, and accept any repercussions. Or we can be like the clowns on the video and say meh, everybodies doing it.

And to those blaming the reporter, screw you. You come off as the same sort who would blame a rape victim because the way they dressed. Listen to the reporter's interviews after the incident. All she wanted to do was stand up for herself. She didn't seek out the guy's identity or place of work. She didn't get him fired. His facebook friends did that.

Thank you, that's exactly my thoughts.  It's people walking away and not saying anything that allow tools like this to keep saying things like this.

This incident could fit under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The OHRC covers five “social” areas: services, goods and facilities; occupancy of accommodation (housing); contracts; employment; and membership in vocational associations such as trade unions. She was working, he wasn't.

But, Bill 168 came in a few years ago and I am often seeing reference to it in places where members of the public have to be reminded that workers are entitled to a workplace free from violence and harassment (buses, doctors offices, etc). I don't know specifics, but it would appear that Bill 168 has some teeth to prevent members of the general public from harassing people in their workplace.

OHRC says -

Section 10 of the Code defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious[8] comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.” Using this definition, more than one event must take place for there to be a violation of the Code.[9] However, depending on the circumstances, one incident could be significant or substantial enough to be sexual harassment.

It was one incident...maybe, depending on how you look at it. Or, it was one incident, and when he was called on it, he continued the harassment. Now it's a pattern. Or, you can argue a pattern because it's been going on in the media for a while. While it might be the first time he has participated in this, he has seen/heard of it and has tacitly been participating.

But I could also argue that this one incident was "significant or substantial" enough that he should have known it was sexual harassment. The "more than one event" test, IMO, is more for the racy jokes, pin up pictures, kind of stuff. "Oh, I didn't realize it was offensive." Or someone asks someone else for drinks after work, flirting, etc. After your told it's unwelcome, and you keep doing it, it's harassment.

Did he deserve to lose his job? Maybe he has a history (I can't imagine someone who talks the way he talks has NEVER said anything inappropriate before).  Would I (as a female) want to work with/for this guy? No, after seeing his true colours on camera, I would have a hard time respecting him and believing that he respects my rights.

 

[observor 69]

For those who think this is just one of those things," get over it", listen to this interview with a CBC Toronto reporter. The experience of female reporters has it's own particular context.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Toronto/ID/2667105674/

 

[opcougar]

I think it's fair to say base don some of the subliminal comments in this thread, and those that I have read elsewhere, that the buffoons / nincompoops that see the incident / misogynistic comments that happened to Ms Hunt as "just a thing / comical", are the same type of people that wouldn't have a problem with racial slurs being directed at minorities, and to the extreme think a cop shooting a minority in the back 8 times is just.  :

Again...this kind of stupidity is not limited to some males, there are girls / women who are just as bad especially when it comes to matters revolving around race. I have heard some nasty things come out of women's mouth, and my only explanation will be due to where they grew up, their parents, stereotypes in the media and pure stupidity and level of education.