A company is justified in firing a unionized employee for masturbating in a bathroom stall at work, a labour arbitrator in Nova Scotia has ruled. The employee had also been warned about his behaviour two years earlier. The employee and Unifor, his union, tried various unsuccessful arguments in their grievance, including that he had a disability of sex addiction. For privacy reasons the employee is not named in the ruling, which came down last week and is publicly posted in an online legal database. It appears to be the first Canadian labour case on the subject.
Employee fired for workplace masturbation shows that accommodation has its limits
NY Daily News - We are currently unavailable in your region
An arbitrator has upheld a company's decision to fire an employee after he was discovered masturbating loudly in the workplace toilets. The unidentified man, working for an aerospace firm operating hangars at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Canada, had his contracted terminated after his colleagues heard him engaging in onanism during working hours. He had apparently been warned by his employers twice before about touching himself, but had apparently grown "more brazen" over time. The employee claimed that he had a sex addiction, which he argued was a disability, and stated that his prior warnings had been so vague as to be incomprehensible, since management had used obfuscating euphemisms to describe his behaviour.
A recent labour case involving an employee in Nova Scotia who was fired for masturbating at work is a complex intersection of employee misconduct, progressive discipline and alleged disability. An aircraft log controller with 18 years of service, represented by Unifor, was terminated for cause after he was repeatedly heard by other employees masturbating in a bathroom stall. In a meeting, the employer advised AB of these reports. Instead, the behaviour ceased.
A lawyer has justified a company's decision to fire an employee after he was masturbating in the bathroom stall of the workplace toilets. The unnamed man had been warned two years earlier for the same behaviour but, more recently, employees went to human resources to report that his conduct had returned and became 'more frequent and brazen'. Now an arbitrator has concluded that the firm were right in the action they took to dismiss the man. Both the employee and his union, Unifor, tried various arguments which were unsuccessful.