Bushey v. Arvind Sharma

Bushey v. Arvind Sharma
Collection
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Date
2003-06-05
Neutral citation
2003 CHRT 21
File number(s)
T720/2502, T721/2602, T722/2702
Decision-maker(s)
Hadjis, Athanasios
Decision type
Decision
Decision status
Final
Grounds
Sex
Decision Content
Between:
Connie Bushey
Complainant
- and -
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Commission
- and -
Arvind Sharma
Respondent
Decision
Member: Athanasios D. Hadjis Date: June 5, 2003 Citation: 2003 CHRT 21
Table of Contents
I. Facts
A. The Complainant’s Perspective
(i) Employment and Union Membership
(ii) Visits and Calls by the Respondent to the Complainant’s Office
(iii) Incident Outside of the Complainant’s Apartment Building
(iv) The Subject Matter of the Respondent’s Visits and Calls Becomes Sexual in Nature
(v) The Response from Other Union Executives
(vi) National UPCE Conference in London, Ontario
(vii) Purchase of New Couch for Office and Gifts for the Complainant
(viii) Incident at Office of the Local - April 18, 1998
(ix) April 19, 1998 Letter from Complainant to Respondent
(x) Changes in the Complainant’s Behaviour
(xi) Renewed Contact by the Respondent after the April 18, 1998 Incident
(xii) Events after the Complainant’s Return from Labour College
(xiii) July 27, 1998 Meeting
(xiv) Measures Taken by the Complainant to Avoid Contact with the Respondent
B. The Respondent’s Perspective
II. Law
III. Analysis
A. Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction
B. Credibility of the Evidence
C. Was the Respondent’s Conduct Sexual in Nature?
D. Was the Respondent’s Behaviour Unwelcome?
E. Was the Respondent’s Behaviour Persistent or Severe Enough to Create a Hostile Environment?
IV. Remedy
A. Expenses Related to the Complainant's Change of Residence
B. Letter of Apology
C. Pain and Suffering
D. Wilful and Reckless Behaviour
E. Interest
F. Sexual Harassment Training and Counselling
G. Retention of Jurisdiction
[1] The Complainant and the Respondent are employees of Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post). The Complainant alleges that the Respondent sexually harassed her during the period when they were both members of their union’s local executive, from February to August 1998.
[2] The Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission) was the only party represented by legal counsel at the hearing before the Tribunal. The Complainant’s case was essentially introduced through the evidence led by the Commission. The Respondent presented his case on his own.
I. Facts A. The Complainant’s Perspective (i) Employment and Union Membership [3] The Complainant has worked at Canada Post since 1982. Her position in 1998 was that of Officer of Testing and Design, within the Service Performance Evaluation section. The section measures the delivery performance of Canada Post’s products. She worked in an office situated in one of several large buildings that are occupied by Canada Post, near the intersection of Riverside Drive and Heron Road, in Ottawa. Her office was on the 3rd floor of the 10-storey structure known as the East Tower.
[4] The Respondent was first hired by Canada Post in 1991. His regular position in 1998 was that of Supervisor in Transactional Control Accounting, in what is essentially the billing and accounting department of Canada Post. In April and May 1998, he received an acting assignment at the higher level position of Officer. His office was on the 5th floor of the East Tower, two storeys above the Complainant’s office.
[5] Both parties were members of the Union of Postal Communications Employees (UPCE), the bargaining agent for about 3,000 of Canada Post’s employees. The UPCE is a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC). The Complainant became involved in some of the UPCE’s activities in 1994, and, in 1996, she was elected Vice-President of her local, UPCE 70180 (Local). It was the UPCE’s largest local in the country, with about 1,000 members at that time.
[6] Although the Complainant and the Respondent worked in the same building, their occupations were completely unrelated. They met for the first time in September 1997, during a union membership meeting. Several days after the meeting, the Respondent went to the Complainant’s office and inquired about how he could get more involved with the union. She advised him to speak to the then President of the Local, Mr. Jim Fraser, or the Chief Shop Steward, Mr. Ken Zarichansky. She also suggested to the Respondent that he consider taking several courses offered by the PSAC.
[7] The Complainant testified that from October 1997 until February 1998, the Respondent showed up at her Canada Post office about once every month. She was leery of his visits although there was nothing in his conduct that gave her specific cause for concern. She found it odd that he would keep coming back even though she had advised him to speak to the other members of the Local Executive about getting more involved.
[8] On February 19, 1998, a general membership meeting was held to elect the Local’s Executive. Mr. Fraser did not want to run for President again, preferring instead to devote himself entirely to his other duties as Full-time Officer of the Local (a full-time paid position). The members elected the Complainant to replace him as President. The position of Treasurer had also been vacated. By then, Mr. Fraser and other members of the previous Executive had already met the Respondent. They considered him to be a good candidate for Treasurer since he possessed accounting skills, worked in an accounting-related position at Canada Post and had taken college level courses in the Certified General Accounting program.
[9] These Executive members recommended the Respondent’s candidacy to the Complainant and they proposed that she, as the newly elected President, nominate him to improve his prospects for election. She testified that she initially objected to their proposal, in light of her general concerns about his visits to her office. She eventually went along with the others’ suggestion and nominated the Respondent for Treasurer. He won the election for the position.
[10] The Treasurer’s duties consisted essentially of receiving and depositing the Local’s monies and issuing cheques for disbursements, including those related to the Full-time Officer’s salary. In addition, the Treasurer was involved in the preparation of the annual financial statements and budget. For the issuance of cheques, two signatures were required from either the Treasurer, President, Vice-President or Full-time Officer, although the latter was not permitted to sign his own pay cheque. No more than ten to twenty cheques were issued in a given month. Much of the Executive’s activities related to grievances and disciplinary actions involving the Local’s membership. These matters were dealt with mostly by the Full-time Officer in consultation with the President and the Chief Shop Steward. These tasks did not form part of the Treasurer’s range of duties. The Treasurer was expected to attend executive meetings, which were held about once a month, in the evenings.
[11] The Local had leased office space at a nearby building that was owned by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). The CLC building was within walking distance from the Canada Post complex where the Complainant and the Respondent worked. All of the Local’s documents, including its financial records, were kept at the office. Access to the office was restricted, but all the Executive members, including the Respondent, were provided with keys and access cards that enabled them to enter at any time, on any day of the week. The Complainant testified that she kept no financial records or other union documents at her Canada Post office. She was not directly involved in the making of payments by the Local, aside from the requirement that she approve mileage claims and other extraordinary expenses. The Complainant claims that the Respondent was instructed, when he took on his duties, to leave these expense-related documents and any cheques that required her signature, in her mail slot at the Local office. After being signed, the cheques were to be mailed by the Full-time Officer who worked there each day. She herself ordinarily went to the Local office daily, mainly to verify if the employer had sent any twenty-four notices requesting a meeting, pursuant to the collective agreement.
(ii) Visits and Calls by the Respondent to the Complainant’s Office [12] The Complainant alleges that very soon after the Respondent was elected Treasurer, he began to contact her at work repeatedly, by telephone and in person. She recalls that he was calling her about four to five times per day and that he was coming down to her office just as often. Considering the limited scope of the Treasurer’s duties and the minimal degree of interaction with other Executive members that was required, there was almost no reason at all for him to be in touch with her at work.
[13] She states that the subject matter of these calls and visits initially concerned ways to improve the union’s operations. However, the conversations soon began to drift towards personal matters. He began to tell the Complainant details about his family life. He is of East Indian origin and he explained how he had an arranged marriage in accordance with the customs of his culture. She claims that these conversations were distracting her from her work and became very annoying. She occasionally asked him to leave but he often just remained at her doorway and stared at her.
[14] Another topic raised by the Respondent with the Complainant was his résumé. According to the Complainant, within five days after the Local’s election, he began asking to sit down and review this document with her. She consented and they met for this purpose at the Local office one afternoon after work. The Complainant claims that she ended up being in the office with the Respondent for two hours. It became evident to her that he was unwilling to accept some of her recommendations just so the meeting could be prolonged and he could spend more time with her. He repeatedly requested additional help with his résumé over the following weeks even though she told him she was too busy to help.
(iii) Incident Outside of the Complainant’s Apartment Building [15] On March 10, 1998, the Complainant alleges that an incident took place that changed the nature of the Respondent’s conduct towards her from merely annoying to overtly sexual. Freezing rain was coming down that day and the roads were icy. She had walked over to the Local office on her way home from work, in order to check for any correspondence. The Respondent called the office and she answered. He told her he was going to come in to do some accounting work. He insisted that she not attempt to walk to her nearby apartment but that she wait for him to come by and drive her home. The Complainant initially refused but the Respondent was so insistent, that she finally accepted.
[16] As they pulled up to the driveway of her apartment building, the Respondent asked her which of the units was hers and she pointed it out. He then turned to her and asked if he could come into her apartment. She said no, but he replied that it would be alright since he could easily call his wife and tell her he was working late. He suggested that the Complainant could give him a drink. She testified that she again told him no, that he was not coming into her apartment and that he should behave himself. She claims that he told her they could get intimate together. He went on to say, It’s okay if we have sex and Won’t you even give me a kiss? She again told him no, to which he responded that she would have no choice but to kiss him. If she refused to do so in private, he would force a situation upon her where she would have to kiss him in public. She stepped out of the car and slammed the door shut behind her.
[17] She was angry and upset, but her greatest concern lay in the fact that she had indicated to him where her ground floor unit was located. In her testimony, the Complainant stated that although she had received lifts home from other Executive members and work colleagues in the past, people with whom she was acquainted for years, no one had ever entered or even requested to come into her apartment.
(iv) The Subject Matter of the Respondent’s Visits and Calls Becomes Sexual in Nature [18] According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s uninvited calls and visits continued unabated over the following weeks. His first daily visit typically occurred at 7:30 a.m., as he was coming in to work, followed by another visit between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m., a third one at noon and a final visit in the late afternoon. He became more forward in his comments, telling the Complainant that it was important for him to see her each day. He would say that he liked a particular dress that she was wearing and ask that she wear it again so that his fantasies would come true. He said that he would continue to pursue her until those fantasies came true. He also told her that he would be jealous if she had a relationship with another man. He advised her to not tell anyone about their relationship and that if she did do so, he would deny it. He told her that it is a man’s world, she had no proof and her word would never be believed. She repeatedly told him that they did not have a relationship and that his behaviour was unacceptable. Yet, he continued calling and visiting her.
[19] The Complainant testified that the Respondent always made sure that his statements would not be overheard. During his early morning visits, there usually were no other people working nearby. The Complainant’s section was divided up into several offices by partial-height partitions. The evidence is that the co-worker whose office was on one side of hers was legally deaf. In addition, Richard Hudon, whose office was on the other side, testified that he had several illnesses that caused him significant pain, during this period. In order to alleviate the pain, Mr. Hudon tried to focus his complete attention on one thing at a time, typically his work. He was, therefore, often able to block out any other activities going on around him.
[20] Even so, Mr. Hudon testified that he witnessed the Respondent’s frequent visits to the Complainant’s office. To his recollection, there were usually three to four visits a day, each about seven minutes long. Mr. Hudon assumed initially that the parties’ conversations were union-related, but after a while, he sensed that the subject-matter was more personal in nature, and he deliberately tried not to overhear.
(v) The Response from Other Union Executives [21] The Complainant testified that the day after the March 10, 1998 incident in the Respondent’s car, she called or spoke in person with the following union executives to complain about the Respondent’s conduct:
X Jim Fraser – Full-time Officer and former President of Local;
X Dave Vaughan – Vice-President of Local;
X Tom Matchett – Ontario Regional Director of the UPCE;
X Jim Murray – National President of the UPCE.
They all told the Respondent that she was overreacting. According to the Complainant, they did not believe that a quiet, nice, little guy like the Respondent could have done what she alleged. She claims that Mr. Murray even told her, Isn’t it funny that you’ve got a boyfriend. He went on to tell her that it was a personal matter that she should resolve for herself, without involving the union.
[22] As a result, she realized that she would get little support from these men and that she would have to deal with the Respondent on her own. In spite of that, she soon got into the habit of calling Mr. Fraser or Mr. Vaughan after the Respondent’s uninvited visits. She concluded that if her union colleagues were not going to help her deal with the Respondent’s harassment, she would make an effort to deflect some of the harassment on to them.
[23] All four of these men testified in the present case. They confirm having been notified by the Complainant of her allegations and they all, to greater or lesser extents, acknowledge that they had not fully understood or grasped the issues being raised by the Complainant. Messrs. Vaughan and Fraser were particularly apologetic regarding their reactions to her complaints. They also both confirmed that over a period of time the Complainant called them several times a day to complain about the day’s most recent unwanted visits by the Respondent.
(vi) National UPCE Conference in London, Ontario [24] In March 1998, the UPCE held its national conference in London, Ontario. The delegates attending from the Local were the Complainant, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Vaughan and Ken Zarichansky, the Chief Shop Steward. The day before departing from Ottawa to go to the conference, the Complainant went to the Local office after work to check for any correspondence. The Respondent showed up at the office while she was there. According to the Complainant, he asked her if she would take him along to the conference, adding that they could stay in the hotel room and have sex. If he did not go with her, he said that he was going to call her at the hotel when she got there to make sure she was alright. She replied that he could not come along and that he was not to call her, at home or at the hotel. She then left.
[25] When she got home, she received a call from the Respondent telling her that Mr. Zarichansky was at the Local office and wanted to speak to her about a grievance. She retorted that the Respondent had been specifically instructed to not call her at home, and that if Mr. Zarichansky wanted to speak to her, he could place the call himself.
[26] In the Complainant’s opinion, the Respondent had by this time become obsessed with seeing her. For instance, she believes that he was making very frequent visits to the Local office in the hope of running into the Complainant. If the Local received several invoices that required payment, the Respondent had the habit of going to the office repeatedly, over a series of days, and making out one cheque per visit, instead of doing them all at once. He thus created for himself ostensible cause for showing up at the office over several evenings.
(vii) Purchase of New Couch for Office and Gifts for the Complainant [27] The Complainant alleges that, on numerous occasions, the Respondent proposed several questionable purchases by the Local, including that of a new couch for the office. The office already had a two seat couch that was in good condition and did not require replacement. According to the Complainant, the Respondent told her that he wanted a new and presumably larger couch to be bought, on which he could have sex with her and other women.
[28] Mr. Fraser testified that the Respondent spoke to him about buying a new couch as well. The reason given by the Respondent was so that he could lay down. Mr. Fraser informed the Respondent that spending union funds on a new couch when there was one there already would be unacceptable to the membership. Mr. Fraser and other witnesses noted in their testimonies that both the CLC’s Building and the Canada Post buildings had nursing stations with cots where employees could go if they felt the need to lie down.
[29] The Complainant testified that beginning in the month of April 1998, the Respondent began suggesting that the Local should buy a dress and flowers for her on the occasion of her birthday, which was coming up in May. He also proposed that the union organize a birthday party for her. She told him many times that his suggestions were inappropriate.
[30] Messrs. Hudon, Vaughan and Fraser recall having gone to lunch at a restaurant one day, with other members of the Local, including the Respondent and the Complainant. While they were all at the table, the Respondent mentioned that the Local should buy a dress and hold a party for the Complainant. According to Mr. Hudon, the comment was made in a serious tone and not in a joking fashion. He describes the comment as having been a conversation stopper. Mr. Fraser and the Complainant told the Respondent that his suggestion was inappropriate.
[31] Mr. Fraser also testified that on several occasions, the Respondent had raised with him the idea of purchasing flowers and a dress for the Complainant. Mr. Fraser remembers wondering how the Respondent, who was married with a family, could suggest buying a gift as personal as flowers or a dress.
[32] According to the Complainant, the Local did not ultimately ever throw a party nor purchase any gifts of this nature for her.
(viii) Incident at Office of the Local - April 18, 1998 [33] In order to update its bookkeeping practices, the Local had purchased the computerized accounting software known as Quicken. This program was readily available at retail stores and was designed to be used by ordinary consumers to keep track of their personal banking and other transactions. The program had been installed on the Local’s computer. As Treasurer, the Respondent was expected to use this software.
[34] The evidence suggests that as of 1998, the Respondent was very competent in the use of various computer programs at Canada Post, which were, by all accounts, significantly more complex than Quicken. The Respondent’s supervisor at that time, Franco Chiumera, testified that the Respondent was fairly knowledgeable at learning computer programs and that he demonstrated an ability to pick up programs more quickly than others. The Respondent’s supervisor between 1999 and 2001 was Alex Eloise. He testified that the Respondent’s computer skills were the best in his team and that the Respondent was the driving force behind computer usage in the section. Mr. Eloise also confirmed that the Respondent was a quick study in learning new software.
[35] In early April 1998, the Respondent spoke to the Complainant and asked her to train him on Quicken after business hours, at the Local office. She declined, explaining to him that she had not really used the program yet herself. He nonetheless insisted that she train him. According to the Complainant, who has, since that time, had occasion to use Quicken, the software is so simple that she was able to learn how to use it by herself within ten minutes.
[36] The Complainant spoke to a colleague from work, Mary Sue Allen, who was already acquainted with the software since she had been using it at home to manage her family’s finances, and asked Ms. Allen to meet the Respondent and provide him with some training. When Ms. Allen first contacted the Respondent, she suggested that it may be more helpful for him to read the software’s on-line manual or take a professional training course. According to Ms. Allen, he declined her suggestion and insisted on receiving the training from her. A meeting was therefore arranged between her and the Respondent for Saturday, April 18, 1998, at 1:00 p.m., at the Local office.
[37] As the time of the meeting approached, the Complainant contends that she began to worry about Ms. Allen’s safety, in light of the Respondent’s prior comments about how he wanted to have sex on the couch in the Local office. The Complainant therefore decided to go to the office on that Saturday, to ensure that nothing untoward would happen to Ms. Allen. Unbeknownst to the Complainant, Ms. Allen had developed some concerns of her own. Ms. Allen stated in her testimony that she became uncomfortable with the Respondent’s insistence that she train him. So, on the morning of April 18, she called and cancelled the meeting.
[38] The Complainant, being unaware of the cancellation, arrived at the Local office at about 1:00 p.m., when the training was scheduled to begin. She found the Respondent sitting at the desk with an open beer bottle in front of him. Based on his speech, he appeared tipsy, though not drunk. He informed the Complainant that Ms. Allen had cancelled the training session. As the Complainant turned to leave, the Respondent said that he had uncovered a problem with respect to Mr. Fraser’s expense claims. The Complainant, therefore, decided to speak by telephone to Mr. Fraser about this issue. She sat at the desk and the Respondent stood behind her as they spoke through the hands-free speakerphone. Mr. Fraser confirmed in his testimony that this conversation took place and that it lasted about ten to fifteen minutes.
[39] After the call was completed, the Respondent asked the Complainant, who was still seated, to pull her chair in so that he could get to the bulletin board behind her. She gave him some space, but he pushed her chair further in, saying he needed even more room. As a result, she was now stuck against the desk, unable to move or get up. At this point, he grabbed her forearms with his hands and began kissing her hair, head and neck. She told him to get the fuck off her but he refused. He said that he was in love with her and she had to agree to have sex with him. She told him to get off her once more, and to get in front of the desk. He again said no, but after she threatened to call the police, he let go and moved to the other side of the desk. The Complainant told him that his behaviour was inappropriate and a violation of the PSAC harassment policy, for which he could be disciplined. He retorted that he was going to force her to kiss him. She replied that she would not kiss him and that she did not want to have sex with him.
[40] At this stage, the Respondent confirmed to the Complainant that he had sought the Treasurer’s position just so he could pursue her. He indicated that from where he came, there was no problem with his having a relationship with her. He also reiterated that if she told anyone about his behaviour, she would not be believed, and that it was a man’s world where a woman’s word made no difference. She repeated to him that he was in breach of the PSAC harassment policy and that his behaviour had to cease immediately. She then left the office. She testified that during this incident, she maintained a calm demeanour. She was upset all the same and when she got home to her apartment, she curled up in a ball and just cried. She considered calling the police but assumed it would be to no avail as it would just have been her word against his. The Complainant claims that the Respondent had held her arms so tightly that she developed bruises. Indeed, Mr. Hudon recalls having noticed at work that one of the Complainant’s forearms was bruised, although he does not remember exactly when he made this observation.
(ix) April 19, 1998 Letter from Complainant to Respondent [41] The Complainant decided that she had to take some formal action against the Respondent since her verbal warnings about his conduct had not worked. Thus, on Sunday, April 19, 1998, the day after the incident with the Respondent, she drafted a letter addressed to him. It was printed on the Local’s stationery and stated the following:
Regarding: Inappropriate Sexual Comments
On March 26, April 18, and several other occasions, you have made inappropriate sexual comments to me. These comments have ranged from telling me how beautiful I am to requesting that I do not date anyone else to asking me to have sex with you.
On at least four occasions, I have told you to refrain from making these comments. On April 18, 1998, I explained to you that this is a violation of the PSAC Constitution and the PSAC Harassment Policy. Enclosed is a copy of the PSAC Harassment Policy and a copy of the PSAC Constitution, Section 25, Discipline which outline the potential steps that could be taken if this behavior is not stopped.
Your sexual comments are unwarranted and unwelcome. Due to the fact that I have on several occasions requested that you refrain from this behavior and you have not adjusted your behavior accordingly, I feel that you are sexually harassing me.
In the future, I expect that you will deal with me in a professional, business manner as it is inappropriate for you to continue make [sic] these sexual comments to me.
Sincerely
[signed]
Connie Bushey
President, Local 70180
The letter indicates that copies were to be provided to Messrs. Vaughan, Fraser, Murray and Matchett.
[42] The Complainant does not mention the alleged incident of physical contact in the letter. She explained in her testimony that the office of Local President was very public in nature and she wanted to keep her personal problems private. She also feared that an assertion by her that she had been assaulted could have been used against her by others, particularly because she felt that without any witnesses, no one would believe her. On Monday, April 20, 1998, the Complainant handed the letter to Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan and asked them to deliver it to the Respondent, who was away from work that day on annual leave.
[43] Early the next morning, Tuesday, April 21, 1998, the Respondent telephoned the Complainant at her office and said that he wanted to talk to her about what happened Saturday. She replied that she did not want to talk to him and that he was to leave her alone and not contact her. A short time later, at the indicated time of 9:11 a.m., the Respondent sent her an e-mail message in which he stated:
I am sorry, wouldn’t you wish me best of luck for my exam. I still have respect for you.
Arvind.
[44] The Respondent was to write an examination regarding a job competition later that day. The Complainant asserts that up to that date, no problem had arisen with respect to any of the Respondent’s acts in his capacity as Treasurer and that the only possible matter for him to have apologized about was the incident of April 18th.
[45] At 11:00 a.m., apparently after Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan had asked to meet with him, the Respondent called the Complainant to tell her that she had no right to tell them what had happened. He asserted that he was the one being harassed and informed the Complainant that she would never be believed. She replied that he had continued his inappropriate behaviour, despite her warnings against it. She had no choice but to bring the matter to a higher level.
[46] Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan met with the Respondent over the lunch hour on April 21. They handed him the letter and told him that the attention that he had been showing to the Complainant was improper. They advised him to cease and desist this conduct and, in particular, to not have any further contact with her other than for union-related business. The Respondent denied having done anything wrong. He offered to resign as Treasurer but Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan replied that he had been doing a good job and his resignation was not necessary. As Mr. Vaughan recalls, the Respondent agreed to not bother the Complainant any more. It was suggested to the Respondent that an apology to the Complainant may be appropriate. He was specifically instructed to not telephone her that day.
[47] A shop stewards’ meeting was taking place at the Local office that evening, which the Complainant decided not to attend. Amongst the people present was the Respondent. At about 5:30 p.m., the Complainant received a call at her home from him. He told her that he was at the meeting, that extra pizza had been ordered and that she should come over to have some. She replied that he had been specifically instructed to not call her. He said that he wanted to apologize for his behaviour and that he had to hear her voice. She told him not to call her again and slammed down the phone.
[48] On April 22, 1998, the Complainant received a letter from the Respondent that states the following (the text has not been altered or corrected):
To: Connie Bushey
From: Arvind Sharma
Subject: Inappropriate Behaviour
Connnie, I am deeply sorry and I am apologising for all conflict it may have cause you. I will endevour to earn your respect again. I am and will be professional and be respectful. I trust that you will forgive me. I do not know what else I should say. Also I want to ask your opinion time to time; therefore, please guide me.
Regards,
[signed]
Arvind
At about 7:30 a.m., on the following day, April 23rd, the Respondent walked into the Complainant’s office. She was busy talking on the phone so he left her a message on a small Post-It self-adhesive sheet of paper that he placed on her desk. The note stated (the text is again unaltered):
Plse Phone me & say you have forgotten. Connie, I’ll never hurt you.
Thx Arvind.
The Complainant threw the note in the garbage can and the Respondent left her office. She later retrieved the note and it was entered into evidence at the hearing.
[49] Later that day, at about 3:00 p.m., the Complainant met with Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan at the Local office. They called and spoke to the Respondent over the hands-free speakerphone. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Vaughan chastised him for having phoned the Complainant and they reiterated that he was to stop contacting her for anything besides union business. He was also to return the Complainant’s business card that contained her unlisted home telephone number, which he had been given when he became Treasurer. The Respondent agreed to bring the impugned behaviour to an end and to return the business card.
[50] The next day, April 24, 1998, the Respondent wrote the following letter to Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan (the text is unaltered):
To: Brother Jim/Dave
Jim I wanted to talk to you, sorry I was with my Boss. Jim/Dave, I don’t want to hurt anybody. Plse-Plse don’t take me wrong way. I have excellent reputation at work I respect other people. I have Connie’s card which I’ll give you tomorrow and I’ll earn the card back with respect. I did nothing wrong. I’ll not call Connie if I’m at work with an appointment & respectfully. I hope that you will understand me. If you want I’m willing to give you the office key/pass.
This is just the note, don’t take wrong way. I talk to respect plse. I’m not bad.
Thx Arvind.
The Complainant’s business card was indeed returned by the Respondent to Mr. Fraser the following day. Messrs. Vaughan and Fraser did not ask the Respondent to hand in his office key and pass.
(x) Changes in the Complainant’s Behaviour [51] The Complainant claims that as a consequence of the Respondent’s actions, she was forced to make numerous changes in her life. She did not live far from her office and was in the habit of walking to and from work. After the April 18th incident, she started driving to her job out of fear that the Respondent would confront her while walking and assault her.
[52] She resolved to never allow herself to be alone with the Respondent again. To this end, she informed her manager, Gilles Séguin, about her problems with the Respondent. Mr. Séguin advised her that if the Respondent showed up, she could leave her cubicle and come to his office or go to the section’s common area. As is further discussed below, the Complainant alleges that by May 1998, the Respondent had resumed his daily visits to her office. She therefore began to leave her office whenever he was likely to come by, and go elsewhere, such as the cafeteria. She ended up having to work later hours in order to make up for the time she lost earlier in the day, while away from her desk.
[53] The Complainant claims that she also stopped going to the Local office alone. Ordinarily, Mr. Fraser left for home at about 4:00 p.m. The Complainant now had to make sure to take care of any union business at the Local office prior to Mr. Fraser’s departure. This often meant that she had to leave earlier from her job at Canada Post.
[54] She contends that all of these changes had a negative impact on her performance at work as well as on her ability to function as President.
(xi) Renewed Contact by the Respondent after the April 18, 1998 Incident [55] The Complainant alleges that within a few days after her letter to the Respondent and his conversations with Messrs. Fraser and Vaughan, during which he agreed to not contact her except for union-related business, he resumed his uninvited visits, calls and other communications regarding matters that had nothing to do with the Local’s activities.
[56] On April 28, 1998, the Respondent sent the Complainant an e-mail message containing a summary of a management course for women that was being offered at Carleton University. The Respondent stated at the top of the message, Connie, you should attend this program. At about the same time, he spoke to her by telephone about their going together to purchase two new filing cabinets for the Local office. She told him that new cabinets were not needed but that if he insisted on making the acquisition, he was to discuss the matter with Mr. Fraser and make the purchase with him. She considers this request to be another attempt by him to be alone with her.
[57] In May 1998, the Complainant began visiting her office again. She claims that his comments during these visits were usually sexual in nature. He related his sexual fantasies about her, described his preferred sexual positions, and repeatedly asked to have sex with her. She always told him that she would not have any sexual relations with him and reminded him that he had been warned to stop this behaviour.
[58] The Complainant testified that on one occasion, the Respondent had shown up at her office and began saying that he wanted to have sex with her and that he would not leave her alone unless she did. She shouted back to him to get the fuck out of her office and cease this form of conduct. Her objections were so loud that Mr. Hudon’s attention was drawn away from his work and he rose to see what was going on in the neighbouring cubicle. In his testimony, Mr. Hudon recalled seeing the Respondent rush past him heading out of the Complainant’s office. She, on the other hand, remembers that the Respondent was still in her office when Mr. Hudon walked in. She turned to the Respondent and said, Go ahead, Arvind, tell him, tell him you were demanding sex from me. The Respondent denied her charge and then ran out of the office.
[59] She was so upset, Mr. Hudon had to sit with her for a while to calm her down. He recalls that she was crying in great sobs and was somewhat incoherent. He tried to comfort her but, although he is a fairly close friend of hers, he did not think it appropriate at that time to ask about what happened.
[60] Mr. Hudon testified that the Respondent would ask him where the Complainant was, whenever he passed by and did not find her. Mr. Hudon refused to answer, since the Complainant had specifically asked him to not divulge her whereabouts. As a result, the Respondent used to leave numerous messages in the Complainant’s voice mail box, often saying that he needed to talk to her and hear her voice.
[61] During a weekend in the month of May 1998, the PSAC held a meeting in Hull. Four members of the Local Executive attended, including the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant drove everyone to the meeting in her car. On the way back, the Respondent made several comments regarding an upcoming series of labour college courses that the Complainant was to take at the University of Ottawa. The program required that she reside on the university campus for the duration of the training session, which was to last for one month, beginning May 25th. Mr. Vaughan, the Vice President, had been assigned all of her union functions and responsibilities in her absence. The Respondent stated that he wanted her phone number and address at the university campus so that he could call her during the day and come by and visit her, together with his wife, at night. The Complainant told him that she would not give him this information. He was insistent on obtaining it, claiming that she was being rude and insensitive in not providing it. Eventually, one of the other Executive members, Mr. Zarichansky, intervened and stated, in a fairly assertive manner, that the Complainant had clearly said no to the Respondent’s request and that he should leave her alo