An arbitrator has upheld the termination of a long-serving Lantic Inc. employee for misconduct during a labour dispute, ruling that the employer had just cause to dismiss the worker for incidents involving verbal harassment of a truck driver and sexual harassment of a security guard.
The decision provides key insights into employer responses to picket line behaviour and the limits of progressive discipline in cases of serious misconduct.
Background
The grievor, identified as H.S., had been employed by Lantic Inc. since 2008 and was a lead hand at the time of his dismissal. His termination stemmed from two incidents during a protracted strike by members of the Public and Private Workers of Canada, Local 8 (the Union), which lasted from September 28, 2023, to early February 2024.
On April 18, 2024, Lantic Inc. terminated H.S. for:
- Verbally harassing a truck driver who crossed the picket line on October 18, 2023.
- Sexually harassing a security guard employed by a third-party contractor on October 25, 2023.
The Union grieved the termination, arguing that while discipline was warranted, dismissal was excessive.
The truck driver incident
H.S. admitted to addressing a truck driver in Punjabi as he crossed the picket line, using a term that directly translates to an offensive insult. He further told the driver, “Don’t you have any shame? What you are doing is wrong. You’re taking food away from our tables.”
While the employer presented a sworn affidavit from the truck driver alleging significantly more aggressive language, the arbitrator accepted H.S.’s version of events.
Nonetheless, the arbitrator found that H.S.’s words were inappropriate and warranted disciplinary action.
The security guard incident
On October 25, 2023, H.S. addressed a security guard, S.K., through a megaphone in Punjabi. Video evidence from both a body camera and a mobile phone captured the exchange.
While the exact translation of H.S.’s words was contested, the arbitrator found that he made repeated comments about the guard’s physical appearance and urged her to smile, referring to her as “really good looking” and saying, “Come on. Give us a smile. Please. I want it.”
S.K. testified that she felt embarrassed and demeaned, particularly because the exchange occurred in front of colleagues. She later filed a police report, stating she did not feel safe. The arbitrator found that, regardless of the precise translation, H.S.’s conduct constituted sexual harassment and was designed to “demean and embarrass” S.K.
Further, the arbitrator noted that H.S. planned his actions in advance, instructing a colleague to record the exchange. Shortly afterward, H.S. encouraged another picketer to engage in similar conduct and filmed that interaction as well.
Employer’s investigation and termination
Following the strike’s conclusion, Lantic Inc. conducted an investigation. On February 5, 2024, H.S. was suspended pending review. During the investigation meeting on February 8, 2024, H.S. admitted to making comments to the security guard but maintained that his intent was to “lighten the mood.”
Lantic Inc. issued a termination letter on April 18, 2024, stating that H.S. had breached multiple workplace policies, including those related to harassment and professional conduct. The employer cited his “lack of genuine remorse” and the irreparable damage to the employment relationship as justifications for dismissal.
Arbitrator’s analysis
Applying the Wm. Scott & Co. framework, the arbitrator considered whether termination was excessive by examining:
The seriousness of the misconduct – The arbitrator found that sexual harassment was an egregious workplace offence, particularly given that H.S. planned the exchange and encouraged others to participate.
Progressive discipline – While the Union argued that Lantic Inc. had not attempted lesser disciplinary measures, the arbitrator held that progressive discipline is not required in cases of severe misconduct.
Potential for rehabilitation – The arbitrator was unconvinced that H.S. had fully grasped the impact of his actions. His apologies were deemed superficial, as he described his actions as “unprofessional” but did not appear to acknowledge the deeper harm caused.
Consistency of employer discipline – The arbitrator found no evidence that Lantic Inc. had tolerated similar misconduct in the past.
Decision
The arbitrator ruled that Lantic Inc. had just cause to terminate H.S. and dismissed the grievance. The decision underscores the serious consequences of sexual harassment in the workplace and affirms that planned, deliberate misconduct can justify termination without progressive discipline.
For more information, see Lantic Inc. v Public and Private Workers of Canada, Local 8, 2025 CanLII 11383 (BC LA).
