An arbitrator has upheld the termination of a Britco Pork employee following multiple incidents at a company-sponsored family barbecue, finding the conduct constituted harassment and warranted dismissal.
The case involved R.Y., a sanitation worker at Britco Pork’s Langley, B.C. facility, who was dismissed after interactions with three complainants at the August 2024 event.
The United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union, Local 1518, filed a grievance challenging the termination, arguing the dismissal was excessive and that the employer’s investigation was biased. The arbitrator rejected these claims, ruling that Britco Pork had just cause for termination based on the severity of R.Y.’s actions and his lack of accountability.
Background and incidents leading to termination
The grievance centred on three key incidents at the barbecue:
Pickpocketing Incident: R.Y. approached Complainant #1, an 18-year-old attending the event with her mother, Complainant #2, a Britco Pork employee. He stood close to her and remarked that her phone was falling out of her pocket before offering to demonstrate pickpocketing.
When she expressed disinterest, he responded, “Good – I’ll put my wallet in my front pocket and you can pickpocket me.” Complainant #1 found the remark inappropriate and stepped away. Complainant #2, upon hearing the exchange, reprimanded R.Y. for speaking to her daughter in that manner.
Football incident: Later at the event, R.Y. attempted to involve children, including Complainant #2’s son, in a game of touch football. While Complainant #2 was engaged in another activity with her back turned, R.Y. placed a football between her upper thighs, making contact with her buttocks.
The arbitrator determined this act constituted harassment and was likely assault, referencing Alberta Health Services v. AUPE (J.J. Grievance), [2022] A.G.A.A. No. 49.
Photo Incident: The third complainant, the company’s vice-president of human resources, expressed discomfort when she noticed R.Y. taking panoramic photos that might have included her. R.Y. deleted the photos but referenced his past affiliation with the Hells Angels, noting that such social media activity could be dangerous. The arbitrator found that while this incident alone was not determinative, it contributed to concerns about his conduct.
Investigation and decision
The employer launched an investigation on August 19, 2024, two days after the event. Complainants #1 and #2 provided written statements, and R.Y. was interviewed by the VP of HR, an HR manager, and the plant manager.
During the meeting, R.Y. expressed frustration over the investigation’s restrictions on contacting Complainant #2. Immediately after the meeting, while still in the company’s parking lot, he called and texted her. The messages, later entered into evidence, were apologetic but did not acknowledge wrongdoing. Complainant #2 reported the messages, prompting the plant manager to instruct R.Y. to cease contact.
Britco Pork terminated R.Y. on August 27, 2024. The union challenged the decision, arguing the investigation was flawed, that Ta had a conflict of interest as both a complainant and investigator, and that R.Y. had not received formal harassment policy training due to an absence on the training day.
Arbitrator’s ruling
The arbitrator applied the test from Wm. Scott & Co. (Re), [1976] BCLRBD No. 98, which assesses whether there was just cause for discipline, whether the penalty was excessive, and if so, what lesser penalty would be appropriate.
On the first point, the arbitrator found that Britco Pork had just cause for discipline, stating that “placing a football between [Complainant #2’s] upper rear thighs and making contact with her buttocks while her back was turned away was undoubtedly harassment and quite likely assault.”
Regarding proportionality, the arbitrator concluded termination was not excessive, noting that while R.Y. had a difficult personal history and no prior disciplinary record, his misconduct occurred over a single day and was serious. The arbitrator emphasized that the incidents “violated the emotional, physical, and mental safety of workers and women, and their right to work and exist in a harassment-free environment.”
The arbitrator also highlighted R.Y.’s refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, quoting his testimony: “I don’t believe I did anything wrong,” and “I’m not sorry for anything I did, but I am sorry for the perception they took.” This demonstrated a lack of accountability and self-reflection that made reinstatement untenable.
The union’s concerns about the investigation were also dismissed. While Ta was involved in multiple roles, the arbitrator found the process fair and reasonable. The decision to terminate was made collectively by senior management, and all complainants testified under cross-examination.
Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that even if R.Y. had not been formally trained on the harassment policy, his conduct was clearly inappropriate under legal standards, citing Calgary (City) v. ATU Local 583 (Sebua Grievance), [2019] A.G.A.A. No. 48 and Calgary (City) v. CUPE Local 37, 2019 ABCA 388.
Conclusion
The arbitrator upheld Britco Pork’s decision to terminate R.Y., concluding that his actions constituted harassment and that termination was a reasonable response given the circumstances. The grievance was dismissed.
For more information, see Britco Pork Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union, Local 1518, 2025 CanLII 18170 (BC LA).
