An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a cook at Summerland Seniors Village in British Columbia after finding he engaged in repeated sexual harassment of three young female co-workers.
The arbitration involved Well Being Services Ltd., which operates the facility, and the Hospital Employees’ Union. The grievance challenged the February 2025 termination of the worker, who had been employed at the home for more than three years.
The arbitrator determined the cook engaged in a pattern of inappropriate comments, touching, and other conduct that spanned almost the entirety of his employment. The grievance was dismissed.
Testimony from young staff
Three women in their early 20s, who worked as dietary aides and servers, testified that the cook’s behaviour made them uncomfortable and, in some cases, caused them to dread coming to work. Their identities were anonymized in the decision due to their age and the nature of the allegations.
One worker said the cook hugged her frequently, made sexualized comments, and ignored her requests to stop. She told the arbitrator that before he started, she enjoyed working at the facility, but afterwards she “hated working there.”
Another employee testified he made comments about her body, including telling her she had a “tight ass” while she was preparing desserts. She said he also told her that if she needed sexual therapy, “she knew where to find him.”
A third witness recalled repeated unwanted advances, including requests for dates, comments about being a “good kisser,” and suggestions they would “make great babies together.” She said he instructed her not to tell anyone, including her boyfriend, about his comments.
The arbitrator found their evidence credible and corroborated by other staff members.
Employer and union positions
The employer argued the behaviour amounted to serious misconduct that damaged workplace culture and justified immediate termination, even without prior discipline. It pointed to the worker’s training on harassment policies and his decades of experience as reasons he should have known his conduct was unacceptable.
The union did not dispute the facts or the credibility of the witnesses. It argued, however, that dismissal was disproportionate given that management had long been aware of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and sometimes participated in it, creating a culture where such conduct was tolerated. It submitted that the worker should not bear sole responsibility for what it described as systemic failures.
As a remedy, the union sought compensation for lost wages between termination and the worker finding new employment, or, alternatively, the chance for him to resign in lieu of dismissal.
Arbitrator’s analysis
The arbitrator determined the worker’s behaviour clearly warranted discipline. In considering whether termination was excessive, the decision noted several factors:
- the harassment spanned nearly his entire three-and-a-half years of employment;
- he was in his 60s, while the employees he targeted were in their early 20s;
- he held a position of authority over the aides and servers; and
- he failed to acknowledge wrongdoing or show remorse.
The decision stated that the worker’s conduct was “egregious and ongoing after being told it was unwelcome, putting the conduct at the more serious end of the sexual harassment spectrum.”
The arbitrator also pointed out that his instruction to a co-worker not to disclose his comments showed he was aware they were inappropriate.
Although acknowledging that previous managers failed to take action, the arbitrator concluded the dismissal was not an excessive response. The grievance was dismissed and no remedies were awarded.
For more information, see Well Being Services Ltd. dba Summerland Seniors Village v Hospital Employees’ Union, 2025 CanLII 83073 (BC LA).
