Friday, March 12, 2021

"#MeToo movement becomes #WeToo in in victim-blaming Japan"/ "Outrage as women in Japan told not wear glasses in the workplace"

In honor of International Women's Day (Mar. 8), I'm going to post these articles about women in the workplace:

I like these 2 articles about sexual harassment.  However, when I read them I became angry, depressed, and in a bad mood.  I forewarn you that you may feel that when you read this:

May 12, 2018 "#MeToo movement becomes #WeToo in in victim-blaming Japan": Today I found this article by Kurimi More and Shoko Oda in the Edmonton Journal:

(Bloomberg) -- Monica Fukuhara was a college student working at a restaurant when it happened to her. As she was saying goodbye to a customer, he grabbed her chest, she says.

The man was a valued regular. She was a part-time waitress. The manager shrugged.

“I didn’t tell people close to me what happened, certainly not my family,” recalls Fukuhara, now 26. She remembers being left with a feeling of helplessness and anger, which soon turned into shame.


This experience fueled her decision to help organize #WeToo Japan, a movement following the #MeToo phenomenon in the U.S. yet with some key differences.

In Japan, societal norms make it difficult for sexual harassment victims to talk about their experiences because of shame and worries about victim-blaming, she said. So in a society often used to looking the other way on issues of sexual harassment and abuse, the #WeToo hashtag is meant to be used in social media not only by victims, but by those endorsing an end to harassment.

A group of activists including Fukuhara and Shiori Ito launched #WeToo Japan in February after deciding on the need for widespread support, saying it goes beyond the self-identification of victims in the #MeToo movement started in the U.S. last year.

“By using #WeToo instead, we show greater solidarity. We are letting victims know they’re not alone and that we listen and support, making it easier to speak up,” Fukuhara said. “Since Japanese society has some sort of prejudice against victims, it’s difficult for women to raise their hands and say #MeToo.”

Their cause has struck a chord in Japan. According to organizers’ estimates, a crowd of about 2,000 people gathered in Tokyo last month for a protest against sexual violence, with the slogan “I Will Not Remain Silent.” The protest, which attracted people from their 20s to 70s, was organized by women over various social media platforms.

A week before, more than a dozen female and male opposition party lawmakers held up posters bearing the #MeToo slogan in the Diet, Japan’s Parliament. Members had gathered for a hearing on the sexual harassment scandal involving the Finance Ministry’s former top bureaucrat.

Assault Underreported


In Japan, more than two-thirds of rape and sexual assault victims said they have never told anyone what happened to them and only 4 percent have reported such crimes to police, according to a 2015 government survey. By comparison, the U.S. Justice Department in that year said almost 33 percent of rape and sexual assault crimes in the U.S. were reported.

Things have been slow to change in Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been pushing his “Womenomics” measures in recent years, yet the country’s progress on female empowerment has been limited. Japan ranked 114th in the World Economic Forum’s gender gap report for 2017, slipping from 111th a year earlier.

In 2016, the percentage of women on boards of the largest publicly listed companies in Japan rose to 3.4 percent from 1.7 percent in 2013, according to OECD data, putting it near the bottom of the list of OECD countries. The country also ranks low in female political representation at 158th among 193 countries as of April, below Syria and the Congo, according to Inter-Parliamentary Union data.

In patriarchal Japan, some women who have gone public with their #MeToo stories have been met with personal attacks and ridicule rather than sympathy.

Rika Shiiki, a 20-year-old college student entrepreneur, faced harsh online criticism when she said she had lost business contracts after refusing to have sex with clients. Shiiki was accused of lying and received online comments such as, “Show us evidence” and “Just go to the police.”

Shiori Ito, a journalist who has been credited with being the first to use the #MeToo hashtag in Japan, also faced bashing and blame after going public with her story, she recalls.

“I was vilified on social media and received hate messages and emails and calls from unknown numbers. I was called a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ and told I should ‘be dead.’ There were arguments over my nationality, because a true Japanese woman wouldn’t speak about such ‘shameful’ things,” Ito wrote on Politico.eu in January.

Ito is suing fellow journalist Noriyuki Yamaguchi over allegations he raped her after discussing job opportunities over dinner and drinks in 2015. Yamaguchi -- a former Washington bureau chief for broadcasting company TBS and an Abe biographer -- denied any non-consensual interaction with Ito and prosecutors dropped the case in 2016.

Protests, Support


Although Japan has been slow to the movement compared with other countries, the protests and growing support for victims show attitudes may slowly be starting to change.

A new survey conducted by Nikkei revealed that about 24 percent of women who experienced sexual harassment at work either reported it or told someone. The online poll of 1,000 working women in Japan was conducted from April 24-26. Still, 60 percent of women who said they had experienced sexual harassment said they “put up with it,” many because they thought speaking up would affect their status in their workplace.

Most recently, two high-profile men have seen their careers fall apart over sexual harassment allegations. A member of the TOKIO pop group was fired by his agency on Sunday over allegations he forcibly kissed a high school girl. Johnny & Associates terminated its contact with 46-year-old bass guitarist Tatsuya Yamaguchi, after his tearful public apology on April 25.
Separately, top Finance Ministry official Junichi Fukuda resigned on April 18 after a female journalist with broadcaster TV Asahi went to a tabloid magazine with recordings of lewd comments allegedly made by him. Although Fukuda has denied harassment, the ministry later announced his retirement allowance would be slashed because of the encounter.
Keiko Kojima, a former TV personality, knows all too well that the Japanese media industry is a man’s world. She explains that if you want to survive as a woman in the industry, you’re expected to get used to sexual harassment.
“For that TV Asahi journalist, I know just how difficult it must have been and how much courage she needed and how much she risked to speak up against Fukuda,” Kojima said. “This is why we can’t let her fight alone. Telling her story with #MeToo, then supporting her with #WeToo gives us this chance to create change.”

Nov. 14, 2019 "Outrage as women in Japan told not wear glasses in the workplace": Today I found this article by  Miriam Berger in the South China Morning Post.  My parents went to China and brought some newspapers home:
In recent reports by Japan’s Nippon TV and Business Insider Japan, women from a range of industries described being instructed by their employers not to wear glasses.
One receptionist recalled being told that glasses for her were not allowed, while a male receptionist was permitted to don corrective eyewear, Business Insider reported. A nurse at a beauty clinic developed dry eye from long hours in contacts but also was not allowed to wear glasses. Her employer imposed other requirements: Makeup was a must, as was making sure she didn’t gain too much weight. A domestic airline reportedly has the no-glasses rule for safety reasons. Some restaurants said glasses on female employees didn’t go well with their traditional attire. 
Why all the fuss? Glasses can give a “cold impression,” or cover up one’s makeup, or just aren’t liked by the boss, said women interviewed by the news organizations.
All of this was apparently news to many women in Japan, who, upon hearing what their fellow women have had to endure, took to social media to break that glasses ceiling.
The hashtag “glasses are forbidden” (#メガネ禁止) has been trending in Japan since Wednesday.
“Isn’t it so troublesome when you can see all the middle-aged men in the world?” someone wrote on Twitter under the hashtag after tweeting out a picture of her new glasses.
There don’t appear to be any official numbers on how widespread the bans are. “It was not clear whether the so-called ‘bans’ were based on company policies, or rather reflected what was socially accepted practice in those workplaces,” the BBC reported.
But judging from the reaction, the news has touched a nerve among Japanese women tired of having their bodies scrutinized and regulated in ways that they say their male counterparts are not.
Many online commentators drew a connection to another recent uproar over Japanese workplaces requiring women to wear heeled shoes, which can be uncomfortable and difficult to work long hours in. Some high heels, medical experts have warned, can even cause chronic health problems.
“Earlier this year, Japanese women began voicing their discontent with arcane workplace restrictions on their looks through the #KuToo movement, which drew attention to the requirement that many companies still have that women wear high heels to work,” Quartz reported. “The term #KuToo is a triple pun, playing on the Japanese words kutsu (shoes), kutsuu (pain), and the #MeToo movement.”
As Yumi Ishikawa, who helped to spark #KuToo, told Bloomberg News: “If wearing glasses is a real problem at work it should be banned for everyone — men and women. This problem with glasses is the exact same as high heels. It’s only a rule for female workers.”
Ishikawa started the hashtag when her feet bled from having to wear high-heeled shoes at work.
Others on social media this week compared the glasses controversy to restrictions on clothing in Japanese schools, known as “black school rules.” Many Japanese schools mandate, for example, that students must have black hair and style it in certain ways.
It’s not just Japan where bespectacled women face public scrutiny. Last year, a South Korean early-morning news presenter broke ranks when she wore glasses on air — as some male counterparts do. This was a change from her previous look involving contacts and false eyelashes. The simple move was seen as a big affront to Korean female beauty standards and prompted the presenter to explain herself on social media that sometimes her eyes were just too dry or tired for contacts.
“I have to wake up early in the morning for the morning news, but when I have insufficient sleeping time and short preparation time, I sometimes want to wear glasses. … Viewers are also focusing on the nature on the news, not the appearance of the anchor,” she wrote on Instagram.
In Japan, many women have had it and are hoping to do away with dress codes specifically targeting women in the workplace. Ishikawa submitted a petition in June asking the government to bar companies from imposing dress codes that activists say specifically discriminate against women, like requirements that women wear heels, makeup or glasses.
“Women are evaluated mostly on their appearance,” Kumiko Nemoto, a professor of sociology at Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, told the BBC this week. “That’s the message that these policies are sending, at least.”
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/women-in-japan-were-told-not-to-wear-glasses-to-work-their-response-has-been-fiery/ar-BBWyfDi?li=AA524b

Aug. 17, 2020 Saying: I found this on Facebook:

"You never look good when you are trying to make someone else look bad."- Unknown

Cham: Sometimes people need to be exposed for who they are hahah or maybe I should stop being petty

Tracy Au: There's a difference between trying to make someone look bad, and exposing them for who they are. It's like those #MeToo accusers and victims, they are plainly telling everybody about the perpetrators. They're not trying to make them look bad.

This week's theme is about women in the workplace:

"Dress code's great divide"/ "When dismissal with cause seems clear"



"Getting caught up in the business of #bossbabe"/ "Is the gender gap actually based on gender?"




My week: 

Mar. 8, 2021 We Bare Bears: I have Telus free preview of Teletoon channel 622.  Now I get to watch this show.  Each episode is like 10 min. long and they air 4 episodes at a time on Sun. nights at 10-11pm and Tues. night 9-10pm.   

The Grand Cafe and Bistro: You should all go to this local restaurant that sells sandwiches, pizza, and specialty coffee.





Fundamental Care: I was checking out my blog and someone made a comment:


Fundamentalcare said...

love your work great work done by your compaign ....nice blog
Regards:

Organizations to Donate to


job interviews/ Kid's Kottage needs donations/ Shy dolls





"Fundamental Care Foundation was organized simply to help those in poverty and give hope for a better future. We have been helping children in orphanages, as well as simply those who are on the streets in very poor areas of Mexico, with food, water, clothes, and daily hygiene supplies. We have also expended our boundaries to Moldova, Gagauzia where we have been sponsoring children’s summer camps for those in poverty, as well as providing food, clothes, basic hygiene supplies to these children. Looking for Organizations to donate to, Our organization also helps elder care facilities by providing things like wheelchairs, shower stools, diapers, pads, and other necessities to ease off life those that are lonely and need care."


Robert Deblois from North Bay, ON, would like to know:

Would you still work if you won the lottery?


No- 50.88% (1813)

Yes-49.12% (1750)


I said yes, because I would be bored if I wasn't working.

"Getting caught up in the business of #bossbabe"/ "Is the gender gap actually based on gender?"


In honor of International Women's Day (Mar. 8), I'm going to post these articles about women in the workplace:


Sept. 20, 2019 "Getting caught up in the business of #bossbabe": Today I found this article by Eva Voinigescu in the Star Metro:

When I quit my job as a communications specialist at a non-profit to do freelance writing and documentary work, I invested in myself by diving into the burgeoning industry of female entrepreneurs.

I purchased a web-hosting service, launched a blog to function as a portfolio and paid for Adobe Lightroom photography presets to give my photos a uniform style. 

I bought day-passes to co-working spaces to rent a desk and meet fellow entrepreneurs. They handed out free totebags with such slogans as “I am very busy,” and “Do the work, get paid.”

But pretty quickly rather than developing a network of peers to go to for advice, I felt I was being sold to by everyone I met. 

Was I interested in developing a personal brand, 

managing my business finances, 

improving my sales? 

I could pay any one of these coworkers to teach me these skills.

While the intent of those behind the co-working spaces, entrepreneurship conferences and professional development workshops is not purposely malicious, the system appears to exist not just as a means of financial and entrepreneurial empowerment, but also to encourage women to spend more.

“Work hard so you can shop harder,” is a trending quote that I feel defines the current female entrepreneur landscape.

The world of female entrepreneurs is a massive and growing market especially among my millennial cohort.

A 2017 study by market research firm Buzz MG for Create & Cultivate (a premiere female entrepreneurship conference), found that 83 per cent of millennial women want to start their own business. A whole industry exists to help them do so.

There are $20,000 coaching groups and online courses for growing your email list or driving traffic with Pinterest, female-only conferences including Create &Cultivate and The Forbes Women’s Summit, co-working spaces such as The Wing and female only professional social networks like the one launched by media start-up Girlboss.

Terms like Girlboss and Bossbabe have become ubiquitous on social media and are meant to encourage women to own their career ambitions and success.

Despite this movement, research shows that female-led businesses still have more difficulty securing external financing than their male counterparts. 

According to a study conducted by Paypal last year, 47 per cent of female entrepreneurs in Canada “have trouble finding the funding they need to grow their business,” compared to 38 per cent of male entrepreneurs.


Faced with this reality, studies have found that women are more likely to take on personal credit card debt while building their business. The same Paypal study shows
70 per cent of women vs 65 per cent of men use fund business using credit cards. 

This women in business report from Experian Commercial Data Sciences also shows that men seek out commercial credit more often while women tend to seek out consumer credit.

Heading into freelance life, I had lined up a part-time contract writing web content and doing production co-ordination for a documentary producer. I knew I wanted to pitch publications and produce a podcast, but I was also open to other opportunities.

One project I took on was launching a retreat business with a friend who had been toying with the idea for years.  She envisioned a series of relaxed workshops put on by a diverse group of people from our extended network: photographers, illustrators, cooks and theatre designers.

It would take place at her family’s log cabin where we’d cook meals together, go on hikes and sit by the fire.

It spoke to my interest in travel, professional development and design.

Armed with a post-grad certificate in marketing management, four years experience in advertising and communications, a stint in journalism and deep in the grips of Instagram’s one-size-fits-all template for female entrepreneurial success, I pictured the retreat as a series of highly curated creative-skill building classes facilitated by notable influencers and targeted at millennial women.

I imagined photo-ops and filters.
I saw dollar signs.

As an entrepreneur (I registered a sole proprietorship with the CRA! I got an HST number!) with an aversion to risk, the Instagram path to entrepreneurship seemed to promise guaranteed returns and the potential to grow the business:
Step 1: Create a product or experience that is visually appealing and makes social media influencers (and customers) want to share with their social networks. 
Step 2: Pair this word of mouth with demographically targeted digital advertising and a few key media mentions and watch your business grow. 
Step 3: Diversify by offering to teach others how you did it and charging for it.
Entrepreneurship, as it was presented online by, among others, The June Motel, The Atelier Conference, the co-working space Make Lemonade and online marketing expert Jenna Kutcher, offered a host of opportunities to female entrepreneurs ill-served by the limitations of traditional, male-dominated workplaces.
It looked like the answer to everything.
By running my own business, I could set my own goals, make my own schedule, and try innovative approaches. I wouldn’t be passed up for promotions or have to hear the phrase “this is how we’ve always done it,” ever again.
But that did not make it easy.
For every #bossbabe living the charmed life, I suspect there are 10 others who tried and failed.
The success presented by certain entrepreneurs failed to fully account for all the behind-the-scenes work that goes into building a successful business. For my partner and I that included hours of uncompensated work organizing activities, finding speakers, designing logos, booking facilitators and then we would have to hire publicists, accountants and lawyers.
To cover our bases, we signed up for a workshop, “Legal Stuff for Your Biz,” put on by a commercial lawyer at a co-working space. We learned that Ontario law sees your business partnership as binding even without paperwork. All you need is a business partner (I had one!) and an intention to make a profit (yes please!) and your personal assets are exposed to shared business liabilities.
 If either my partner or I made a mistake in our business and were sued, the other person would be equally responsible. Our homes and savings were at risk.
This put into question how far I would go to pilot this business idea and spotlighted the problems that were arising as our different visions for the retreat unfolded. When we disagreed, I sometimes felt powerless. It was her idea and her cabin. Meanwhile, her full-time job and pregnancy kept her busy, so a lot of the planning power fell to me.
At times it felt like I forced my ideas on her. Making decisions together and having to compromise pushed our friendship to its limit. I learned a lot about listening and being flexible but I also considered backing out entirely to prevent the friendship’s collapse.
And yet, we persevered.


Our pilot weekend was a success. The workshops and activities ran smoothly. The almost entirely positive feedback we received helped us consider how to move forward with future iterations. Yet we decided not to do so. I realized I wasn’t committed enough to the business to take the next step — pursuing outside funding.

I enjoy participating in retreats more than running them.

I don’t see our foray into starting a business as a failure, despite the $1,500 loss we took. I learned about patience and nurturing friendship. I learned how much you have to want something to make it work. 

But my biggest takeaway was not about how to do it better next time. It was about how to get better at analyzing the “why” behind my goals in the first place.

I want to have agency and pursue meaningful work but I don’t want to be a pawn in an entrepreneurship pyramid scheme that requires me to leverage the concept of female empowerment in exchange for individual success.

The way female entrepreneurship is sold, women are as much the customer as the business owner.

I wonder how many women consider this fact, versus simply getting caught up in the dream.

https://www.thestar.com/life/2019/09/20/how-i-got-caught-up-in-the-booming-business-of-bossbabe-entrepreneurship.html

May 11, 2018 "Is the gender gap actually based on gender?": Today I found this article by Howard Levitt in the Edmonton Journal: 

The #MeToo movement and the virtue-signalling of the Trudeau and Wynne governments have at least one goal in common: the elimination of Canada’s gender pay gap. Wynne in particular has passed various pieces of legislation purportedly designed to eliminate it.
Is Canada’s gender pay gap in 2018 still a product of discrimination? If not, should it be redressed, and even eliminated?
Put another way, if the gap is caused by market forces, not discrimination, would legislation seeking to eliminate it actually be harmful?
A  January 2018 Stanford University study on gender and the gig economy, analyzing close to two million Uber drivers, who were selected for rides based on algorithms unrelated to gender, still found a seven per cent gender wage gap.
 Half of that related to male drivers working longer hours. The other half (and who will be surprised by this?) related to the fact that males, on average, were driving faster, thereby getting to their destinations quicker and being available to pick up their next customer.
Another study issued the same month from the National Bureau of Economic Research, based on Danish data, found that almost all of the difference in wages between Danish men and women were the result of women having children. Despite 52-week paid leaves and government-subsidized daycare, the study found that the arrival of children resulted in a long-term wage gap of 20 per cent. 
Over the 23 years of this study, other sources of the wage gap in Denmark had been almost eliminated but the “child penalty” stubbornly persisted. As in Denmark, North American studies have found there to be effectively no wage gap between men and women who have not had children. So is the gender wage gap actually based on gender?

I recall one female lawyer, now managing partner of another labour law firm, confiding in me that she did not expect to earn as much as her male peers because, at that time in her life, she prioritized time with her children and was not willing to work the same hours as her male peers. She believed that paying her as much as them would have been unfair.
Should government have forced her employer to pay her as much as it did her male colleagues working longer hours? If it did, would those male lawyers have continued to work as hard? 
Of greater significance, if government forced employers to pay women who choose to work 9 to 5 in order to spend time with their children the same as lawyers who spend most dinners and weekend lunches at their desks, how likely would employers be to hire women of childbearing age or with young children?
As American Enterprise Institute’s Kay Hymowitz poignantly noted, after reviewing the Uber and Danish studies: “Feminists have long promised that stronger social policies would bring about gender equality. On the evidence of (this) Danish study and similar ones, they do not. 
The average woman cuts back when her kids are born, regardless of whether the government offers long-term paid leave or heavily subsidized childcare. Taken together, the Uber and Danish studies provide more insight into the reality of male and female wage differences, differences that the practitioners of outrage theatre — from the U.K.’s gender gap reporting legislation to America’s Equal Pay Day — do their best to evade.”

"Dress code's great divide"/ "When dismissal with cause seems clear"

In honor of International Women's Day (Mar. 8), I'm going to post these articles about women in the workplace:


Mar. 25, 2017
"Dress code's great divide": Today I found this article by Laura Kane in the Edmonton Journal:

VANCOUVER — Servers clad in short skirts and stilettos could soon be a thing of the past, as British Columbia and Ontario take steps to ditch sexualized dress codes. But women in other industries can face unwritten expectations of lipstick and heels, say workplace equality experts.

Researchers and human rights lawyers say a broader discussion is needed of the pressures faced by women to spend more time and money on their looks than men. Gender stereotypes can permeate all kinds of workplaces, including when it comes to physical appearance, they say.

“Women can be judged more harshly due to these pervasive stereotypes,” said Julie Nugent, vice-president and centre leader at the Catalyst Research Centre for Corporate Practice, part of a multinational non-profit organization. “When you think about dress and physical appearance, women face higher standards in a lot of cases than men.”

Nugent said women leaders are often subject to what’s known as the “Goldilocks syndrome,” where they’re perceived as either too tough or too soft, but never “just right.” This also affects expectations for how women dress, in which their looks are scrutinized more than men’s, she said.

“Sometimes that (focus on appearance) could even take away from a woman’s abilities or her leadership style,” she said. “That can be sort of white noise in the background.”

B.C. Premier Christy Clark recently voiced support for a private member’s bill that would have banned mandatory high heels in the workplace. But rather than pass the bill, her government is looking for the most “effective way” to make the fix, which could include changes to regulations.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission put forward a policy position last year making it clear that requiring female staff to wear high heels, low-cut tops or short skirts could violate the human rights code. It also contacted major restaurant and bar companies, with many saying they had already changed their dress code or planned to do so.


But in the U.K., the issue has also been debated in the context of professional workplaces. 

British lawmakers condemned sexist dress codes after Nicola Thorp complained that her employment agency required “regularly reapplied” make-up and shoes with at least a five-centimetre heel while she was working at a finance firm.

Renu Mandhane, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, said the issue comes up most often in restaurants and bars.

“Often, when you’re talking about offices and businesses, it’s more about the implied expectation, rather than a formalized dress code,” she said.

She said businesses can have a dress code as long as it’s not dis
criminatory by imposing different or more onerous obligations on women. For example, it can’t require that women wear skinny jeans and men wear straight-cut jeans — it should provide both options for both genders.

“If women want to wear skinny jeans, that’s totally fine. It’s about providing equivalent options so that they don’t feel they have to wear something they may not feel comfortable with.”

Robyn Durling, communications director of the B.C. Human Rights Clinic, said the province’s human rights code already bans dress codes that discriminate on the basis of gender. But any regulatory changes by the premier would reaffirm the human rights code, he said.

He said Clark’s government could amend workers’ compensation policy to state that high-heeled shoes can cause injuries and therefore employers can no longer require staff to wear them.

It’s important to recognize that men in certain industries probably feel equivalent pressure to look credible for their roles, said Karen Craiggs-Milne, a gender and diversity consultant.

“But that gender division, where women are taking time to put on make-up and do their hair 
and spend an extra hour in the morning just to be ready for the role before they’re even judged on the work itself, I think is part of a broader issue of discrimination that shows up in the workplace.”

She said the wage gap, lower promotion rates and expectations that women will do the office dishes or order lunch are other ways in which gender bias manifests in work environments, and are not disconnected from issues of physical appearance.

Diane Craig, president and founder of Corporate Class, which trains aspiring business leaders, said appearance is one pillar of “executive presence,” but it’s probably the least important one. She disagreed that women are required spend more money or time on their looks.

“We get our nails done. We get our eyebrows shaped. There’s all of those things. It’s like high maintenance. It’s not that it’s necessary,” she said. “What’s most important is that you are well-groomed and appear professional.”

Cissy Pau, a principal consultant with Clear HR Consulting, also said she didn’t think women faced an unfair burden compared to men. Presentation is important regardless of gender, she said.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/as-provinces-move-to-ditch-heels-in-sexist-dress-codes-experts-say-servers-arent-the-only-ones-stuck-tottering

"When dismissal with cause seems clear": Today I found this article by Howard Levitt in the Edmonton Journal:


An employer might feel like a vengeful goliath when it discovers a series of egregious acts, but it is the nitty gritty that defines the outcome.

Kent Smith, a professional engineer and senior manager, was employed by Pacific Coast Terminals Co. Ltd. for over 16 years. Pacific had two new construction projects that required permits. Smith applied for those permits but then gave the green light to start construction before they were obtained.

Two months later, Port Metro Vancouver threatened to halt construction on the basis of neither having a permit. Outraged, Pacific declared Smith’s conduct, authorizing work prior to receipt of the permits, to be dishonest and misleading.

It then uncovered that Smith had stored large amounts of hard-core pornography on his work computer and that he had also divulged confidential information to an outside party. 

As well, when, unbeknownst to Pacific, Smith was romantically involved with a co-worker, Zerlina Robertson, he participated in decisions regarding her salary. He also assisted with her search for new employment outside the company and brought her with him on a business trip to Europe while she was on disability leave.

The above incidents led to Smith’s dismissal with cause. Subsequently, he sued his employer for wrongful dismissal.

On its face, such egregious acts would appear amply sufficient to terminate an employee with cause. But Justice Sigurdson of the B.C. Supreme Court closely examined the circumstances of each act to determine whether the misconduct was fundamentally inconsistent with Smith’s obligations, including his managerial autonomy.

With respect to the unsanctioned construction, the judge found Smith to have made an error in judgment rather than having acted dishonestly or having intended to mislead. 

While the court was critical of Smith’s other actions, based on the circumstances, the court ruled those actions similarly did not justify his dismissal for cause.

For example, the pornography had been stored on Smith’s computer 10 years earlier, at a time when that was part of the corporate culture. 

His involvement in Robertson’s salary negotiations, although placing him in a conflict of interest, had occurred seven years earlier. 

Smith’s actions were sloppy for a senior manager but did not rise to such dishonesty as to justify termination with cause.

Employers beware. If you think you have cause, run the facts by an employment lawyer. And conduct an investigation so that pertinent facts don’t first emerge at trial — but don’t have a lawyer do it; conduct it internally. 

You don’t want the employee to refuse to participate or later allege coercion because they were confronted by outside counsel.

Financial Post Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. Employment Law Hour with Howard Levitt airs Sundays at 1 p.m. on Newstalk 1010 in Toronto. hlevitt@levittllp.com Twitter.com/HowardLevittLaw