Airport worker fired for noisily masturbating in a work bathroom loses appeal despite claiming sex addiction is a disability and he never did it when a co-worker was in the next stall
- The employee, who worked for an aerospace firm operating hangars at the Halifax airport, was dismissed by his employees after repeated complaints
- Co-workers had complained the man was making noises in the bathroom along with heavy breathing, 'erratic movements and moaning'
- The employee testified that he masturbated in a bathroom stall at work, but only when there was no-one next to him and that he didn't make noises
- His argument that he had a disability in the form of a sex addiction and that he shouldn't have been fired was rejected by a labor arbitrator in Nova Scotia
A company who fired an employee after complaints that he repeatedly and loudly masturbated in a bathroom stall at work were justified in doing so, a labor arbitrator has ruled.
The unionized employee, who worked for an aerospace firm operating hangars at the Halifax airport, was dismissed by his employees because his actions were causing 'embarrassment and distress,' as reported by The National Post.
The man, who hasn't been named for privacy reasons, and his union, Unifor, claimed he had a disability in the form of a sex addiction and tried to argue that he didn't receive a fair warning about his co-workers' complaints.
The unionized employee, who worked for an aerospace firm operating hangars at the Halifax airport, was dismissed by his employees because his actions were causing 'embarrassment and distress'
The union added that managers were too embarrassed to directly tell him what the complaints were about and instead referenced 'unusual noises.'
The employee testified that he did masturbate in a bathroom stall at work, but only when there was no-one next to him, and that he didn't make noises and kept his phone on silent if he was watching porn.
However, arbitrator Gus Richardson, rejected the man's testimony that he made no sounds while engaged in the activity citing his colleagues complaints as evidence that the man could be heard.
The unionized employee who worked for an aerospace firm operating hangars at the Halifax airport (shown above) was fired after complaints that he repeatedly and loudly masturbated in a bathroom stall at work
Those complaints had come about after two technicians had approached management to complain about noises in the bathroom along with heavy breathing, 'erratic movements and moaning.' The management then met with the employee and didn't directly mention the issue, instead saying they were 'concerned for the employee's well-being.'
Richardson ruled that the meeting with management, as well as a follow-up with the union, counted as sufficient warning.
Labor arbitrator Gus Richardson (pictured above) ruled the Canadian company was right to fire the male employee
Richardson was asked to decide whether loudly masturbating in a bathroom stall was justification for discipline and termination and whether it was a sufficiently private place.
Richardson said he accepted there was nothing illegal about masturbation. However, he said the employee had 'violated the privacy and sense of personal decorum of his co-workers, and ignored warnings to stop.'
It emerged that the employee had been warned about his behavior two years earlier.
More recently a co-worker had complained to human resources that the masturbation had become 'more frequent and brazen.' This in turn led to the company conducting an investigation and ultimately firing the employee.
The man and his union, Unifor, claimed he had a disability in the form of a sex addiction and tried to argue that he didn't receive a fair warning about his co-workers' complaints. Both arguments were rejected by Labor arbitrator Gus Richardson
Share this article
Richardson was also asked to consider evidence that the employee had a disability in the form of a sex addiction and should therefore receive a lesser punishment.
'Even if there was a condition that could be called a 'sex addiction' — and I was not persuaded on the evidence that there was — and even if that was what the grievor suffered from — and again I was not persuaded that was the case — there was nothing to establish that it was disabling in any way,' Richardson said.
The case appears to be the first of its kind. 'Neither (the company) nor the union's representative had been able to find any case dealing with masturbation in the workplace,' the ruling states.
