BOARD OF INQUIRY {Human Rights Code) IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H. 19, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the complaint by Ena Drummond February 27, 1990, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, harassment and sexual solicitation. BETWEEN: Ontario Human Rights Commission Commission - and - Ena Drummond Complainant - and - Tempo Paint and Varnish Co. (Division of Tower Chemicals Limited), Bernard Jakobson and Hugh Kerr Respondents DECISION Adjudicator Katherine Laird : Date : June 18, 1998 Board File No: 93-0052 Decision No 98-011 : Board ofInquiry {Human Rights Code) 150 Eglinton Avenue East 5th Floor, Toronto ON M4P 1E8 Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax: (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946 APPEARANCES Ontario Human Rights Commission A. D'Silva, Counsel Ena Drummond, Complainant R. Rowe, Counsel Tempo Paint and Varnish Co. ) (Division of Tower Chemicals Limited ) I. Baiter, Counsel Bernard Jakobson, and Hugh Kerr ) Respondents • ) INTRODUCTION The events which gave rise to the complaint took place over a nine-month period from December 1988 to the end of September 1989. The complaint alleges that, during this period, Ena Drummond suffered harassment, sexual solicitation and discrimination on the basis of sex as an employee of the corporate respondent, Tempo Paint and Varnish Co. (Division of Tower Chemicals Limited), referred to in this decision as "Tower Chemicals". By interim decision, the proceeding was discontinued against the two respondents named as personally responsible for the alleged sexual harassment: Oscar Boateng and Osei Nana Yaw. Osei Nana Yaw (relying on the spelling of this name as provided by Oscar Boateng in his evidence) had apparently left the country and had not received notice of the hearing before the Board of Inquiry. Oscar Boateng attended the first day of hearing but had not received notice of the human rights complaint, or of the hearing, until the day before the hearing commenced before the Board of Inquiry. The two remaining personal respondents are Bernard Jakobson, the president and an owner of Tower Chemicals, and Hugh Kerr, the senior manager under Mr. Jakobson. Decision The evidence establishes that the complainant, as an employee of Tower Chemicals, suffered harassment and discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex, contrary to s.7(2) and s.5(l) of the Human Rights Code ("Code"). The personal respondents, Mr. Jakobson and Mr. Kerr, knew or should have known about the harassment, and are each personally liable under s.9 of the Code, for their own failure to take any sufficient action to prevent it. In addition, because the personal respondents constituted the senior management of Tower Chemicals, the corporate respondent is held to be liable for their inaction in respect of the harassment experienced by the complainant. Evidence The key witnesses for the Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") were the complainant and her co-worker during the relevant period, Barbara Smith. The Commission also called as witnesses three physicians who had treated Ms Drummond: Dr. Mark Goldstein, Dr. David Gordon and Dr. David Goldstein. As well, the Commission relied on the fact that the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) had convicted both Mr. Boateng and Mr. Yaw (referred to in the -2- court transcript as "Osei Nana" and "Nana") of sexual assault in respect of conduct which is at issue in this complaint. In addition to the sexual assault conviction, Mr. Boateng was also convicted ofassault on the complainant in respect of an incident which took place in the plant on July 27, 1989, referred to in this decision as the "burn incident". The Commission relied on the criminal convictions as primafacie proof that Mr. Boateng and Mr. Yaw committed the offence of sexual assault, and in the case of Mr. Boateng, also the offence of assault. The key witnesses for the respondents were: Bernard Jakobson (president and senior manager); Hugh Kerr (manager); Tony Martil (sub-foreman); Velnathan Viranathan (senior employee) and Oscar Boateng. Mr. Boateng was dismissed as an employee of Tower Chemicals in October 1989 for allegedly falsifying his attendance records. In addition, two plant workers and an office assistant testified as to their recollection of the events alleged by the complainant: Ranjit Singh, Ricardo Silva and Jayne Murat. Finally, the respondents called as a witnesses a police officer who interviewed Ms Drummond in respect ofevents as issue in this complaint: Police Constable ("P.C.") Reynolds. Evidentiary Value of the Criminal Convictions Counsel for the respondents argued that the presumption of proof arising from the criminal convictions should be rebutted in the present case on several grounds, including that the presiding judge erred in his assessment of credibility and exhibited racial bias against the accused. Respondent counsel also submitted that the Board of Inquiry had evidence unavailable to the Provincial Court which should lead to an adverse finding on the credibility of the complainant's evidence concerning the events at issue in both the criminal and human rights proceedings. The transcript of the criminal proceedings was produced to support the submissions with respect to the alleged errors committed by the Ontario Courtjustice presiding at the criminal trial. Counsel for the Commission did not dispute that the presumption of proof arising from the convictions was rebuttable before me, but submitted that there were no circumstances tojustify rebuttal in this case. In my view, it is unnecessary for me to consider the submissions of counsel on the evidentiary value of the prior convictions. I have concluded, based on the evidence in this proceeding taken as a whole, that the complainant's testimony as to the events which gave rise to the complaint is credible. Although evidence was led which may suggest that the complainant was less than fully truthful in her testimony about certain events after her dismissal by Tower Chemicals (and this may become a factor in assessing the quantum of an award), I find that her evidence on the key incidents of harassment was corroborated to a significant degree by the testimony of Barbara Smith, Dr. David Goldstein and P. C. Reynolds. Findings of Fact Background The background facts to this complaint are not in dispute. The corporate respondent, Tower Chemicals operates a plant in Weston, Ontario which manufactures paint and related products. In the late 1980's, approximately 20 to 25 workers were employed in this operation. The complainant commenced her employment with Tower Chemicals at the beginning of April 1988. Ms Drummond worked as a labeller and box-maker in the paint manufacturing plant until her employment was terminated on September 19, 1989. One other woman, Barbara Smith, worked with Ms Drummond during the relevant period. Ms Smith mostly made boxes and Ms Drummond mostly did the labelling. These two were the only women working on the plant floor during the events at issue, although at other times there had been one or two other female employees, always working at these two particularjobs. Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng were hired by Tower Chemicals in December 1988, and began to work as "fillers" in an area adjoining Ms Drummond's work area. They regularly worked side- by-side with Velnathan Viranathan, who supervised their work. There were open double doors between the fillers' work area and that of the complainant and Ms Smith. Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng filled cans of paint and paint remover, and packed the cans into the boxes made by Ms Smith and labelled by Ms Drummond. Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng, and occasionally Mr. Viranathan, would take turns coming into the women's work area several times a day to collect the boxes for packing the cans. At times, Ms Drummond and Ms Smith would be asked to assist Mr. Yaw and Mr Boateng with the packing. - 4 - It was Ms Drummond's evidence that Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng began to harass her sexually soon after they commenced employment. She testified that two incidents of sexual harassment by Mr. Yaw took place in December 1988, and that on each occasion, she told Mr. Yaw that he could not touch her. She testified that, between December 1988 and May 1989, there were no further incidents of inappropriate touching, but that a pattern of daily harassment by Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng occurred from May through July 1989. On July 27, 1989, the event occurred which has been referred to as the "burn incident". Following July 27, 1989, the complainant was off work for approximately two weeks. The complainant testified that she was subjected to continuing harassment from the day of her return to work to her firing. My findings of fact are set out below with reference to the key incidents. December 1988 Incidents The incidents alleged to have taken place in December 1988 involved Mr. Yaw "hugging" the complainant from behind, once when they were punching out of work, in the lunchroom, and shortly thereafter when she was leaving the plant, and again a few days later in the month when they were on the same bus going home from work. Ms. Drummond testified that she told Mr. Yaw on both occasions that he was not to "do that" again. I accept Ms. Drummond's evidence with respect to these incidents. Although Mr. Boateng testified that he had not observed these interactions, and that the allegations were "ridiculous", Ms Drummond's account of the events was corroborated by Barbara Smith's evidence. Ms. Smith testified that she saw Mr. Yaw come up behind Ms Drummond in the lunchroom and hug her. She heard Ms Drummond say that she did not like him to do that, and heard Mr. Yaw laugh in response. She also observed the incident in the bus. She testified that she saw Mr. Yaw touch Ms Drummond and try to hug her as they were trying to get off the bus. She testified that Ms Drummond was upset, and that in response, Mr. Yaw laughed and ran off. May to July 1989 It was the complainant's evidence that she was subjected to ongoing, daily sexual harassment by Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng from May 1989 to July 27, 1989. She testified that the harassment started with an incident on May 3rd, when she and Mr. Yaw were working at the same table. She testified that he told her he wanted to "fuck you and give you a boy baby", and that she ignored him. She stated that, two days later, Mr. Boateng touched her breasts while she was working and tried to push his hand between her legs. She told him to stop and he ran away and laughed. Ms Drummond testified that from this point on, there were daily instances of harassment. In her words, Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng would "slap my bum", put their hands "on my bottom", tell her that "You know I want to fuck you". They would pass by her when she was leaning over doing her work and touch her breasts. As well, they made a habit of throwing small objects, such as bottle caps, at her when her back was turned. She testified that on July 5, 1989, she hit Mr. Boateng when he touched her breasts, and he responded by hitting her in the face with a plastic jug, breaking her glasses. This evidence of harassment was strenuously disputed by the respondents. Neither Mr. Jakobson or Mr. Kerr could recall seeing or hearing ofany inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng. Mr. Jakobson testified that, after the police charged the two men with sexual assault, he went around the plant asking if anyone had seen anything, and that "No one had seen anything. No one knew." He testified that he thought at the time "How is it possible that no one saw?" He testified that he did not believe that there could have been repeated harassment of the complainant without anyone else knowing. Similarly, Mr. Kerr testified that, following the arrests, he talked with "people in the plant" about whether or not they had seen anything inappropriate going on, and was told that they had not. He acknowledged in his testimony that he believed this and did not see any need to speak to Ms Drummond herself about the events leading to the arrest. Mr. Boateng was called as a witness. He acknowledged that he and Mr. Yaw were friends and lived together throughout their employment at Tower Chemicals, but denied each and every allegation against himself and Mr. Yaw. When asked if he had ever inappropriately touched her, he called the allegations "ridiculous" and " depressing". He pointed out more than once that the complainant was "much older" than him and, in his words, "not my type". He testified that the incident in which he is alleged to have broken Ms Drummond's glasses "never happened", and later testified that he could not recall any incident in which Ms Drummond's glasses were broken -6- at the plant. In light of the testimony of other witnesses, summarized below, I did not find Mr. Boateng's denials to be credible. Three employees were called as witnesses to testify that they did not observe any inappropriate behaviour by Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng. Tony Martil, Velnathan Viranathan and Ranjit Singh were all still employees ofTower Chemicals when they gave evidence. Mr. Martil described Mr. Jakobson as being "like a father" to him. Mr. Martil and Mr. Singh acknowledged in cross- examination that their work area was 50 to 75 feet away from Mr. Drummond's table, and that their backs would be to the complainant when sitting at their tables. Mr. Martil testified that he walked through the plant at most two or three times a day. Mr. Viranathan, on the other hand, worked at the same table as Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng, and could see Ms Drummond from his work area, but would not normally go with Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng when they went into the complainant's work area collecting boxes. None of the three men could recall observing Mr. Boateng or Mr. Yaw inappropriately touching Ms Drummond or Ms Smith. I noted that, although all three employee witnesses had a detailed recollection of disruptive behaviour on the part of the complainant on the day she was fired, all denied having any recollection of the "burn incident", discussed below, or of the arrest of Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng at the plant on the following day. Neither Mr. Singh or Mr. Martil, the sub-foreman, could recall if they had ever heard of, or been told of, the burn or the arrests, although Mr. Martil acknowledged that both events would be unusual. Mr. Singh testified that: "As far as I remember, it [the burn] never happened". Mr. Viranathan could not at first recall the burn or the arrests at the plant, but later in his testimony recalled that Ms Smith had told him that "Ena had been hurt by [paint] remover". On being reminded of his signed statement to the investigating officer from the Commission, he recalled that Ms Smith had also told him that she and Ms Drummond had gone to the police station and to the hospital after Ms Drummond was burned in the plant. I did not find any of these three employee witnesses credible in their testimony in this area. Mr. Jakobson testified that he spoke to everyone in the plant on the day following the arrests, inquiring if anyone had seen inappropriate conduct by Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng. It does not seem - 7 - possible that all three men had forgotten, or had not known about the injury to the complainant and the arrest of their co-workers at the plant, particularly given the fact that Mr. Jakobson asked the plant workers about the sexual harassment accusations on the following day. Their testimony in this area undercut the credibility of their evidence that they had never observed or been aware of inappropriate conduct on the part of Mr. Yaw and Mr. Boateng towards the complainant. Ms Smith was located and called as a witness after most of the respondent witnesses had testified. Ms Smith left her employment with Tower Chemicals on good terms in November 1990. She did not seem to harbour any ill feelings towards her former employer and she testified that Mr. Jakobson had given her pay increases on more than one occasion She testified in a straightforward manner and her evidence corroborated Ms Drummond's evidence on several key points. I found her to be a very credible witness. She was careful to identify areas where she had no personal knowledge. For example, she was clear that she never saw Mr. Boateng touch Ms Drummond sexually and that Ms Drummond never complained about Mr. Boateng touching her, only about Mr. Yaw touching her and about Mr. Boateng fighting with her. Also, she was careful to clarify in her evidence that she did not actually see the fight when Ms Drummond's glasses were broken. By the time she arrived, the glasses were already on the floor and Ms Drummond was crying and saying that Mr. Boateng had hit her in the face with the jug. Ms Smith testified that Mr. Yaw would "hit" the complainant, sometimes as often as twice a day. She testified that Ms Drummond complained to her about it when it happened. She acknowledged that she did not see Mr. Yaw actually touching Ms Drummond, and that he would not do it when she was there. Ms Smith testified that Mr. Yaw also touched her " on my bottom" regularly, and that he would only touch her when Ms Drummond was not around. She testified that she did not expect Mr. Yaw to touch Ms Drummond when he was likely to be observed doing so by her. She stated that: "If he [Mr. Yaw] was walking behind you, he is right there close. Even after the arrest, he didn't take it serious. Even after the arrest, two weeks later, he still do it. He still hit me on my bum.". She testified that she told him. more than once not to touch her and that Mr. Yaw would laugh and run away. Once when she talked to him, he told her that he knew that "Jamaican girls were cheap". Ms Smith testified that both she and Ms Drummond were from Jamaica, and that she told him that not all Jamaican women are the same. She testified that she tried to make it clear that she was notjoking. Based on Ms Drummond's testimony, as corroborated by Ms Smith, I find that Mr. Yaw did sexually harass the complainant on a regular basis in the plant. I make no finding as to whether or not the inappropriate touching occurred consistently on a daily basis, or was less frequent. I accept Ms Smith's evidence that Mr. Yaw touched Ms Drummond often, "sometimes" as often as twice a day. Given that the events in question took place many years before the hearing, it is not surprising that recollections would be imprecise. Further, although Ms Smith testified that she did not actually see Mr. Yaw's hands on Ms Drummond's body, I find it persuasive that Ms Smith recalled that Ms Drummond complained of being touched by Mr. Yaw frequently and that Ms Smith believed her because Mr. Yaw was also touching her inappropriately on a regular basis, always when she was not with Ms Drummond. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Boateng, I find that, at minimum, he participated in the sexual harassment of the complainant by Mr. Yaw. It was not disputed that he was present on most or many of the occasions when the sexual harassment by Mr. Yaw occurred. I accept the evidence of Ms Drummond that Mr.' Boateng swore at her, threw things at her, laughed at her, and on the occasion when her glasses were broken, hit her in the face with a plastic jug. Further, although Ms Smith's evidence does not offer corroboration on this point, I find on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that Mr. Boateng also touched Ms Drummond inappropriately during this period. Ms Drummond's evidence on this point is supported by her statement to P.C. Reynolds on the evening of the burn incident, as discussed below. The notes and signed statement taken by P.C. Reynolds establish that Ms Drummond gave essentially the same account of the key events at issue to the police officer in July 1989 as she gave to the tribunal. She reported that both men would "hug" her as they passed her in the plant, and grab her "breasts, bottom, front". The officer's notes of her interview record that the complainant stated that "the sexual assault and verbal abuse continued every day", and that both Mr. Boateng and Mr. Yaw participated.