Airport employee fired for noisy masturbation in a work bathroom loses attraction despite the fact that sex addiction is a handicap and he never did it when a colleague was in the next stable
- The employee, who worked for an airline company with hangars at Halifax airport, was fired by his employees after repeated complaints
- Employees had complained that the man made noises in the bathroom, along with heavy breathing, & # 39; erratic movements and moans & # 39;
- The employee testified that he masturbated in a bathroom at work, but only if no one was beside him and he made no noise
- His argument that he had a disability in the form of a sex addiction and that he should not have been dismissed was rejected by an employment agency in Nova Scotia
A company that fired an employee after complaints that he repeatedly and loudly masturbated in a bathroom stall at work was justified for doing so, a labor broker has ruled.
The union worker, who worked for an air and space company with hangars at Halifax airport, was fired by his employees because his actions caused & # 39; shame and suffering, & # 39; as reported by The national post.
The man, who has not been mentioned for privacy reasons, and his union, Unifor, claimed he was disabled in the form of a sex addiction and tried to argue that he did not receive a fair warning about his colleagues. complaints.
The union worker, who worked for an airline company with hangars at Halifax airport, was fired by his employees because his actions & # 39; shame and suffering & # 39; caused
The union added that managers felt too embarrassed to tell him immediately what the complaints were about and instead referred to & # 39; unusual noises & # 39 ;.
The employee testified that he was masturbating at work in a bathroom stall, but only if there was no one next to him and he made no noises and kept his phone quiet while watching porn.
However, arbitrator Gus Richardson rejected the man's testimony that he was not making any sounds while he was busy with the activity and cited his colleague's complaints as evidence that the man could be heard.
The union worker who worked for an aerospace company with hangars at Halifax airport (pictured above) was fired after complaints that he repeatedly and loudly masturbated in a bathroom stall at work.
Those complaints occurred after two technicians approached management to complain about noises in the bathroom, along with heavy breathing, & # 39; erratic movements and moans & # 39 ;. The management then met with the employee and did not address the issue directly, but said they were concerned about the welfare of the employee.
Richardson decided that the meeting with management, as well as a follow-up with the union, was a sufficient warning.
Labor arbitrator Gus Richardson (pictured above) ruled that the Canadian company was right to dismiss the male employee
Richardson was asked to decide whether the loud masturbation in a bathroom stall was a justification for discipline and termination and whether it was a sufficiently private place.
Richardson said he accepted that there was nothing illegal about masturbation. He said, however, that the employee & # 39; had violated the privacy and sense of personal decorum of his colleague & # 39; s and ignored the warnings to stop & # 39;
It turned out that the employee had been warned about his behavior two years earlier.
More recently, a human resources employee had complained that masturbation & # 39; more often and bolder & # 39; had become. This in turn led to the company conducting an investigation and eventually 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 did not receive a fair warning about his colleagues' complaints. Both arguments were rejected by employment agency Gus Richardson
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 lower sentence.
& # 39; Even if there was a condition that would have a & # 39; sex addiction could be mentioned – and I was not convinced of the evidence that there was – and even if that was the grievance – and again I was not convinced that this was the case – there was nothing to establish that it was invalid in any way, & Richardson said.
The case seems to be the first of its kind. & (39) Neither (the company) nor the union representative could have found any case related to workplace masturbation, & quot; the ruling states.
. (TagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) news