The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that the use of bad language was evidently merely an expression of bad temper and not intended to express hostility to the Pope or Catholicism and that it did not
constitute harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Vice-Chair Kershaw found that Kulczycki's posting and comments were vexatious and
constituted harassment within the meaning Section 10 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which defines harassment as «a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably be known to be unwelcome,» on the basis of race, place of origin, ancestry and citizenship.
Not exact matches
The arbitrator further dismissed the grievor's allegation that the fact that the Chair expected her to perform certain clerical tasks that were
within her job description
constituted harassment on the basis that the grievor's previous supervisor did not expect of her.