Man fired for loudly masturbating at work

Man fired for loudly masturbating at work

An arbitrator has upheld a company's decision to fire an employee after he was discovered masturbating loudly in the workplace toilets. The unidentified man, working for an aerospace firm operating hangars at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Canada, had his contracted terminated after his colleagues heard him engaging in onanism during working hours.

He had apparently been warned by his employers twice before about touching himself, but had apparently grown "more brazen" over time. The employee claimed that he had a sex addiction, which he argued was a disability, and stated that his prior warnings had been so vague as to be incomprehensible, since management had used obfuscating euphemisms to describe his behaviour.

Commenting on the case, Canadian arbitrator Gus Richardson stated: "I do not accept the grievant's testimony that he made no sounds while performing this activity. Obviously, if that were true no one would have known that he was doing it. But people did know. They could only have known about it because they could hear it."

He continued: "A manager told the employee there were complaints about noises in the bathroom, such as 'breathing heavily, making erratic movements and moaning,' and said management was concerned for the employee's well-being. They told him that if he had a serious medical issue, he should alert human resources. Masturbation is not a topic of conversation about which people feel comfortable discussing openly."

"That, plus concerns about privacy, would make any attempt to discuss it personally embarrassing and likely to result in the use of euphemisms. I am satisfied that both knew exactly what was being discussed - and that it was an activity that was causing concern amongst the grievant's co-workers and ought to be stopped."

"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 grievant suffered from - and again I was not persuaded that was the case - there was nothing to establish that it was disabling in any way."