Bad behaviour included naked Barbies in suggestive poses, request for intimate photos
A manager once staged a fake award ceremony for an employee, complete with recorded applause and sparkling wine. He left a Barbie Ken doll in her filing cabinet, holding a gift card.
A labour board ruled these incidents and others were part of a pattern that was far too serious to let him keep his job.
In a recent decision, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board upheld the firing of a human resources team leader at the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. Adjudicator Patricia Harewood found he had repeatedly harassed his subordinates and abused his authority, and it refused to reinstate him.
Barbie Ken doll with invite for worker
Over nearly two years, the board found, the team leader kept commenting on his female subordinates' clothing, bodies and personal lives. One advisor testified that his early compliments about her outfits made her uncomfortable. She often replied politely, she said, just to keep the peace.
Then it escalated. Once, he staged an unauthorized award ceremony for the advisor in an empty boardroom, complete with recorded applause, a bouquet and sparkling wine. Another time, he suggested a pregnant colleague mark her baby's gender reveal by sending him an intimate photo of herself or her spouse.
Later, she found a Barbie Ken doll in her filing cabinet, holding a gift card. It frightened her, she said. In August 2019, she and three colleagues brought their concerns to management, setting off an investigation that substantiated harassment, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and a lack of professional judgment.
Claims of friendly, permissive workplace
The team leader did not dispute most of what happened. He said his relationship with his staff was informal and friendly, and described himself as more of a colleague than a supervisor.
He said his behaviour was part of a friendly, permissive work environment, said the decision.
"His intention was always to please, motivate, flatter, and make his employees laugh, not to hurt them."
He also floated an unsupported theory that one complainant wanted to wreck his career, which the board rejected as baseless.
According to submissions made on his behalf, a written warning issued in April 2019 had already dealt with his conduct, so firing him over the same behaviour meant punishing him twice. He also said he had never been trained as a supervisor or on the department's Values and Ethics Code, and did not fully understand what counted as sexual harassment.
The board didn't buy it. Three of the four complainants had raised concerns about conduct that continued after the warning was issued. Harewood also questioned whether his later apologies were sincere, noting he downplayed his actions on the stand and, without evidence, suggested one complainant had made up her account.
No basis for a lighter penalty
In the June 29, 2026 decision, Harewood said his own job counted against him: he was the person other managers turned to for advice on workplace conduct. A comment he made to a colleague back in 2017 — telling her “You see, when I arrive, you spread your legs” — had already drawn a written warning and briefly delayed his move into the permanent team leader role.
Harewood wrote that it was “difficult to understand how the grievor was able to obtain a PE-04 position” as team leader despite that earlier warning, and said his later promotion did nothing to reassure employees the workplace was healthy. She also noted, in passing, that senior staff had let a separate incident slide: a manager's office decorated with partially undressed Barbie dolls in suggestive poses for a birthday.
In the end, the board found no sign he would change his behaviour, and concluded the misconduct was too serious and too repeated for a lighter, step-by-step approach to discipline. His grievance was denied.
.jpg)