Apology Not Accepted: "Insincere"

When Shirish Chotalia was appointed head of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, she was doubtless considered to be a good fit. She was, after all, a human rights lawyer and experienced as such. But she was appointed to a very difficult position.

She had no previous experience in handling such an important and difficult assignment as Chairwoman with a number of employees under her direction. There was a considerable backlog in cases referred by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

She did what anyone in her position would do; attempted to rely on those who preceded her at the Tribunal. And during the time of her learning curve she doubtless experienced much frustration while attempting to get on top of things. Succumbing to the pressure of stress she also in all likelihood came down heavily on people not accustomed to the workplace expectations of superiors.

Her manner evidently grated on the sensibilities of those with whom she worked.

She was accused by some of her employees of being responsible for a volatile and poisonous workplace. Over half the 25-member staff, inclusive of managers left for greener pastures, took sick leave or retired in the first twelve months she was their head. A certain sign even to those less than optimally sensitive to the effect they have on others, that something was dreadfully awry.

One employee in particular, a clerical worker on probation, claims that Ms. Chotalia harassed him continually. Her executive assistant had taken stress leave and Ms. Chotalia had suggested that David Pembroke take on some of her duties. Clearly, the loss of an executive assistant for a busy and distracted chief executive would present as a dilemma.

Mr. Pembroke, rather than accepting the challenge as an opportunity to prove himself, learn new duties and potentially let himself be groomed for something more challenging than a clerical functionary, chose to protest that he had no experience commensurate with the challenge. And he therefore refused the invitation to assist his employer.

That, in and of itself is a trifle bizarre, since most young men have some degree of ambition; Mr. Pembroke clearly had none.

Perhaps Ms. Chotalia's manner was felt to be abrasive, perhaps those who worked under her felt her to be too demanding, perhaps it was a general feeling of resentment that a young woman would be brought in by the Privy Council Office to oversee their work rather than selecting someone from among them.

The complaints by employees were taken seriously, their union backed them. Mr. Pembroke's explanation that he was not qualified to perform an office that his employer wished him to accommodate her needs with was used as one of many complaints lodged against Ms. Chotalia. His work ethic had been discussed, he discovered, with another employer, and he "felt personally demeaned" by this.

He was also furious that he had been ordered to "urgently" photocopy "voluminous" material that would have the effect of keeping him at the office later than he planned. This was relevant to the work of a clerk, and this too displeased him. "It was an attempt to try to set me up for failure", he claimed, although Ms. Chotalia had no knowledge that he had a son in day care whom he was meant to pick up at a certain time.

An adjudicator was selected who reported that prior to her appointment by the Prime Minister, Ms. Chotalla had "little, if any" public sector management experience and was on a "steep learning curve", facing "onerous" responsibility. Nonetheless, Philip Chodos, the harassment investigator, found for the complainants.

Ms. Chotalia had written letters of apology to those of her employees who claimed she had harassed them. Mr. Pembroke who decided to leave the Tribunal before his probationary period expired, gave short shrift to the apology he received from Ms. Chotalia: it seemed "insincere and kind of lacking". Somewhat like his work ethic?

Tribunal executive director Rachel Boyer, who took office six months ago claims the CHRT workplace is now "healthy and productive".

"We have reviewed the report. These things happened a year ago. I can't comment on issues that happened a year and a half ago when I wasn't here ... but the chair took her responsibility very seriously as CEO and as soon as she saw the findings she immediately issued an apology to both complainants. It isn't her intention to cause discomfort."

It does sound as though during the time when Ms. Chotalia was engrossed and engaged in learning her way around her assignment she was tense and under duress. Her manner toward her employees may have left something to improve upon. But perhaps a little more willingness to be of assistance to her during her trials would have resulted in a less tense situation.

Entitled civil servants who work to union guidelines and have no wish to put themselves out too mightily, are readily insulted by any suggestions they might apply themselves a trifle more stringently to do their jobs with pride and integrity. Someone new coming into the picture who might expect a little more of them might not be greeted with love and admiration.

Resentment and the bile of active dislike is more likely to occur. More's the pity.