Saskatoon Housing Authority fired caretaker for romantic relationship with tenant

(Source: Google Maps)

A provincial labour arbitrator has upheld the firing of a Saskatoon Housing Authority (SHA) caretaker who admitted to a romantic relationship with a tenant.

As a member of SGEU Local 2951, the caretaker filed a grievance over his firing in October 2023. He disputed whether the relationship was grounds for termination and alleged the SHA failed to give proper notice of the meeting, so he was unable to exercise his right to have a union rep. present.

The man, described only as the grievor in a decision released this month from arbitrator Daniel Shapiro, was hired on a 21-month term contract in Feb. 2022 to manage a 75-unit SHA complex.

According to Shapiro, the SHA is often called the “landlord of last resort.” It supports those unable to find accommodations on the private market without spending more than 30 per cent of their household income on shelter costs.

• Get the latest news from Saskatoon, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

It manages over 2,500 units in Saskatoon, about half of which are dedicated for families.

Shapiro writes that most tenants in the grievor’s complex were single mothers with children, including a number of families that came to Canada after being displaced from their homes following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

On Sept. 13, 2023, the grievor was called to a meeting with his managers, who had learned that he may be in a relationship with a tenant in his complex, a Ukrainian woman with four children referred to in the decision as X.

The SHA’s code of conduct considers romantic relationships between staff and tenants a glaring conflict of interest, since the organization has a mandate to serve its vulnerable tenants impartially.

“Employer witnesses testified and provided meeting notes supporting this, that the grievor acknowledged he was in a relationship with a tenant, but that he didn’t see the problem with that,” Shapiro writes.

“The Grievor said that he had no plans to end his relationship with the tenant, and if this meant he could no longer be employed with SHA, he understands this and he would rather stay with the tenants as she is a ‘good girl,’ a ‘good person’ and ‘I am not leaving her.’”

At the arbitration hearing, Shapiro says the grievor maintained that he had no physical relationship with X until after his termination.

She has since moved in with him and they are common law partners, the arbitrator says.

While Shapiro upheld the termination, he also found the SHA breached its obligation to provide the caretaker proper notice of the nature of the meeting so he could call on union support.

He won’t get his job back, but he will get $3,500 in damages for the breach of his rights.