Kilted Bus Driver

[Macman]

This was in our local paper today, but it happened in Toronto. I found it kind of amusing.

• 19 Dec 2019
• Times Colonist
• COLIN PERKEL
• The Canadian Press

Kilt ban on bus driver was not discriminatory


TORONTO — A bus driver sent home to change out of the kilt he wore to work on a casual Friday was not a victim of anti-Scottish discrimination, Ontario’s human rights tribunal has ruled.
The tribunal decided that Tracy Macdonnell had provided no evidence that the directive from Grand River Transit in Waterloo, Ont., was improper.
“The applicant is proud of his ancestry and wears a kilt on special occasions. I find that he has not pointed to any evidence in his testimony to establish that he had the right, protected under the code, to wear a kilt at work or while on duty,” adjudicator Josee Bouchard wrote in her decision. Macdonnell “has pointed to no evidence in his testimony to establish that he was harassed because of his ancestry,” Bouchard wrote.

The incident arose on a charity-fundraising Friday in October 2017, when a supervisor told the 14-year driver to change out of his rented kilt into a proper uniform. Macdonnell alleged discrimination because of his Scottish ancestry.
Evidence at a hearing last month showed the bus line had previously made it clear to employees that kilts were off-limits on casual Fridays, despite the relaxed dress code in which some drivers wore jeans or “different coloured shirts.” Kilts, the company said, were “not aligned with the typical bus operator uniform.”
Macdonnell testified the ban, in response to another driver who had previously shown up to work in a kilt, upset him and he wanted to make a point. He said he was proud of his Scottish ancestry, listened to Scottish music and ate haggis. He also said he was married wearing a kilt, although he did not own one. Macdonnell argued what he wore was akin to wearing a turban for religious reasons or clothing from other countries. He admitted to deliberately defying the no-kilt order so he could press his case.
In dismissing the application, Bouchard noted that Macdonnell complied with the order to change and returned to work that day. He was not disciplined and suffered no adverse employment consequences as a result of his initial defiance.

[Father Bill]

Yeah. I saw this elsewhere.

Evidence at a hearing last month showed the bus line had previously made it clear to employees that kilts were off-limits on casual Fridays, despite the relaxed dress code in which some drivers wore jeans or “different coloured shirts.” Kilts, the company said, were “not aligned with the typical bus operator uniform.”

This guy was told but went out of his way to disobey the direction of his employers, even down to renting the kilt, knowing that they had already been forbidden. So, they sent him home to change and he took them to court.

I'm having a hard time feeling any sympathy for a guy who rents something he's been told not to wear and gets sent home to change.

[McMurdo]

I have to agree with Father Bill here. As point of clarification it did not happen in Toronto, rather this was Waterloo, which is a few hours west of Toronto. Nonetheless, he knew what the dress code was going in and decided to defy it anyway, so getting sent home was the least that could have happened.

[Macman]

I have to agree with Father Bill here. As point of clarification it did not happen in Toronto, rather this was Waterloo, which is a few hours west of Toronto. Nonetheless, he knew what the dress code was going in and decided to defy it anyway, so getting sent home was the least that could have happened.

Oops! The article even says it's in Waterloo.

[Crazy Dave]

The company I work for has no problem with me wearing a kilt of Friday or any other day.

Dave

[Wareyin]

It certainly does appear that the man in question was going out of his way to make an issue. If you don't own a kilt, then it's hard to take seriously your claims of how upset not being permitted to wear one makes you.

That said, it was a casual Friday, when "jeans or different colored shirts" which are not not aligned with the typical bus operator uniform are permitted. Perhaps the company's disagreement was more against the display of ankles and shins, and they similarly would not allow shorts or skirts?

[Crazy Dave]

If they don't have the same rule for women, it is sex discrimination, clear and simple. I think he has a case.

Dave

[Father Bill]

If they don't have the same rule for women, it is sex discrimination, clear and simple. I think he has a case.

Dave

Um-m-m-m no.
Whatever their reasons, they've said 'no' to kilts. This is just simple defiance of direction.
So, those reasons? They may see the kilt as a costume. They may see it as ostentatious. They may see it as a distraction. Whatever their reasons, they have the right to say 'no' up front and if they do, they need not explain their reasons. They've said 'no', so don't do it.

[Crazy Dave]

If that is the stated rule and it is applied universally, then I have to agree with you. I was thinking more that if the the did allow women to wear a dress.

Dave

[Father Bill]

If that is the stated rule and it is applied universally, then I have to agree with you. I was thinking more that if the the did allow women to wear a dress.

Dave

The article was clear - kilts were not permitted and all staff were informed of this ruling. A kilt is clearly more ostentatious and attention gathering than a woman in a dress. I'm sure they want their drivers paying attention to the roads and not to the comments of other folks, so it's a very reasonable and very defensible ruling whether women are allowed dresses and skirts or not. A kilt is unusual and draws attention, comment, and thereby, distraction to someone transporting children.
I support the ruling even if I don't like it.