uncharted.ca

In truth, the lawyers we face in those tribunals think we are fools for being there. The tribunal adjudicators, or quasi-judges, are the junior clones of McLachlin and her pals. The judges use judicial review to write the quasi-judges endless blank cheques.

I believe that a lot of my evidence was overlooked in the Tribunal's decision to dismiss.

A couple of examples follow -
...............
Some examples of conflicting testimony -

Mr. Ginter has never given me a legitimate reason, at any time before the hearings, why I wasn't one of the painters put on the rotation list.

During the union's opening statement at the hearings they claim that (Z. F.) was recalled over me in Nov./05 because I had less hours. (G. T.) was also put on the recall list in Nov. 2005. But the evidence at the hearings was that (D. K.) had more hours in 2005 than (G. T.) did. Mr. Ginter probably already knew that as he got bi-weekly seniority lists, as was the testimony at the hearings.

Also, during the union's opening statement, the union claimed that '(D. Y.) was instructed by Mr. Ginter to go to a meeting to try to get the complainant's job back.' That was the first time I heard that one. That was regarding the meeting (A. H.) had with (D. K.) in August 2005.
The union also said 'Mr. Ginter was pleased there was no discipline letter.'

Yet, at the hearings (D. Y.) testified that he was not asked to represent me regarding that letter. And (D. Y.) did not represent me regarding that letter.

Dave Ginter is very specific about who he interprets as a supervisor.

EXHIBIT 4 - TAB 11 - November 28, 2005 email from Dave Ginter to J. J. entitled 'Regarding clarification of casual painters'Dave Ginter also interprets supervisor clearly in this recent BC Labour Relations Board case that CUPE 561 was a part of (CUPE 561 represents members of Cardinal Transportation)

Certain Employees of Cardinal Transportation B. C. v. CUPE Local 561 (BCLRB No. B28/2008) - Feb. 29, 2008

In this case CUPE 561 stated that 'Trainers have been viewed as representatives of the employer which recommend discipline over driving infractions and the elimination of the driver's safety bonus'

The Vice-Chair also stated that 'Both Employer and Union witnesses agreed that the duties of a Driver Trainer - monitoring, evaluating, and investigating drivers - are such that would cause Driver Trainers to be in conflict with the bargaining unit.'

And this - 'Though not necessarily management, Driver Trainers are not part of the bargaining unit because they investigate, evaluate and monitor bargaining unit members. If one were to draw an organization chart for the Employer, Driver Trainers would be placed above school bus drivers and aides given that they have a certain amount of power over them as their monitoring and reports can lead to discipline. The Driver Trainer position is one that is more closely aligned with management than the bargaining unit. Accordingly, Murphy would reasonably have been perceived by the bargaining unit members as someone more closely aligned with management.'

If Dave Ginter's interpretation of supervisor is true, then Dave Ginter must also believe that (A. H.'s) actions towards me were incorrect and against the Collective Agreement. Actions such as reporting to (D. K.), which lead to a letter of expectation (written by a bargaining unit supervisor), which can be a part of progressive discipline.

Mr. Ginter can't make exceptions to his usual 'interpretations' just for the lone woman in a male-dominated workplace.

During testimony (D. K.) said this -I would like Dave Ginter to testify at a re-opening of the case against the union and answer this question -

Does the union believe a bargaining unit supervisor can discipline, reprimand, and write a letter of expectation to another bargaining unit member?

If not, why didn't Dave Ginter grieve for me?

Regarding the harassment investigation -

In Dave Ginter's letter of Dec. 2/05 - he said this -During the union's July 7, 2006 reply to my complaint Mr. Ginter said this -During the union's Nov. 6, 2006 reply to the Tribunal Mr. Ginter said this -By Nov. 6/06 Mr. Ginter completely dropped his claim that he did an investigation in 2005.

During testimony at the hearings (D. Y.) said that he was not questioned by Dave Ginter in 2005.
(D. Y.) said the first time he was questioned was by (CUPE 561 Investigator R. S.) and then (SD43 Investigator D. P.) and then (CUPE BC Rep. S. K).
Not one witness confirmed at the hearings that they were interviewed by Mr. Ginter during 2005.
...............
During the hearings I had asked Mr. Ginter for the shop steward's job description. Mr. Ginter claimed there was no job description for the shop steward.

A few weeks ago I discovered on CUPE 561's website the Constitution and By-Laws of CUPE 561 (revised June 2007). It wasn't on that website before this year.

It clearly shows the shop steward's job description.
.................
I would like the Tribunal to consider the following evidence if my case is allowed to be re-opened -

- testimony of the witnesses (A. H.), (D. Y.), (D. K.), (V. B.)
- Constitution and By-Laws of CUPE 561(revised June 2007)
- 2 Issues of Shoptalk 561 newsletter that states (A. H.) was a shop steward in two separate terms during 2003 and 2004 (during the time I was questioning losing seniority). (A. H.) claimed at the hearings that he couldn't recall being a shop steward.

At this point, I'm not sure what your objective is - what you're planning on arguing in the JR or what you're looking for as a remedy. It would be helpful if you could fill us in on that. You've posted a lot of information on your blog about your collective agreement and your legal battle with your union and employer but it's not clear what you're seeking to accomplish.

And since I want control of all my own material I don't use a host to convert files. That means pdf files are out. To get around that I take a desktop pic, crop it, convert it into a png file and post that onto the blog as an image. That works.

Remedies

The Objective of Remedies

Human rights legislation in Canada is remedial in nature. It is governed by the belief that discriminatory actions and attitudes can be changed and influenced over time by education, discussion and presentation of facts.

As a result, when the facts determine that discrimination occurred, remedies focus on stopping the discrimination, preventing it from happening again, and making the victim of discrimination whole.

Types of Remedies

Cease and refrain orders, including orders to:
• stop the discrimination and refrain from future occurrences.

And orders that specify steps to correct the effects of the discrimination and prevent future reoccurrences such as:
• The revision of policy and procedures to ensure they are not discriminatory,
• The implementation of anti-harassment or anti-discrimination policy,
• The implementation of a special program to address past discrimination, and or,
• The education of an entire workforce, or to those found in contravention of the Code.

Restorative or Reinstatement orders, including making available the right, opportunity or privilege that was denied such as:
• The provision of a job reference or a letter of reference,
• The removal of negative performance appraisals from personnel files,
• Reinstatement to a former job, or a transfer to a new job,
• The promotion to a position that you were entitled to,
• The provision of support in applying for a disability program, and or,
• The provision of the next available apartment.

Lost Wages and Expense orders may include compensation for losses experienced as a result of the discrimination such as:
• All or part of lost wages and benefits, including sick days and severance pay,
• All or part of the expenses incurred as a result of being denied an opportunity or a service,
• The cost of medical expenses incurred as a result of the discrimination including the cost of counseling,
• Out-of-pocket expenses related to your complaint,
• All or part of the cost associated with the hearing of your complaint, and or,
• Interest on any of these costs.

Injury to Dignity and Self-Respect orders:
• where the Tribunal member considers payment of an amount that is adequate to compensate for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

In BC, while no legislative ceiling limits the amount of an injury to dignity award, the highest Tribunal award in this category at January 2006 is $15,000.00.

More Information

As each case of discrimination is different, the degree of the contravention will influence the assessment of what an appropriate remedy ought to be. If you’re curious about what others have gained, visit the Tribunal’s website for past decisions and awards.

Individuals making claims for lost wages and expenses should be mindful that the Tribunal will look at whether you have made responsible attempts to mitigate (or lessen) your losses. This could include looking at your job search records or your attempts to find alternate housing.

Enforcing Remedies

Settlement Agreements

Where both parties agree to settle a complaint prior to a full hearing, a Complaint Withdrawal Form should be filed with the Tribunal. If there is a breach of the terms of a settlement agreement, either party may apply to the BC Supreme Court to enforce the agreement.

Final Orders

Once the Tribunal has issued an order, either party can request a certified copy of the final decision from the Tribunal and file it with the BC Supreme Court for the purposes of enforcement.

...remedies focus on stopping the discrimination, preventing it from happening again, and making the victim of discrimination whole.

No 'gag order', of any kind,...