Instead of dealing with a situation in accordance with its own stated policies on accommodating employees with disabilities, Government opted to dodge the bullet and hired Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to come down with brute force on a vulnerable, newly unemployed, without union (also questionable), employee without the means to hire legal counsel. Access to total cost borne by taxpayers paying for the Government's defence has been denied, apparently as stated in (see post below) Legal Costs Laughing Matter to Ombudsman the joke's on us taxpayers. This cover-up is now going into its fourth year and it's time to assess who is winning?
Olson, an expert in labour disputes and co-author of "Dos, Don'ts and Dollars" warns employers don't play hardball in termination matters. I followed all the proper steps to address the issues in a respectful non-threatening manner. And yet, at no time during or after employment would a government official agree to meet with me or even respond to attempts to mediate.
All I wanted was that the reference, as given to an employment agency by CSC Director Anna Schmidt Beauchamp be corrected to properly and fairly reflect the quality of work I had provided to OSD as stated in letter dated March 17, 2008 (as provided by OSD as a true account of only exemplary performance) wherein I was described as "an asset to the organization".
There was only seven work days from the date of this performance review letter (March 17th) to the time I went on stress leave. For the COO to then state that there has been a "personality conflict" with the Supervisor during those seven days is incredibly unfair and grossly misleading in light of the circumstances. Particularly given the fact that CSC was well aware that the Supervisor had a history (four including my complaint) of her harassing other subordinates. And then of course, the fact that disability was then known to be a factor in her changed behaviour. To not correct the wrong would affect my chances for future employment in addition to setbacks to recovery.
The Government's strategy was to stonewall the complaint over the years, and then without reason or hearing, dismiss the complaint (and me). As to Government’s denial to disclose all its legal fees and costs, the rationale was that it was to protect the lawyer’s financial business interests. In reality it is the lawyer’s financial interests that are in direct conflict with any hope of a quick and fair resolution and therefore a conflict of public interest. Clearly it is in the lawyer's financial interest to secure as many $200+ billable hours as it can, and when deep pockets are involved, that is plenty. G
According to MHRC's online policy a person does not need to demonstrate they are disabled at all times to be considered disabled. Some medical conditions can go through lengthy periods where symptoms are not noticeable at all, which is likely why there is reluctance in acknowledging a disability even exists. Considering the Government's initiative in filling the labour shortage, it ought to consider that accommodation in these cases would likely result in no more sick days than that taken by 'healthy' employees without a disability.
My supervisor's (from March 2007-April 2008) recollection even later in 2010 as to how she had viewed me as a candidate for the clerk position: qualifications and employment history, was "WOW!" Desrochers also confirmed to the MHRC Investigator that she had knowledge of the disability and that knowledge went back fifteen years prior to my bing hired. Contrary to Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony, as confirmed by Desrochers, that she had, in fact, advised Beauchamp that changes in my behaviour (just prior to termination) were likely as a result of the mental illness. Beauchamp Schmidt perjured herself in stating 'no one in the department knew of a disability. Talk about Cool Hand Luke! No fear of recourse.
It is well known that women with intellectual disabilities have a hard time coming forward as noted in Manitoba’s report “When Bad Things Happen”. Unfortunately even real evidence doesn’t stand a chance in the case of a Government cover up. Four years later, I still refuse to be silenced because I believe this is not an isolated occurrence. There are also many people who do not have the fortitude to come forward and cannot (due to disability) articulate what has happened to them and she is compelled to speak for them. Sure the Government likely sees that it is winning, but at what exactly: And at what cost?
Putting the obvious legal issues aside, you would think Government would feel some moral obligation to do the right thing. To witness this breach of trust firsthand (painstakingly documented) is frightening as it leads to even greater issues questioning Government’s inability to protect all Manitobans' civil rights. Where is the accountability and transparency, and where is due process when there is no one to take your complaint to? The Whistleblower Act (2007) is as ineffective here provincially as that revealed with the Federal Privacy Commissioner scandal which came out December 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment