ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD, TBS, MLB, MHRC, OMB, JUS

The Civil Service Commission failed to address a request for
an appeal dated June 25, 2008 (included below). There was
 never any request for details--irrefutable evidence that the matter had not been accepted or processed in accordance with the law.

 

 

CSC's failure to act on the appeal was submitted as evidence but the Manitoba Labour Board refused to admit that CSC was anything BUT accommodating to a person with a known disability. Even the Manitoba Ombudsman failed to consider that CSC's inaction was done with intent and malice against a vulnerable employee. 

See also related posting: A Biased MLB Decision Contrary to Evidence

What is the difference between a conflict and mobbing (bullying)?

One difference is that a conflict occurs between equally strong people. In a mobbing/bullying situation, the hostility is directed by one or more strong people towards a weaker individual who has become the underdog. This person is further weakened because of the immense pressure caused by the frequency and the duration of the attacks.           

  FAIR   (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform)

The Ombudsman failed to acknowledge my numerous complaints of government bodies' acts of impropriety, perjury, violations of statutes, laws, and Human Rights Code, even though indisputable evidence of wrongdoing was provided, preferring to adopt a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" stance--stepping aside to not interfere with the mobbing in progress.

The Ombudsman's office  adopted the Government's preferred practice of 'no reply is a reply' all parties knowing full well that approach would result in added stress and anxiety to me and putting my overall (mental) health in jeopardy.

The appeal letter in its entirety is as follows:

June 25, 2008

TO: Sylvie Lavergne

Director, Human Resources Programs

Civil Service Commission

935-155 Carlton Street

Winnipeg MB R3C 3H8

 

Dear Ms. Lavergne,

 

RE: Appeal 

I wish to appeal to the CSC for a review as follows:

1. for a review of the events and actions directed at, or against me upon my return to work from 3 1/2 weeks of stress leave, specifically from May 5, 2008 up to and including June 5, 2008; 


2. for a review of the procedures taken with regard to the investigative process of my complaint against  (supervisor) Jackie Desrochers dated April 30, 2008 which I feel did not adhere to the procedures as outlined for a Level 4 complaint in relation to the Respectful Workplace Policy;


3. for a review with regards to Anna Schmidt Beauchamp’s involvement in the investigative process dealing with my complaint against Jackie Desrochers. At the June 2, 2008 meeting where I was asked to provide my account of the situation, Ginette (Ginette Grimard, Human Resource Consultant, MB Finance, Admin & Financial Division assigned as investigator of RWP complaint) told me that Anna was there merely to observe. However, at this meeting:
   
   a. Anna did involve herself by interrupting me in mid-sentence at various times providing her information as she said, “in an attempt to clarify”. I felt she should not have been there to discount and dismiss what I felt was pertinent and needed to be considered; and
   
   b. At one point when I presented an email (sent May 30, 2008 4:20 pm and received by me the morning of June 2, 2008) to the investigator for her review, I began to explain that I believed Jackie was continuing her harassment through her replacement, Charlotte (Elson never assumed role as supervisor of Marie) A/Manager of Training Operations. Jackie had been in the OSD office regularly training Charlotte and it was during this period that I received this unfair and inappropriate email. I could only surmise that Jackie was behind it.


4. for a review of the actions taken by Anna Schmidt Beauchamp at a meeting resulting from the email as discussed in para. 3(b) held June 4, 2008, 1:00 p.m. together with Charlotte Elson. I believe that the manner in which senior management conducted this meeting and the things said directly to me are contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy and in addition, in violation of The Human Rights Code;


5. for a review of the actions of Ginette Ricard (sic Grimard) for a breach in confidentiality. On June 11th I advised Ginette that I would be providing more information for review and that “I wish to keep my intent to provide further information to you confidential until my term with OSD expires on June 30th.” 

On June 20th, Ginette Ricard (sic Grimard) replied to my email saying “I have not discussed your intent to provide further information with anybody other than Anna” and that “Anna and I (Ginette) are working together on this complaint”.

I believe that Anna’s involvement jeopardizes the objectivity and confidentiality of the investigation. I should have been advised that Anna was taking an active role in the investigation from the beginning of the investigation.

Specific details pertaining to this matter will be made available upon request should you decide to investigate this matter further.

Yours truly,
Marielle Rowan

 

cc Anna Schmidt Beauchamp (CSC Director / OSD COO)

 

cc The Manitoba Human Rights Commission

DISCREPANCIES

Meeting notes of Grimard from the June 2, 2008 RWP (accessed through FIPPA in 2011) albeit choppy, still clearly reflect that I was having a difficult time coping. There was no back to work re-entry on return from 3 1/2 weeks of stress leave (CSC testified that the stress leave was likely due to the extra work, and yet, did nothing about it); there had been no new hires and I was still expected to do my full duties as well as those of three vacant positions.

Flintoft in her MHRC Assessment Report stated there was "no evidence of harassment" on record which is false. CSC was aware that there had been multiple complaints of harassment against Desrochers - now totalling a minimum of 4 complaints. The names of the other complainants, as subordinates under Desrochers, were provided to MHRC as witnesses but were not interviewed. Other documents on record included but not limited to:

1. Level 4 RWP Complaint dated April 30, 2008 (done at home while on 3.5 weeks stress leave); 
2. Level 4 RWP Complaint dated July 15 2008 forming part of April 30th complaint.
3. Grimard's handwritten notes of June 2, 2008 interview with me (see excerpts below**)  It is very suspicious that no transcribed report was ever provided of Marie's testimony yet notes were transcribed into a proper report for all other witnesses that Grimard interviewed.
4. Memorandum of the June 4, 2008 termination meeting (See Mean Girls vs. Civil Subservient employee) created by my computer at home on July 2, 2008. The June 4th termination meeting was conducted by Beauchamp Schmidt in retaliation to my manic email sent from home wherein I signed off in exasperation as Marielle, "Civil Subservient"  (See Human Rights Complaint in full). 

 Excerpts of Grimard's RWP notes from the June 2, 2008 investigative meeting accessed in 2011 are as follows:  

**  “...unhealthy & hostile work enviro” Person A (Supervisor) “totally stripped me of that…my work is inferior…not quite doing as well as you think – 2 mos prob…did not recognize pos things…poorly act with trainers/participants, thrown out there to be mean…no written doc…unhealthy work envir …“no attempt to make sure I was doing well…she called mtgs and mtgs, tone was condescending…she was picking at every little thing…need affirmation…micro manage… 

“ind is strong minded – has something to say; needed to do this to make sense of it… affected my health – have med cond 20 yrs –made healthy life choices –nothing needed – accomd – only need – resp WP… toxic/unfair enviro …provide report stay up to do 11 p.m. to show I did not do what they said I did.

Dr. said was harassment; got other bad health chest x-rays can get hospitalized; he suggested take time off…. doesn't make sense… always pick/pick … unrealistic expect – workload/dist. of work, knowledge expected, not in pos desc. Supervisor said it was my fault, was no need for ‘blame”… not once said good job organizing… no apology – always a smile – not really meant is sarcastic” OPCP mtg unfairly & vehemently … you did on purpose to be away… she was being hostile… can you not take proper notes … didn’t say let’s talk about … humiliated… got yelling email…

Expectation – work is recognized – should I need a ref – is fair eval - not about what perceived – did I meet it or excel. Don’t harbour resentment to Supervisor - don’t see as a (ends at the bottom of page in an incomplete thought -- red bold emphasis added)

In addition to the peculiarity of these notes not being properly transcribed into a report, it would appear that pages are missing from the handwritten notes as required under access for information. The notes provided do not include any reference from Grimard to Beauchamp Schmidt directing her to proceed with duty to accommodation as testified by Grimard.  As the matter had occurred two years prior, Grimard stated that she had to refer to her notes in order to recall the details of the RWP complaint.  The MHRC assessment includes that Grimard had directed the COO to proceed to duty. It would then appear that any likely ensuing pages were surreptitiously removed.

Beauchamp Schmidt had testified under the Labour Relations Act that I was "screaming and yelling" throughout the June 2nd, 2008 RWP meeting. Grimard refuted this allegation to MHRC stating that if I had acted that way she would have written that up in a report. She knew that was not true. Grimard's notes also reveal that I was, in fact, extremely reasonable in not "harbouring resentment to Supervisor". This should have alerted investigative authorities to a conflict of interest in the COO responding on the Government's behalf with hearsay statements. Any proper investigative authority would have known uncorroborated evidence is not admissible or relevant.

The issue of the workplace reorganization had never been discussed with any staff, to my knowledge. It was never even mentioned in the RWP investigation - or in its annual reports for that matter. Although I challenged this alleged workplace reorganization as challenged the Labour Board from the beginning (2008) as a total fabrication by TDS lawyer, Rob Olson, my testimony fell on deaf ears and I was denied an opportunity to cross this lie at a hearing. 

According to a FIPPA request in 2011, CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" no doubt, without fear that there would be any retaliation for lying --especially given both Labour Relations and Human Rights complaint had been dismissed without hearing.

 

How biased is the Manitoba Human Rights Commission?

The MHRC states it does not take on  an investigation until a determination has been made that a protected disability, as designated by the Human Rights Code, has been confirmed. This initial step, in my case, took two years and even then, did so in a biased manner.

Flintoft knowingly outsourced false and slanderous information to my doctor (February 2010), most likely in an attempt to garner sympathy for the poor government (paraphrased)

" ...for having to deal with this screaming and yelling employee; referring to herself totally unprovoked, as a 'civil subservient'. How very difficult indeed, given the poor poor government was experiencing so much difficulties due to a huge 'workplace re-organization' and had absolutely NO knowledge at any time that Marielle suffered from a disability and couldn't have possibly have known...'

Given the nature and quality of the questions asked, and seeing as Flintoff was now in a hurry to get rid of this complaint offered to my doctor, "you could give me the report over the phone."  Unbelievable! It is not surprising that MHRC was not eager to release the letter to the doctor (through FIPPA) as it clearly shows MHRC partnering in the smear campaign, but I eventually did manage to get it after multiple attempts which letter provides indisputable evidence that MHRC acted in an unprofessional, unethical and unlawful manner, in violation of my rights. (The Manitoba Ombudsman -- consistent as always -- ignored the violation.)

 

How Bad (or Stupid) Can a MHRC Assessment Report Get?

Ultimately, MHRC's assessment report failed to include that government's testimony to one--Labour Board--directly contradicted what was testified to another--Human Rights Commission. Perjury clearly having no effect on one's credibility when done by  government.

 

This speaks to the integrity of the Human Rights Commission: it knowingly ignored the fact that false information was provided to a tribunal, that it was criminal to do so, and then MHRC purposely and willingly sabotaged the process in order to delegate the matter out of this province's jurisdiction all the way out to the Yukon. Then the Yukon rubber stamped it over the August long weekend (See Electronic Signatures Rubber Stamping --Good Grief!) -- truly beyond belief!! Or, more sadly, is it? 

Flintoft knowingly involved herself and the MHRC (likely acted on the direction of the Executive Director) to conspire with the government in a smear campaign against me.