When the only Defence left is Trickery & Intimidation

 

A Human Rights Complaint alleging violations of discrimination was first initiated June 2008 based on racial (Métis), religious (Christian), disability (bipolar disorder), and refusal of access to the Civil Service Commission's Employee Assistance Program. The Government's Reply was allegedly filed December 8, 2008.

After several attempts to obtain a copy of the December 2008 Reply went ignored, I was then forced to escalate my concerns to MHRC Executive Director Dianna Scarth. Letter dated February 19, 2009 stated that  my right to obtain a copy of the Government's Reply was being ignored: contrary to law, and against rules and procedures of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up. -

Booker T. Washington

 

Scarth never responded to my letter, but would seem that she directed MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft to courier a copy of the Reply to me but without any attachments. There was no cover letter to explain why only part of the document was being provided. Also contrary to procedures, and law, the Government's Reply was signed by "Robert W. Olson". He did not identify himself as 'legal counsel' nor did he identify he was acting as a representative of his firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. Olson was then a third party with no direct knowledge that the statements he had deposed to were true. Olson had received a substantial fee for his services and that speaks to a credibility issue. Any $250 an hour 'pro' is known to do just about anything to get their client off--right?

 

These concerns were immediately addressed to MHRC in writing and Flintoft opted to respond by phone that she "… hadn't noticed." When I reiterated my objections, Flintoft stated that "anyone could sign on behalf of the Government, and it's normal for different people in government to sign." But Olson was not Government, and it is not true that anyone can sign on Government's behalf. Specific people are designated to sign specific documents such as cheques: Olson had no such signing authority.

 

 "As legal counsel to Government…” Flintoft then stated in exasperation “…Olson could sign." Even less credible given she knew Olson had not signed as legal counsel.

 

Olson (and his firm TDS), are identified as counsel of record regarding the complaints under the Labour Relations Act (unfair labour practices and unfair union exclusion). Olson would then have had first-hand and thorough knowledge of the evidence its client submitted to the Labour Board: statements made prior to Government being served with the MHRC complaint. Documented evidence now on record that support my allegations against it that the Government of Manitoba, as an employer, violated the Human Rights Code in acting in a criminal manner. Olson would also then have known that in complying with Government's instruction to provide false testimony in the quasi-judicial process--personally signing the MHRC Reply--he would have known the legal ramifications and consequences of doing so, and yet, did it anyway.

 

There were no further discussions or clarification on the issue of a lawyer testifying as a witness and, although there were many promises, the attachments to the Government’s Reply were never provided to me. What does the law say?

 

THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE

The Lawyer as Witness -

The lawyer who appears as an advocate should not submit the lawyer's own affidavit to or testify before a tribunal save as permitted by local rule or practice, or as to purely formal or uncontroverted matters... generally speaking, they should not testify in such proceedings except as to merely formal matters. The lawyer should not express personal opinions or beliefs, or assert as fact anything that is properly subject to legal proof, cross-examination or challenge. The lawyer must not in effect become an unsworn witness or put the lawyer's own credibility in issue. The lawyer who is a necessary witness should testify and entrust the conduct of the case to someone else.

See Related Posts:

• A Bullish Government: Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell -- questioning the inappropriateness of Government, thinking so little of a HRC complaint that it would just 'farm out' that responsibility to Olson. But MHRC just brushed me off stating "any government authority could sign ...
• A Bullish Government: Is MB Gov't #WINNING? --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 ...
• A Bullish Government: Electronic signatures, rubber stamping ... -- a hearing was clearly needed to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, including but not limited to deponent, Olson, who personally signed off on the MHRC Reply in the complaint against the Government but NOT as ...
• A Bullish Government: "YES WE CAN" says Manitoba Government -- my blog, A Bullish Government has shed light on a number of instances where provincial government authorities and its defence counsel, Rob Olson of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, have broken the law. Small fish, by global ...
• A Bullish Government: A Biased MLB Decision, Contrary to Facts ... -- Government made full use of all its legal resources including that of Rob Olson, of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, specializing in labour law to launch an attack that can only be described as ''mobbing'. The Labour Board...
• A Bullish Government: ABCs of MOBBING brought 2U by CSC, OSD ... -- By way of FIPPA request in 2011 CSC acknowledged in a letter that "there was no workplace reorganization of any kind at any time" but rather a fabrication by counsel, Rob Olson of TDS, to baffle the issues with bullshit.

How are Today's Lawyers Perceived?



The following quote speaks volumes: Jordan. Furlong is a lawyer and legal journalist specializing in law practice innovation, legal business trends, and the changing landscape of the legal profession; formerly Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Bar Association’s magazine National and blogs on the profession’s rapid evolution at http://law21.ca.

 

Justice Abella is correct to express concerns that if lawyers are seen to be motivated first and foremost by self-interest, then we will lose respect, business, and support for our independent governance. I submit, however, that that ship has already sailed. That is exactly how lawyers are now perceived – acting in our own interests first, in clients’ interests second, and in the interests of the public, the justice system, and doing the right thing much farther down the list, if at all. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that we have lost much of the public’s respect, we are losing their business to non-lawyer legal service providers, and we are hearing the first grumblings about why lawyers should merit special treatment in their governance. It bears repeating that lawyers, like the laws that enable our livelihoods, exist for the purposes of clients, not the other way around. Our profession, unfortunately, too often sees that in reverse, viewing clients primarily as a means to our own ends rather than as ends in themselves.

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/tenth_colloquium_furlong.pdf

There have always been lawyer jokes, but the consensus of  public opinion, that as a group, they have dropped down considerably over the years as not being very 'professional'. Stop me if you've heard this one.: How does a lawyer sleep at night?

First he lies on one side, and then on the other.

REASON III: Why smart people lie

Politics without Principles - Even dead fish can go with the flow.

 

 

Throughout history, government has been the authority and final word on law and order. Decisions from those holding positions of authority were rarely ever challenged. In light of having no other information, the general public merely accepted what it was told.

The ground rules have changed. Anyone who has access to a computer, a phone line, and an Internet connection can have access to knowledge and information. As a result of media, television and technology, we are now an informed public. We are no longer forced into submissive. blind obedience, nor do we have to accept 'because I said so' as an explanation.

 

 

 

The Government institution is no longer held up as some sacred cow. There have been enough chinks in the armour of our judges, lawyers, mayors, and politicians brought to the public's attention to substantiate the need for real transparency and accountability from everyone and by anyone who has reason to question it.

Smart people believe others are too stupid to know any different.

 

Trust me. I know more than you.

MHRC Intake Investigator Pat Daniels in a telephone conversation suggested I should drop my MHRC complaint because the matter was already being investigated by the Government's Respectful Workplace Policy and the "RWP is the same as Human Rights Code."

 

• If you ask an authority to document what they have just said to you, and they display signs of annoyance, or become irritated, or worried and/or appear guilty and refuse to put it in writing; you then need to recap what was said in a letter to them. Be forewarned, they REALLY hate that, and will likely treat you with contempt and disgust. My response to Daniels:

As I understand it, the Respectful Workplace Policy, is just that--'a policy'; a policy implemented as a result of our laws… I do not agree with you that the parties commissioned to hear matters pertaining to policy would, or should be dealing with matters of law pertaining to the Human Rights Code…I would like to confirm (as per our telephone conversation) it is my intention to proceed with the Human Rights complaint.

The ‘nice guy’ who does nothing but keep YOU busy.

The first formal complaint to the Ombudsman was July 15, 2009 and assigned to Investigator Bob Baker who advised me, over the phone that the complaint was not accepted for investigation. When asked for the reasons--in writing--he then did, well, 'sort of'' changed his mind, and then asked for more information. For close to a year, he kept me busy asking for more clarification and more information--well into 2010.

• If you notice that almost a year has gone by and at NO time is your case ever assigned a file number, and then the matter is closed a year later without a formal Ombudsman’s report but rather just an informal letter with nothing more than bland content -- you know you have been taken for a moron. In contrast to the Ombudsman's pseudo-investigation, my own investigation (through access of information in 2011) provided concrete evidence that the allegations against the Government of Manitoba were valid.

• If you are feeling hurt, disappointed, disbelieving, and/or disgusted that your crusader of justice is dropping you like last night's date -- an abrupt sudden dismissal of you and your complaint, more than likely he was never that nice guy but rather just a player: consider yourself 'played'.

 

 Forms, forms and more forms - bureaucratic red tape.

There are many instances that I was asked to re-submit the same form, as was the case with a complaint filed with the Manitoba Ombudsman regarding the Labour Board’s violation of FIPPA laws which I was asked to resubmit on three separate occasions (no doubt to re-start the clock, and not show that the complaint had been initially submitted to Bob Baker in July 2009.) Each time I  would provide copies of the original complaint, always insistent that the date submitted remain as July 2009.

• see Manitoba Ombudsman buries report that Manitoba Labour Board violated Privacy Laws.

Defiant compliance

If the authority goes with the authoritarian position: “I’m in control and you’re not telling me what to do” -- consider yourself to be in a power struggle: fight all instincts to meekly bow down to your self-appointed God or Goddess, and then go over their head to their superior and force them to abide by the rules. Some applies if you are feeling challenged, threatened, defeated--you have likely encountered a wall of defiant compliance.

• Although a complainant may worry that being "too pushy" may harm their position, the reality is, if you are encountering nothing but resistance, chances are your complaint isn't going anywhere anyway. The last thing you should do in the case of stonewalling is nothing.

That had been my mistake (first) with The Labour Board. There was no one assigned, so any attempts to speak to a Board member or Chairperson was stopped dead by its formidable gatekeeper, Registrar Janet Duff. As stated earlier, Labour Board stonewalled for 260 days (median time is 48 days) and when they felt safe enough to do so (assured of no intervention), simply dismissed the complaint. You need to keep 'poking the bear', and in this case that means taking it to a higher authority.

 

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

In response to FIPPA request for information made on MHRC after the dismissal, the Commission eventually released (after the due date) a large bundle of loose paper (nothing stapled and in no particular order). Think of the card game 52 Pick Up with five decks of cards thrown down on the floor. After 14 hours of compiling the documents, first by assessing and separating from the pile my documents, I was then able to determine which were the Government's and which documents were missing (the ones Government did not want me to have.)

 

In the end, through repeated requests more documents were eventually provided but many are still missing. This was brought forward to the Ombudsman's office. Investigator, Kris Ramchandar has yet to complete (or more than likely even start) his investigation from the complaint personally delivered to Manitoba Ombudsman, Irene Hamilton October 2010 and in the presence of Liberal Leader Dr. Jon Gerrard.

• See related posting:  When Manitoba Justice becomes criminal

 

Stonewalling

Initially MHRC said it would allow Government all the time they needed (stating there were no time restrictions) to file its Reply to the complaint I initiated back in June 2008. It is quite likely, that had I not persisted, it would never had happened. In reality, the law only says the employer has an option to reply, there is nothing that states that the Commission needs to wait for a reply to start its investigation. No doubt because I pressured the Commission on this point, voila, the very next day--Dec 10, 2008--Government had allegedly submitted its Reply.

 

The fact that the MHRC refused to provide me with a copy, and gave really feeble and contradicting excuses as to why they would not provide me with a copy (they had no one to make copies was one excuse), led me to believe that there likely was no Reply on file--just said so to stall. I did offer to come to the office just to review the Reply,  to avoid the need for photocopying at that time (and to confirm it actually was there). But MHRC 'flipped out' and told me not to come to their office in a very stern letter stating, "seeing you have to have everything in writing....We will do our best to disclose it (Gov't Reply) as soon as we can, but it is not expected to be before January."

Question: If Government's rule is document, document, document; why is it viewed as rude and disrespectful on my part to request information be in writing?

  

No response?

If you have done everything by the books, and believe you have proven your case fairly and honestly and yet --

• nothing happens
• there is no longer any promise as to when a response can be expected
• there is no longer any communication or response for updates; and
• years have gone by and still NO final response has been provided as that authority is legislated to do...

and you have had no group, or someone of importance advocate on your behalf...

and you are experiencing symptoms of severe, traumatic mental abuse: feeling despair, hopeless, helpless and/or inadequate...

It is obvious that authorities have now grown quite tired of you. Based on Government's expert legal resources it has concluded that no one would even notice, let alone care, if it just told you to "F--K Off already!"

Can Government do this?  "Yes We Can" says Manitoba Government.

 

Formal complaint proceedings are similar to any court proceeding. Each party must comply with specific procedural rules, appear before the investigative authority, and file documents that address legal issues of that court or tribunal. Parties are usually represented by lawyers, however, those most vulnerable usually do not have access to legal representation. I went forward with my complaint on my own trusting that if I follow the rules and the law, a fair investigation would be conducted on the matter. The regulations governing the procedures are government. There are legal ramifications if the rules are not followed. 

 

An inspirational quote from the Movie "Taken":

 

I do not have money. But what I do have is a particular set of skills. Skills that I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

 

REASON II: Why Smart People Lie

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? 

See no evil. Hear no evil.
But then there's ... EVIL.

The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing article published September 30, 2010 (Andrew Jameton (1984) defined moral distress as “a phenomenon in which one knows the right action to take, but is constrained from taking it.” Moral distress can occur in any situation or workplace environment. It occurs when one is forced to put aside values and principles and carry out an action against their own better judgment.


A certain amount of submission is expected when you work in a hierarchy (government, or otherwise), but there are times when what you are expected to do for the privilege of keeping your job: prostration, literal groveling, sucking up to and kissing body parts crosses over to a "hazing" mentality which is totally unacceptable. We often think of hazing in terms of fraternities and with team sports but I witnessed it first-hand at the Civil Service Commission and in my department, Organization Staff Development (OSD). Hazing was allowed to go on, albeit in somewhat secrecy, despite being totally contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy. No doubt, it was able to do so, due to the fact it made sure it had no union interference.


Although my clerk position was open to be filled on a permanent basis, I was offered 'terms' at OSD. Three terms in fact, despite the fact that my work was said to be exemplary, and it was stated that I excelled in taking initiative of taking on projects: described as an "asset to the organization."


I made several requests under the Access of Information Act for copies of Staffing Requests and CSC postings for various 'term' and suspiciously filled positions. CSC ignored, refused and even pleaded ignorance: what I don't recall. Eventually, CSC just "denied" access to the majority of the requests, alleging that the document requested either "does not exist or cannot be located."

 

It is in the lack of documentation that supports my case that claims were being made to the tribunals without any documents in evidence to corroborate said testimony. The lack of documentation is also in violation of 'abuse of term positions' as regulated by Government's own Principles and Policies for Human Resource Management Staffing 2.1.5.

See other related postings:

Reason I: Why Smart People Lie - Smart people follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Mean Girls vs Civil Subservient - termination meeting held on June 4th following the RWP Investigation meeting. Beauchamp Schmidt was told to proceed to accommodation but instead carried out an attack in violation of HRC. 

RWP(2) - Beauchamp Schmidt provided an unfair uncorroborated employment reference to employment agency.

In the same (behind-closed-door) fashion, Anna Beauchamp Schmidt was given a one-year term position in an Acting Status as Chief Operating Officer of OSD even though there was no reason not to fill the position as a permanent position. There was no incumbent holding that position, as the former COO had left government altogether to work in the private sector.

 

It should be evident that the Civil Service Commission filled its positions by hand-picking the woman they wanted: rather than posting it in accordance with policy, and in compliance with employment equity. CSC would place the chosen woman, first, in a temporary position then later, after the woman had proved her solidarity, would then unceremoniously transition the 'Acting'  into a permanent status, without competition, and without any questions asked. The end result was then a perfectly homogeneous group of scary think-like mid-life white women.

 

Anna Beauchamp Schmidt’s one-year initiation came to a successful conclusion after only four months coinciding with the successful execution of the dirty deed in terminating my employment as ordered by the Commissioner.

 

This then leads us to Reason II: Why Smart People Lie. Smart people will stupidly follow leaders to gain a position, promotion or for continued employment.

 

Remember The Patriot (the movie)? 

"I'm a parent I haven't got the luxury of principles."

 

It is easy to understand how a vulnerable person (like newly divorced Beauchamp Schmidt) can become morally upended when she finds herself in a most precarious situation: paying maintenance to an ex husband, as well as primary caregiver to two teenaged daughters--one of which was going through more than just the usual teen angst.

 

Unlike the former COO, "Anna" (as referred to in this section only) brown-bagged it for lunch. The small dinette table provided an opportunity get close to Anna. I found Anna to be "real," kind and approachable. There were many discussions regarding the difficulties she faced, and given I also had teens and had experienced a year-long separation in my marriage, a friendship developed. 

 

When Anna invited me for a meeting to discuss ways to improve processes at OSD, I was hopeful of positive change for the future. [Anna's notes, later accessed through FIPPA, stated she found something ‘off’ with me at this point and that I had “approached the meeting different that anyone else." The following day Anna sent me an email and asked for medical emergency phone numbers. I accepted that she was likely concerned because, no doubt, I must have seemed a little accelerated. I also gathered that my supervisor had likely informed her about my mental illness history: I responded to the email request by providing four emergency numbers.

 

I viewed the request for medical information as a positive sign of Anna's caring. There were a number of other telltale signs of care and concern from Anna. Most compelling was when Anna responded to my lengthy manic email that I had sent from home at the start of her 3.5 weeks stress leave. It was indicated in the email that the harassment I endured at the hands of my supervisor had grown to a crisis level. Accordingly, I advised that I would be filing a formal RWP complaint. Anna had immediately responded with what seemed to be genuine concern by email, in addition to emailing me a  personal Get Well card and then sent a follow up email giving her assurance that the “matter outlined in this email will be appropriately addressed... your return to health is of primary importance.”

 

Upon returning to work, the Anna I knew was transformed into a cold and distant COO. There were no meetings. No girl chit chat about family and life. No casual inquiries about my health or whether any accommodation was needed. There was no re-entry to work process: I felt 'frozen out'.

 

In addition to gaining a permanent status as Chief Operating Officer, Beauchamp Schmidt was also made a Director at CSC. No doubt she had favourably ingratiated herself within the cluster of the CSC Executive Society and the full physical transformation into a 'mean girl' occurred.

 

Although it is not likely that it was Beauchamp Schmidt's intent from the onset to cause me harm--that had collaterally occurred. The change in Anna's attitude and the actions taken against me could only have occurred on order by her supervisor, Civil Service Commissioner Debra Woodgate: alternatively, if the Commissioner had no clue what was going on--she should have. There is no other plausible explanation as to why someone with Beauchamp Schmidt's solid background in education: Director of Manitoba Adult Learning & Literacy, (Supporting Lifelong Learning program), transitioning into a completely new position as COO at OSD in an "Acting Status" would, on her own, launch an attack on a person known to have a mood disorder: disability was known, procedures and policy were not followed, and conflicting testimony supports the claim of perjury.

 

Beauchamp Schmidt's testimony in the MHRC investigation as to why support was not given, "I am not a psychiatrist." And that was good enough for MHRC Investigator Nancy Flintoft. Her assessment report stated: "employers are not psychiatrists" which defies all sane and reasonable logic of what accommodation is all about.

 

When you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance baffle 'em with bullshit.

What is even more incredible is that someone would commit an illegal act seemingly without conscience by lying under oath in violation of the Manitoba Evidence Act to tribunals: Labour Board, Human Rights Commission and their oversight body--Provincial Ombudsman. No one would dare do that unless that person had some assurances (friends in high places) that would guarantee to them that there would be no retaliation.

 

Heck, Government will likely even create a new job for you. Right Irene? (see Ombudsman moves to Government Job Winnipeg Free Press January 5, 2012)

 

Sources:

 

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

Hazing is the US English term used to describe various ritual and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing

 

 

Epstein, E.G., Delgado, S., (Sept 30, 2010) "Understanding and Addressing Moral Distress" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 15, No. 3, Manuscript 1.

 

The Movie Mean Girls (2004) Synopsis (self-explanatory)

The Patriot - a widowed father of seven children, does what he can to avoid fighting in the Revolutionary War knowing the implications surrounding it.

REASON I: Why Smart People Lie

In a prior posting, BS – GOV’T HAS A KNACK FOR THAT,  I explained in detail how the card game Bullshit is played. Challengers are forewarned when playing The Government Bullshit Edition (2008) that bullshitting overall should never be confused with stupidity, although one should not be too quick to discount that as a possibility. Generally speaking however, you are more likely to find government to have rather intelligent players but who on occasion will defend really bad decisions, taking up positions that defy any sane or reasonable logic.

 

Why would someone so prominent and respected in the community lie and chance a character assassination? Although the answer may seem obvious, a closer look would provide insight on how to stop harassment / mobbing.

 

People lie for many reasons: Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, once said, “We will do more to avoid pain than to gain pleasure” so it is understandable one would lie for fear of being confronted by a superior, or, because we want to be seen as better than we actually are to our peers and employer. When situations arise beyond one’s control that might make them look incompetent, or fear that some obstacle may stop them from realizing their objective, it is understandable that a 'Take No Prisoner' mentality-type (like my Supervisor Desrochers), would follow their anger into some pretty stupid places.

Remember this? What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Answer:  Lipstick.

BACKGROUND:

As you read the following, keep that image in mind: Desrochers (then Supervisor with provincial government's training program, Organization Staff and Development "OSD") actually is a hockey mom, and as Sarah Palin depicted tongue-in-cheek is 'of that kind'. 

On any Monday that Desrochers' son lost a weekend hockey tournament, everyone in her department knew to stay clear.  At the cottage (in the same small bay where I also had a cottage), Desrochers’ reputation as an aggressive snowmobiler determined to keep up with the guys, on the most powerful of sleds, was legendary--said that “she drives like a man." And just like many-a-man has learnt (or died learning), a tree doesn’t move for you no matter how fast you are going -- and that’s her fun side. Desrochers, as a senior OSD manager and supervisor, was equally as driven at work and would never let anything or anyone get in her way.

The OSD department was like the poor cousin to the powerful Manitoba Civil Service Commission "CSC" and Desrochers did not like being left behind in the dust: she wanted to be up front where all the power was. In my first year at OSD, Desrochers openly shared with me stories of where all the skeletons were buried: there was a lot of history and conflict between the two departments.

• When  a senior position would become available within OSD, CSC dangled the promotion to Desrochers but in true Charlie Brown 'mean girl' fashion, the football gets snapped away at the last second resulting in anger and humiliation for Desrochers.
• When OSD needed something--like filling one of its many vacant positions in order to meet the demands of the workload--CSC (whose mandate is to hire staff) failed to do so, despite knowing the department was "in crisis" (a direct quote from senior management in its departmental Minutes).
• When OSD needed information updated on the CSC website -- it was like a big favour-- akin to grovelling due to the fact CSC failed to fill vacation staff positions (Communications position: vacant fall of 2007 to summer 2008).
• When Desrochers needed parking spots for her staff, and CSC was not giving any to her department, Desrochers applied directly to the Parking Authority who regulates the number of government subsidized parking spots allocated to each department. Recognized as s a separate department, OSD was given its own parking spots: Imagine the rage Desrochers felt when CSC then surreptitiously took OSD's newly-acquired parking spots for its own (CSC) staff's use. 

Going into 2008, the situation at OSD had already grown to toxic proportions due to two extended-vacant positions and a newly created admin position left unfilled: the person quit after a couple of weeks. As captured in the November 2007 OSD Minutes, "the department was in crisis with no one to give the work to:" To make matters worse,  the only other OSD Clerk was away regularly starting January 2008, leading to an extended sick leave for nine weeks. At a senior management meeting this position vacancy was brought up as a critical issue, but ignored: CSC preferring to talk about planning a new project that would (and did) add more stress to the department and me, then, the only  remaining admin person (a lowly-paid clerk) without increase in pay, job security, or control of duties.

THE BIGGER PICTURE:

Government's private lawyer, Rob Olson, (of the firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman) suppressed a key witness (Desrochers)  altogether from investigations at the Consumer's Bureau and Labour Board, and then for two years more from the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.  It wasn't until March 2010 that my supervisor Desrochers was interviewed. By this point the Consumers Bureau (according to its annual report), made no investigation and Manitoba Labour Board had already denied me of the right to an investigation or hearing.

March 2010: The Human Rights Commission investigator finally interviews Desrochers (MHRC was first contacted in June 2008). Due to overwhelming evidence of a past connection, Desrochers reluctantly admitted that disability was known and that at the time of the extended stress leave, she had told her supervisor (Chief Operating Officer Anna Beauchamp Schmidt) it was known to her"that medical history went back 15 years prior to employment at OSD."

 

Desrochers knew about my medical history as a result of an ongoing friendship, spanning twenty years, between our spouses; as part of the hiring committee, she would have known that at some point, accommodation could likely be a factor when they hired me in April 2007, and she would also have known that the overall stress of her department (in total flux with position vacancies) was well beyond the reasonable expectation of a clerk position, even for someone without a mood disorder.

Lawyer, Robert Olson personally testified, on government's behalf,  that disability was not known by any government employee at any time.  Normally, a lawyer cannot fabricate a defence and then sign for its client, but when the client is government, the response is: he committed perjury--so what?

 

Going into 2008, OSD had a skeleton staff of ONE admin person (me) for four senior managers (brokers) churning out a huge new program, in addition to the regular OSD workshops (i.e., How to Manage Stress, Accommodation for Disabilities, etc.). The workload had increased unceremoniously--already stressed due to the three vacant positions--without any plan whatsoever as to how the projects would all be delivered.

Knowing accommodation was needed, and that it was the right action to take is one thing, being able to act on it and still meet the objective of delivering on all the work, was quite another. When someone is pouring a drink and we feel it is enough, we generally are allowed to say "when" we have had enough. Desrochers was not given a voice to "say when" when she realized she had more than enough to deal with due to the limited resources in staff and lack of support from CSC.  It is then not surprising that once I said "when" "When" WHEN!!!  -- that quite frankly Desrochers had had it at that point. The end result was a 'shaken clerk syndrome'  similar to shaken baby but more so in a mentally abusive kind of way.

Notes taken by RWP Investigator Ginette Grimard (accessed by me in 2011--but not given any weight in tribunal investigations) reflected that my supervisor had a bias against people with disabilities, believing that they take too many sick days. This is a false belief based on stereotypes. Reports show that people with disabilities often take less sick days than co-workers without disabilities. Under a reasonable and respectful workplace environment, I likely would not have required stress leave based on my record of a perfect work attendance prior to this time.

Further information accessed (under FIPPA 2011) showed evidence that at the time I had taken extended sick leave, Desrochers ultimately did do the right thing by telling her supervisor (the "COO" Chief Operating Officer of OSD) that she knew of my history of mental illness, and suspected that the noted change in behaviour was likely as a result of that disability: Solid evidence that Government authorities (and its lawyers) lied under oath testifying that none of its employees had any prior knowledge whatsoever of a disability.

See related postings:

• RWP Complaint submitted April 30, 2008 - took 5 months only to then come across by COO Beauchamp in a baffling Clinton-like jargon to detract from the very real fact that the line had been crossed by a Supervisor.
• RWP 2 July 15 2008 - COO took 23 business days (48 hours is the law) for an employment reference, provided uncorroborated comments negatively impacting chances for employment as provided by employment agency's report; then lied to the Labour Board.  RWP(2) deals with remaining issues previously held back on.
• Is MB Government #Winning - 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 unrepresented employee.
• MHRC took 2 years to start its investigation then ends up being dismissed in the Yukon over the August long weekend in Electronic signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief"

Due to Employment Equity A FEW GOOD MEN*
has been pre-empted by MEAN GIRLS
already in progress...

Supervisor: You want answers?

Commissioner: I want the truth!

Supervisor: You can't handle the truth! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You leave positions vacant and you curse at me for having trouble delivering more and more of your workshops without giving me any staff. You have that authority to just say ‘do it!”. You have the luxury of not knowing how it is I’m actually able to get the job done and you now question about my harassing Marielle?

While tragic as it is, it probably saved your ass. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, in fact saves many asses...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about like at the Legislature and meetings with the Minister, you want me there getting rid of these mental cases that ask for accommodation. You need me to put up that wall.

We use words like employment equity, respectful workplace, and Human Rights Code... OSD uses these words as the backbone to a life spent making money off that 'feel-good BS'. You use 'em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a woman who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very cushy job it provides her, then questions the manner in which I had to manage those duties in order to get the job done! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Commissioner: Did you go against the Human Rights Code as read?

Supervisor:       (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

Commissioner:  Did you go against the Code as read?

Supervisor:        YOU'RE GODDAM RIGHT I DID!!

Commissioner: Well, all right then. Just so I know. RELEASE DA KRAKEN!! --uh, I mean get Olson crackin' on getting rid of the complaint ...


SOURCES:

*  "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"  Best Ever Movie Quotes:  A Few Good Men


This is not a paid endorsement... but Kudos out to Scott Berkun for sharing his brilliant essay papers  Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas online (excerpt):

...one thing I did learn after years of studying advanced logic theory is that proficiency in argument can easily be used to overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend the ridiculous.

 

When we share information freely, everybody gains knowledge.



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.

 

A Biased MLB Decision, Contrary to Facts Presented in Evidence



CSC likely made a calculated decision to keep employees associated with it (including special operating agency, Organization Staff Development (OSD) under its direct control, and away from the Manitoba Government Employees Union's (MGEU) collective bargaining unit. No doubt, it did so in an attempt to free itself from having to deal with the union and allow it free reign to hire (without posting), to intimidate, to harass, and to terminate--free of union interference.

The Labour Relations Act states an employer cannot interfere with union participation for illegitimate purposes or in bad faith. The scheme to deny non-essential classifications such as a clerk packing workshop material from union representation is no doubt in contravention of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.   OSD, as a special operating agency with the province, is thereby not a Crown Corporation: OSD files its own annual reports with the Minister of Finance, separate and apart from the Civil Service Commission.

 

It is therefore quite a stretch to claim that exclusion was done on the basis that OSD was "staff of CSC" and as a result, was excluded from union representation. OSD is not involved in human relations, or is its work confidential, nor does it deal with personnel matters--all issues that fall under the mandate of CSC: executive staff of CSC does meet the criterion of exclusion.

 

In any event, exclusion is not to be done by a brush of a whole department, but by individual position classifications based on that specific criterion and only then, by agreement with the union. At that point, a list of the positions and reasons for exclusion of each and every classification position must be provided to the Manitoba Labour Board with copy to the union. That did not happen.


There were ongoing communications between myself and union reps from September to December 2008: a mutual belief that CSC was in breach of the agreement and the Act. as clearly neither the union nor  the Labour Board had any knowledge that an entire department had been excluded from union representation: there was no agreement, and there was no list. 

See posting: Electronic Signatures, rubber stamping - "Good Grief" as to how Levene, as a Human Rights Commission Board member, took a foul shot for MHRC to kick my complaint out of 'play' but was given no penalty.

So what changed with MGEU in January 2009?

 

MGEU legal counsel, David Lewis, likely found it to be in the best interests of the union to side with Government -- after all, was I--they used me--then abused me. Quite the legal strategy given all parties, including the Labour Board knew deliberations had, by then, commenced regarding OSD exclusion, as disclosed by  Elliott Leven wherein he "identified himself as "one of union legal counsel" against CSC due to lost union dues disclosed in a 30-minute freebie consult with Marie. Seating for two more lawyers for the Out to Lunch - More Cowbell. Just put it on the union dues tab.

Welcome to Winnipeg's close knit legal community:  accessibility to legal representation in a city of zero degrees of separation is non-existent. The only legal advice to be had is "Costco-like": You get to sample the majority of law firms in Winnipeg and get your fill of them for free. Please keep in mind; if you are not part of the solution -- you are part of the problem (and mobbing in this case).


As the matter never went to hearing, the decision was made by government civil servants (staff of the Manitoba Labour Board--said to be independent) but in reality, acting under the authority and direction of Government, its employer. The median time for the pre-hearing investigation to see if there is enough evidence (or a need for cross-examination of the evidence) is 48 days. Government employees stonewalled the decision for 260 days; made decisions contrary to the evidence submitted (much of which was conflicting testimony from CSC through its lawyer, which required cross-examination) and dismissed the complaint. When asked for written decisions, I was simply told: "It was obvious."


Staff clearly usurped its function as a pre-hearing process and decided instead to by-pass the part that makes it an unbiased and independent tribunal. (That strategy worked so well that MHRC followed suit; stonewalling the process for two years before starting its investigation and then ignored and/or deleted evidence before dismissing the complaint--without going to hearing.)


Given the imbalance of power, and in the interests of fairness and humanity, an unrepresented employee (with a known disability) reaching out in distress for help should have been given some assistance to ensure there was no abuse of power. There was none offered. The fact Government chose not to use their own government lawyers (Civil Legal Services) is evidence that it had no intention, from the onset, to act fairly--or to abide by the spirit and letter of the law. Government contracted private law firm, Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (specialists in labour and human rights law) to launch an aggressive and criminal attack.


The Labour Board accepted the Government's testimony (first of many varying versions) that it was my decision to terminate employment, and alleged I had made no attempt to advise otherwise: Testimony later refuted as corroborated by my documents presented and on record: Government's retraction: I guess it was their decision to terminate, and oh yeah, there was a pending (and ignored) appeal filed with the CSC.


After my rights were violated at the termination meeting of June 4, 2008, I followed a very methodical approach, as prescribed by Government, to deal in a respectful manner with the issues. Requests to meet with the Government's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") went unanswered. Through information accessed, I discovered that EAP--'staff of the CSC' in all respects--was assisting the employer rather than me--the employee: contrary to its mandate.


In a letter dated October 15, 2008 from the Director of EAP to CSC, Frank Cantafio as to the manner my file was handled stated, "...As the Director of the program I would say that EAP did not meet the standard of service that clients have come to expect..." (Note: Shortly thereafter Cantafio resigned as Director of EAP. He is also noted in this blog (and according to information accessed through FIPPA) as disagreeing with CSC for delivering the Herrmann Brain Project (aka 'CSC profiling of its employees) see "Manitobans Wake Up and Get the Scoop on Gov't Spending!")


Government falsely testified to the Labour Board that a private EAP was made available to all employees and that I "was well aware of this option." That option was not available until the fall of 2009, one year after termination of my employment.: Perjury is a crime. See When Manitoba Justice Becomes Criminal).


As a last resort to address the unfair labour practices, and as prescribed by Government, I had filed a letter of appeal dated June 25, 2008 with the CSC Director of Human Resources Program, Sylvie Lavergne. I was never contacted to provide details for investigation. Several attempts to follow up ensued and September 2008 I emailed once again requesting a response, particularly as it related to the Human Rights Code violation. Again--no response was CSC's response. Another attempt was made November 2008, this time through the Labour Board hopeful that the Board would support mediation. Once again, I received no response from the Board or CSC or its lawyer.


No response being the common thread of Government's lawyer's preferred strategy when dealing with someone whom they perceived as invisible and vulnerable. With no public attention, and no one to intervene, why bother? Clearly a 'hard ball' tactic that TDS lawyer, Rob Olson, as Keynote Speaker strictly advises against during its lectures on Human Rights and Labour Law. (see Resources below)


Somewhere along the process, the matter clearly went off the rails from harassment by one supervisor to a mobbing; and for what purpose? There was no request for monetary compensation or punitive damages, nor did I ever ask (egad!) for my job back. All I wanted was to make things right; to protect my reputation as an exemplary employee; to sustain and maintain recovery, and to move on to a harassment-free work environment.


After twenty years of successfully taking personal responsibility for my own well-being as well as five years of service to the Government of Manitoba as an exemplary employee (also with a perfect attendance prior to OSD), I deserved much more than what I got.


Government has a duty to all persons with mental / intellectual disabilities. Instead, Government basically said 'you are less than nothing -- you have no value'. As such I was alienated from co-workers, previously considered 'friends', denied all civil rights of a complaint process and suffered losses much greater than just wages and employment. By not acknowledging a person's very existence--like not responding to communications--one can easily see how that would lead anyone, not just someone with a disability, to question their own self-worth. Is it any wonder the suicide rate is so high in this country?


Is this the true north we are supposedly so proud of? If this is the cumulative genius of Government's best, then clearly its best just won't do. What a waste of all the money spent on policies, boards, commissions, research, forum groups and reports -- totally Out to Lunch - More Cowbell.

All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”

- Sophocles, Antigone

Resources:

 

At the Mercy of the Mob; A summary of research on workplace mobbing by Prof. Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, Published in OHS Canada, Canada's Occupational Health & Safety Magagzine, Vol. 18, No. 8, December 2002, pp 30-36. Published on the web, January 2003.

"Employment Termination: Do's Don'ts and Dollars" "Considerations for Employers When Contemplating Employee Terminations, How the Hiring Process Might Affect the Termination Process, and How Much Terminations Might Cost" source: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman

Quote found on Thompson Dorfman Sweatman website:

Work is one of the most fundamental aspects in a person's life, providing the individual with a means of financial support and, as importantly, a contributory role in society. A person's employment is an essential component of his or her sense of identify, self worth and emotional well being. Accordingly, the conditions in which a person works are highly significant in shaping the whole compendium of psychological, emotional and physical elements of a person's dignity and self respect.

DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - An Overview of the Duty to Accommodate

 

How Does MB Government deal with charges against heads of institutions?

When the head of Canada's premier human rights adjudication agency is accused of "creating a workplace that had deteriorated to the point of toxicity" Government took quick affirmative action as reported in the Ottawa Citizen "Harassment complaints upheld against human rights tribunal head" as follows:

"...Harassment complaints are typically directed to the heads of ministries or agencies, but given the unusual — likely unique — situation of the head of the tribunal being the subject of the complaint, an independent outsider had to be found to adjudicate..."

Why wasn't this process followed by the Government of Manitoba regarding complaints, first against CSC Commissioner and its Director, and then the heads of MLB and MHRC, and subsequently with the Ombudsman's Office? It really is sad when leaders get caught up in a series of events where one inappropriate and criminal act leads to another, and another, in a domino effect. Even sadder is that at any time the Ombudsman could have stopped the madness by doing her job and advising all parties to accept the consequences of his or her prior mistakes; to learn from it and then move on and be better for it. "A public office is a public trust." When someone breaks that trust, there needs to be accountability. 

"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine

MB Government did not take the higher road and has responded by covering for its heads of institutions in ways far greater than the original wrongdoing. The cost in defending its actions (legal costs denied by Ombudsman), the amount of work and stress by all parties including private counsel Thompson Dorfman Sweatman (see Law at Lunch - More Cowbell) in fabricating and maintaining a lie, is rarely ever easier than accepting the consequences of the truth. The Provincial Government has had a tremendously ridiculous time in keeping its story straight, to the point of embarrassment. Government could have nipped it in the bud at the source where it all began at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with an apology.

"... If this was a lower level manager, the head of the institution would have the authority to take specific measures: That person could be sent for sensitivity training or moved to a different position or fired. But how do you appropriately deal with harassment charges against heads of institutions?”

Bravo for the Conservative Federal Government, perhaps after learning from past mistakes of trying to cover up for bad behaviour. (See Whistleblower Rulings Hurt Canada's Reputation.)

 

In answer to the question: How do you appropriately deal with harassment charges against heads of institutions? In the end it would seem that the Manitoba Government is rewarding Ombudsman Irene Hamilton by creating a new position for her. Her newly created high-paying position is to focus on helping Manitoba Justice speed up its court processes. Quite ironic based on her past record of procrastination in violation of legislated time limits to address issues brought before her. Complaints before the Ombudsman are to be responded to in writing, and when accepted for investigation, addressed within 90 days.

 

Complaints against the MHRC--much more serious than what occurred at the Federal level (referred to herein)--was filed on  and accepted for investigation on October 2010,. No response (by phone or in writing) has been the response from the Ombudsman and in violation of her mandate--there has been no final report or recommendation. See related posting: MB Ombudsman buries report...)

In fact, many matters filed with the Ombudsman's office have been stonewalled indefinitely without a letter of explanation. Much of what goes on with politics occurs behind the scenes. What we get to see is only the affirmation of what has occurred in secret: this we get delivered to us in a prepackaged media release.

 

There ought to be a note of caution with these articles i.e.

"Has been in contact with Government and may not contain adequate amounts of truth: accountability and transparency".

 

As long as Manitobans do not speak out, what we are essentially saying is that we have different standards set for our leaders in government, or worst yet, no expectations. Given the lack of voter turnout at the last provincial election, it would seem that through nature or nurture, we have become quite an apathetic group.