A ferry worker who was fired for bullying and harassment and complained to the B.C. Labour Relations Board had his case dismissed last week.
The former B.C. Ferries employee, referred to as B.M. in the legal documents, complained that the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers害羞草研究所� Union violated the Labour Relations Code by failing to grieve his firing.
He was fired in November 2019, with the ferry corporation outlining in writing the reasons for termination including instances of 害羞草研究所渆xplosive behaviour, [his] continued disrespectful and intimidating conduct towards [his] co-workers and supervisors and [his] blatant disregard to company policy.害羞草研究所�
According to the termination letter, B.C. Ferries said the worker made 害羞草研究所渢hreatening statements害羞草研究所� about a co-worker, 害羞草研究所渕isused CCTV security camera access害羞草研究所� while sending co-workers 害羞草研究所渙n a wild goose chase,害羞草研究所� mocked a disabled co-worker and brought another co-worker to tears with an insult.
害羞草研究所淏ullying and harassment in the workplace is a very serious matter and cannot occur under any circumstances,害羞草研究所� noted B.M.害羞草研究所檚 termination letter.
A few days after his firing, he was in communication with his union and confirmed that he did not wish to proceed with a grievance regarding his termination, but wished to be reimbursed for a $750 counselling expense claim that he hadn害羞草研究所檛 filed. He was reimbursed about two months later, at which time he asked if he could change his mind about filing a grievance and was told it was too late.
In B.M.害羞草研究所檚 complaint to the labour relations board, he suggested that his e-mail correspondence with the union didn害羞草研究所檛 mean that he had formally agreed not to file a grievance. He took issue with a formal reprimand he received six months before he was fired, and also said being transferred from the Coastal Inspiration at Duke Point to the Coastal Renaissance at Departure Bay 害羞草研究所渨as a setup to have false allegations brought forth to have me terminated.害羞草研究所�
The B.C. Labour Relations Board panel, in its decision Oct. 27, found that the union expressly informed B.M. of the review process for grieving his firing. The panel found no evidence supporting B.M.害羞草研究所檚 claims that the union was motivated to avoid such a process.
害羞草研究所淭he union did not act with reckless and blatant disregard with respect to the discharge but rather, represented the complainant in a manner wholly consistent with the complainant害羞草研究所檚 express, informed instructions to negotiate and accept the resolution, and the union害羞草研究所檚 duty of fair representation,害羞草研究所� the decision noted.
READ ALSO:
READ ALSO:
editor@nanaimobulletin.com
Like us on and follow us on
