Canadian Labour Reporter

8 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 August 22, 2016 ARBITRATION AWARDS submission were overstated and this meant he was now out of the running for the promotion. Doucette said he was consider- ing escalating the findings as an "Information to the Chief " report, which would alert the police chief that discipline against an officer was possible. "The meeting with Doucette was devastating for Mikaluk. He viewed the allegation of misrepre- sentation and possible information to the chief as a charge that he had committed deceit," Kanee said. The misunderstanding stemm- ed from Mikaluk's role as acting sergeant during the service's im- plementation of its the Edmonton Police Reporting and Occurrence System (EPROS) project from January 2007 to June 2008. During the interview process, Mikaluk represented his role as having supervisory powers, but Doucette felt this was incorrect. Mikaluk also referred to himself as a business manager of the project in his submission for promotion. One of the moderators during the stage-three interview was re- tired inspector John Ratcliff, who was the commanding officer for the EPROS project. "Ratcliff took objection to Mi- kaluk's description of the scope of his role. He expressed the view that Mikaluk did not have as sig- nificant a role in the management of the project as his package sug- gested. Ratcliff said that Mikaluk was not managing the whole proj- ect — that was his job," said arbi- trator Lyle Kanee. After the meeting, Ratcliff said he wanted to further investigate the role played by Mikaluk during the project before giving his final opinion. Ratcliff spoke to another retired officer, Staff Sgt. Bill Newton, who concurred with Ratcliff 's asser- tion that Mikaluk overstated his importance to the EPROS project. But the arbitrator took issue with the police officer's assertion. "Mikaluk actually replaced Newton on the EPROS project and so Newton never supervised Mikaluk on the project and would not have known what roles and responsibilities Mikaluk actually carried out on the project. New- ton did not testify," he said. After the meeting with Doucette, Mikaluk forwarded an email from Ratliff to two other police officers, copied to Mika- luk, back to Doucette that out- lined his role with the EPROS project, which read in part, "Cst. Mikaluk will take on the role of A/ Sgt. for the duration of his time on this project based on his super- visory role and project manage- ment expectations." He also sent Doucette a scanned copy of his business card at the time that identified him as business manager. Despite this, Doucette sent the "Information to the Chief " note and recommended Mikaluk not be disciplined but he called it a "rookie mistake" and was a mis- understanding, not an intent to deceit. After the meeting, Mikaluk became distraught, took time off work, first paid, then unpaid. He also withdrew his promotion ap- plication. "Mikaluk similarly lost the opportunity to provide his ex- planation of what his role and re- sponsibilities were in the EPROS project and to refute the flawed information provided by Ratcliff that he did not have a leadership or project management role. He lost the opportunity to defend his integrity and to have his candida- cy considered without the taint of deceit. The loss of that opportu- nity to set the record straight and to defend his reputation, particu- larly before Ratcliff, for whom he had tremendous respect, caused Mikaluk distress and psychologi- cal harm that was foreseeable," Kanee said. Mikaluk was awarded $5,000 in general damages. "The EPS breached its obliga- tion to provide a fair, appropriate and unbiased promotion process. It relied upon flawed information about Mikaluk's role and respon- sibilities in the Edmonton Police Reporting and Occurrence Sys- tem (EPROS) project and upon suspicions that he deliberately misstated his role and responsi- bilities in his promotion package. At the very least, it should have provided him with the opportu- nity to respond to the contradic- tory information and suspicions about his integrity," arbitrator Lyle Kanee said. References: Edmonton Police Service And Edmonton Police Association. Lyle Kanee — Arbitrator. Geoffrey Hope and Dana Adams for the employer. Patrick Nugent and Jacob Axelrod for the union. Aug. 2, 2016. Legion worker wins case, but not reinstatement A long-time bartender with a Brit- ish Columbia Legion branch had his grievance upheld after being dismissed for eight given reasons. But Jamie McLaughlin was not ordered reinstated despite 28 years of employment. Instead, investi- gator James Dorsey awarded him $25,000 in damages, back pay, va- cation pay and pay in lieu of notice, in a binding recommendation. "This is one of the exceptional situations in which reinstatement should be denied. The undercur- rents in this complex employment and membership relationship, in- cluding the role and perspective of B.C. Yukon Command, and the prolonged closure following the imposition of trusteeship, direct me to the conclusion both Mr. McLaughlin and the branch will have a greater chance at success in the community if the branch reopens with new management, new standards of job perfor- mance, new standards of cleanli- ness and sanitation and a new se- nior bartender greeting members and guests," said Dorsey. Lynn Valley Legion branch #144, in North Vancouver, B.C., had a series of financial irregu- larities and member complaints that led to its closure Feb. 4, 2016, and subsequent takeover by B.C. Yukon Command. The branch re- mains closed. The cleanliness issue resulted in a city inspector ordering the building closed Feb. 10, 2016, in order for pest and grime troubles to be resolved. McLaughlin's employment was effectively ended via a letter at- tached to an email that was sent Feb. 7, 2016, after the trusteeship was put into place. McLauglin was on vacation from Jan. 27 to Feb. 4. Eight reasons given in his termi- nation letter, include unauthorized alternate pay arrangement, dress code violations, cash mishandling, work area and bar cleanliness is- sues and harassment of legion members, among other reasons. The investigator explained why each of the reasons was invalid. McLaughlin was employed by the legion at a minimum wage, as is stated in the collective agree- ment, but in 2011, he was offered $1,000 more per month for extra duties such as scheduling, inven- tory control and security. "The additional services con- tract was long standing, well- known, documented and signed by the past president and current bookkeeper. The contract was not contrary to the collective agree- ment.," he said. The dress code violation was not applicable because it had been earlier relaxed and it was autho- rized in 2008, Dorsey said. As for the bar cleanlines, Dors- ey listed a number of factors that absolved McLaughlin: he was on vacation during the time of the shutdown, there were no com- plaints about the bar sanitation and no written standard for keep- ing the bar clean ever existed. "The detection and eradication of mould, whenever it began, was a shared responsibility and not exclusively Mr. McLaughlin's re- sponsibility," he said. McLaughlin was also accused of harassing two members of the le- gion. The reason for this seems to be an unsigned letter found behind the bar that petitioned the mem- bers to transfer to another branch. The investigator dismissed the allegation that McLaughlin wrote this letter, in an effort to intimi- date the two members into leav- ing. "There is no information Mr. McLaughlin had anything to do with this undated and unsigned petition," he said. Reference: Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 114 and Unite Here, Local 40. James Dorsey — investigator. Kevin Wool- liams for the employer. Jean Poulton for the union. June 26, 2016. < Police pg. 1

• Cover