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鈥� 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 鈥渆xplosive behaviour, [his] continued disrespectful and intimidating conduct towards [his] co-workers and supervisors and [his] blatant disregard to company policy.鈥�

According to the termination letter, B.C. Ferries said the worker made 鈥渢hreatening statements鈥� about a co-worker, 鈥渕isused CCTV security camera access鈥� while sending co-workers 鈥渙n a wild goose chase,鈥� mocked a disabled co-worker and brought another co-worker to tears with an insult.

鈥淏ullying and harassment in the workplace is a very serious matter and cannot occur under any circumstances,鈥� noted B.M.鈥檚 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鈥檛 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.鈥檚 complaint to the labour relations board, he suggested that his e-mail correspondence with the union didn鈥檛 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 鈥渨as a setup to have false allegations brought forth to have me terminated.鈥�

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.鈥檚 claims that the union was motivated to avoid such a process.

鈥淭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鈥檚 express, informed instructions to negotiate and accept the resolution, and the union鈥檚 duty of fair representation,鈥� the decision noted.

READ ALSO:

READ ALSO:

editor@nanaimobulletin.com
Like us on and follow us on