- Burnaby Beacon
- Posts
- Labour board complaint from Burnaby RCMP detachment dismissed
Labour board complaint from Burnaby RCMP detachment dismissed
The BC Labour Relations Board has dismissed a complaint by a Burnaby RCMP civilian staff member alleging inappropriate behaviour and bullying in the workplace and a failure of the union to adequately represent her.
Leona Humphrey was a support staff worker employed by the City of Burnaby to work at the RCMP detachment since January 2016, according to a recent labour board decision. In July 2018, she was reportedly approached by a coworker who claimed they were being bullied by three other coworkers.
Humphrey told the coworker she would support them and speak to their manager, which led to the employer holding a conflict resolution meeting, according to the ruling. She told the labour board that no resolution was reached at that meeting.
But after that meeting, she alleged that the manager involved began targeting her “with what she says was a clear pattern of unacceptable behaviour,” the ruling noted.
“The applicant also says she was disliked by the manager’s friends at work including another manager,” reads the ruling.
A report by a doctor said Humphrey had a disability, which could be accommodated by moving her to a new workplace with a different manager.
In mid-June 2019, Humphrey filed a respectful workplace complaint with the city and went on medical leave in August of that year. The investigation by the city appeared to have concluded that Humphrey’s manager did not breach the city’s respectful workplace policy, according to the decision.
In October 2020, Humphrey filed a grievance with her union, CUPE Local 23, alleging that the city “performed an improper and discriminatory investigation.”
And on July 29, 2021, the union and Humphrey entered into a settlement agreement with the city, which settled her grievance and ended her employment.
In her application to the labour board, Humphrey alleged that CUPE 23 “did not represent me daily, as they did not accommodate mediation (which was offered by the previous assistant director of human resources).”
“My union did nothing with regards to accommodation. I was never offered the option of employment in a [regular full-time] position in another department of the city,” Humphrey claimed in her application.
“I was never even offered the option of a different manager within my workplace within the RCMP detachment.”
She also claimed that no work was done to accommodate her into a different position “or even mediation/counselling to ‘mend’ the relationship that was destroyed due to the incidents I was forced to endure.”
“Simply put, the only options that were offered to me by my union local were to ‘return to my workplace,’ or take a settlement (hush money). I wanted to continue employment under different management and was never given that option,” she wrote in her application.
But labour board panellist Gurleen Sahota said she wasn’t persuaded that this amounted to a contravention of the union’s duty to accommodate.
“The union … is free to determine the best course of action,” Sahota wrote. “The union had wide latitude in choosing the appropriate strategy on how best to proceed. The applicant, as an individual employee, does not get to dictate.”
Sahota added that it was not clear to him how it was a breach of the union’s duty when, according to Humphrey, the union “did not point out [her] options.”
“Simply alleging that no steps were taken to accommodate her into a different position or with a different manager without providing any additional information does not amount to an apparent breach of section 12 [of the labour code],” Sahota wrote.
“The applicant does not provide any details about why the union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.”
Sahota said Humphrey didn’t provide details on “when she spoke with the union, with whom she spoke, what was stated, how the settlement was reached, and what aspects of the union’s conduct were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”
Humphrey told the labour board that “due to circumstances beyond [her] control,” she is limited as to what she can say in the application.
But Sahota said the board needs details to establish a section 12 violation.
As a result, he dismissed Humphrey’s application.