BCIT-BCGEU - ethicsfirst

Go to content

Main menu:

BCIT-BCGEU

BCIT-BCGEU
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
Breach of UNION DUTY

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

My name is Ron Korkut. I am an employee of BCIT and a member of BCGEU. After ten years of service with pristine employment record, Wayne Hand restricted my RIGHT to free speech and DUTY to inform my colleagues regarding the perils of the corruption in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and he terminated my employment, February 8, 2016. BCGEU refused to communicate with Wayne Hand to resolve the labor dispute, April 19, 2017.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

1. James Cai,
Associate Dean at BCIT restricted my RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH and DUTY to inform my co-workers, regarding the perils of the corruption in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, by sending me an email dated May 3, 2016.
2. I asked James Cai, Wayne Hand
, Dean and Ana Lopez Vice President to sign the decision because, restricting human RIGHTS has legal consequences. They did not sign it.
3. On October 14, 2016, Wayne Hand sent
me an email questioning my letters to Ana Lopez and stated that:
"BCIT expects that you will not deliver your "Ref. Restriction of communication" and/or "The Report of Corruption in the Supreme Court of British Columbia"

4. I  asked Wayne Hand to sign his decision
. He failed to sign it.  His failure to sign his decision was a perfect indicative of the fact that he was aware of his WRONG. A professional person never hesitates to sign his decision made within the bounds of the Law.
5. To avoid the risks of signing the document, he arranged numerous meetings through Kathie Cobban and he FORCED me to attend the meetings by threatening with disciplinary actions
. The objective of meeting was to deter me from communicating with my co-workers: because, there was no work related issue other than the communication to inform my co-workers.  
6. Since it was improper for me to have a meeting with a person who unlawfully restricted my RIGHT and DUTY, I declined to attend the meetings and accordingly informed Wayne Hand
.
7. To FORCE me into the
meeting, Wayne Hand suspended my work twice. Nevertheless, I declined to meet with him; because, it was not proper for me to sit down with a person who has no hesitation to restrict my fundamental RIGHTS and DUTIES.
8. Finally, he accused me of insubordination
and terminated my employment on Feb. 8, 2017.
9. I warned Wayne Hand that his violation of my RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH was unlawful;
because, there was no issue of employment other than his restricting my RIGHT to free speech and DUTY to inform my co-workers regarding the perils of the corruption in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is common sense; restricting the fundamental RIGHT to free speech in a workplace is NOT LAWFUL, in Canada.
10. I filed a grievance with BCGEU. In my letter dated March 11, 2017, I specifically requested union representative Oliver Demuth should get in touch with Wayne Hand to resolve the labor dispute between us.   
11. Nevertheless, he failed to communicate with Wayne Hand as he stated in his email, dated April 19, 2017.
"In response to your letter of April 6, 2017 (attached), I have not communicated with Wayne Hand
regarding the discipline you received or …"
Obviously, it is impossible to resolve a conflict between person A and person B without communicating with person B.
12. Without any sign of good faith, BCGEU dragged the issue on for four months. Finally, on April 19, 2017, Oliver Demuth dismissed my grievance by assuming: 1. Wayne Hand was my supervisor, 2. I disobeyed my supervisor, 3. Arbitrator would not reinstate my employment.    A DECISION BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS HAS NO MERIT IN LAW.
In fact, my supervisor is NOT Wayne Hand, my supervisor is the Chief Instructor, Ted Simmons. I worked under his supervision for 10 years without any issues. The first time I met with Wayne Hand was the time he served me termination notice on Feb. 8, 2017. How can a reasonable person accuse - another person who never met before - of insubordination? WAYNE HAND’S CONDUCT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. In a workplace, if someone gets into a conflict with an employee, the proper procedure is to get in touch with the supervisor of the employee; not to resolve it by himself.
13. In his decision decision, Oliver Demuth admitted that:
"An employee can only refuse to obey an employer if it is clearly illegal or unsafe, or …" Nevertheless, you deliberately avoided investigating the legality of Wayne Hand’s conduct.     
14. In my letter dated April 20, 2017, I specifically asked him to consult with the union lawyer regarding legality of the conduct of Wayne Hand. But, Oliver Demuth failed to do so.   BREACH OF DUTY, S80 CCC.


MY REQUEST from Oliver Demuth, June 18, 2017:
Please, consider getting in touch with Wayne Hand and union lawyer to determine the legality of Wayne Hand’s conduct, by asking, UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY Wayne Hand:
1. Acted when he restricted my RIGHT to free speech and DUTY to inform my co-workers regarding the perils of the corruption in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
2. Ordered me to attend a meeting that has no REASON other than negotiating my RIGHTS and DUTIES.
3. Accused me of insubordination and terminated my employment without any issue regarding my performance of work or any kind of misconduct.
If you cannot find those authorities, obviously, you may conclude that Wayne Hand’s conduct was illegal and your decision to dismiss my grievance must be CORRECTED
.

I sent the copies of my request to Stephanie Smith,
President BCGEU, Ted Simmons, Chief Instructor BCIT.

 
 
 
Justice always prevails
Back to content | Back to main menu