BCIT-BCGEU - ethicsfirst

Go to content

Main menu:

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, my employer, 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.
Wayne Hand restricted my RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH by sending me an email, October 14, 2016.

2.
I asked Wayne Hand to sign his order. He did not respond and sign his decision.

3.
I complained to vice President Ana Lopez. She did not respond.

4.
Wayne Hand and Kathie Cobban arranged numerous meeting to negotiate my RIGHT to free speech.

5.
I did not attend to those meetings; because, my RIGHT to free speech was not negotiable and I accordingly informed them.

6.
Wayne Hand accused me of insubordination for not attending to an unnecessary meeting; and he suspended my work twice in order to FORCE me to two meetings to negotiate my RIGHT to free speech. I did not attend the meeting again; because, I had a RIGHT and DUTY to communicate with my colleagues for the purpose of preventing harm to them from the CORRUPTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

7.
Wayne Hand terminated my employment on Feb. 8, 2017.

8.
I warned Wayne Hand that his violation of my RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH was unlawful and the dismissal was unreasonable. He failed to respond.

9.
I filed a grievance with the BCGEU union, but the union is reluctant to resolve this issue, My first representative, Brian Campbell was reluctant to resolve the issue, therefore, I complained to his supervisor Oliver Demuth. Instead of advising Brian Campbell, he assumed the DUTY to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, he side stepped his UNION DUTY as follows:  


1. He told me that Wayne Hand has a right to call me to an unnecessary meeting,
2. Discouraged me by telling that Wayne Hand would not move on the phone.  
3. Dragged the issue on for three months, by introducing undefined and convoluted procedures, such as step 3.
4. Complicated the dispute by introducing irrelevant persons, such as Kathy Cobban, and irrelevant issues, such as my complaint to APEGBC.
5. Offered me arbitration process, knowing that arbitrator has no authority to enforce the freedom of speech.
6. Attempted to pervert the fact that my dismissal was not on the grounds of "whistle blowing" but, "insubordination".
7. Presented me his opinionregarding Wayne Hand’s conduct without consulting to union lawyers.
8. Unnecessarily, printed all the documents I presented to him, instead of investigating them and determining that the termination of my employment was not related to my performance as a teacher.  

10. Obviously, he was not aware of the fundamental RIGHTS of the union members. Therefore, I asked him to consult with the union lawyers to verify the fact that the members of the union have a RIGHT to free speech and his DUTY to inform their colleagues. He ignored my request.

11. I reminded him, in many occasions, that his DUTY, as a union representative is to communicate with my employer, Wayne Hand and remind him that the termination of my employment was unreasonable because the employees of BCIT have a RIGHT to free speech and DUTY to inform their colleagues.

12. He blatantly refused to communicate with Wayne Hand, knowing that he was the person who terminated my employment, without any tangible reason. In his email dated April 19, 2017, he stated:
"
I have not communicated with Wayne Hand"

13. It is impossible to resolve the labor dispute between I and Wayne Hand, if the union representatives refuse to communicate with Wayne Hand who terminated my employment. Therefore, for a reasonable person, on the part of a union representative, the act of refusing to communicate with Wayne Hand, is a perfect example of BREACH OF UNION DUTY. Therefore, this matter falls under the
Section 80 of Criminal Code.


 
 
 
Justice always prevails
Back to content | Back to main menu