Testimonial 4

"Reviewing the extensive email correspondence between PIPSC and myself is a daunting task, as it often brings back painful memories. While I can provide a summary of some key points, I’m open to sharing the full email chain (dozens of emails) if necessary as it will likely provide even more evidence of PIPSC's terrible lack of support.  Seeking support from PIPSC was as though I was communicating with the employer's representative more than my own.

Throughout my interactions with PIPSC, I consistently felt unsupported and discouraged from pursuing my grievance. Their responses often focused on potential undefined risks, drawbacks that instilled fear, they repeatedly wrote about unfavorable and limited chances of success, etc. rather than providing effective solutions. PIPSC’s primary concern was protecting the employer, rather than advocating for its members.

The core issue is straightforward: the employer’s mandate to force a specific vaccine against my will. Despite the fact I was already working from home full-time before any lockdowns, providing a valid religious exemption, my exemption was ignored. As a result, I was forced to take a leave of absence (LWOP). The mandate was eventually lifted, but the financial and emotional damage was already done and has been significant, I'm still to this day struggling to recover. 

The resolution should be straightforward: the employer must reimburse all union members who unjustly went on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) for asserting their human and religious rights. Additionally, significant compensation should be awarded to those who have suffered immense pain and suffering as a result of the employer's unjustified actions. It is clear that abruptly removing an individual's income source without legitimate cause will lead to severe hardship.  Union members should never be compelled to take leave without pay due to fear for their safety, particularly as a result of their employer's actions. 

I’ve been in ongoing communication with PIPSC since May 2022, and the process has been unnecessarily prolonged and burdensome. I’ve experienced significant hardship, including the loss of my home, marriage, and possessions.  In early June 2022, my mental health was so bad I was in the process of being placed on the MAID list.

I believe that PIPSC should prioritize addressing the core issues of my grievance: the denial of my religious exemption and the subsequent forced LWOP. Their convoluted approach with arbitrary deadlines and intense discouragement has hindered the resolution of my case.  It's as though they are hoping I give up and go away.

Here are include Examples of an union showing that is protecting the employer rather than the member.

I hope that this helps in some way.

Best regards,
[NAME REMOVED]

Examples of an union showing that is protecting the employer 

0. January 2023: "I would like to reiterate the risk of making this request, as a precaution, so you are aware, as per my email below. In addition, I am not aware if you appealed my recommendation regarding the individual grievance (please see my email of December 9, 2022), however if you do not have an individual grievance related to the policy grievance, you may not be eligible for back pay or restitution, should PIPSC be successful (regardless of the categorization of your LWOP).

[NAME REMOVED], LL.B.

Labour Relations Team Lead, NCR

Chef d'équipe - Relations du travail, RCN

PIPSC/IPFPC"

1. January 2023: "As we are a few weeks past the deadline, I would typically not entertain a request for reconsideration at this time. However, I am willing to review evidence of any extenuating circumstances that would explain the delay in seeking this appeal.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Nancy

--

Nancy M. Lamarche, LL.B.

(she/her/elle)

Director, Regional Labour Relations Services / Directrice, Services des relations du travail régionales

2. July 2023: "Unfortunately, the emerging case law quite overwhelmingly does not support the filing of grievances such as the one you propose. The legislative Courts have weighed unfavorably on this issue against those who oppose and disagree with the Policies in question.

In light of the information on file at this time and, in light of the fulsome response provided by the Director, the Institute supports the decision of the Director and maintains its decision to not support the filing of a grievance on your behalf concerning the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Policy).

We remain available should you require assistance with different labour relations issues moving forward.

Regards,

[NAME REMOVED]

Acting General Counsel"

3. July 2023: "3. Please remember that even if the policy grievance is successful, and even if you were to be included in the compensation/backpay for a successful policy grievance, it only applies for April 6, 2022 onwards (or another date, depending on the decision from the FPSLREB). In other words, only a small portion of your LWOP will potentially be addressed by the policy grievance (from April 6, 2022 to June 19, 2022). 

The point I am trying to make is that if, for some reason, there are impacts to your pension/benefits/leave accruals as a result of the change of LWOP status, it may not be worth making the change, even if the policy grievance is successful.

Best regards,

Sara

[NAME REMOVED]

Labour Relations Team Lead, NCR

Chef d'équipe - Relations du travail, RCN

PIPSC/IPFPC"

4. July 2023: "For the potential unintended consequences of the change in leave code, yes a potential change in the amounts owed for pension/benefits (either up or down) and we can ask them to see if they'd be willing to calculate it before making the official change in the leave code (if they agree to it). In addition, as per my email in late December when we were starting to discuss this, I mentioned also the issue of the reasons you provided for your leave for personal reasons. I had indicated that there is some risk in making the request to change the leave, as the Employer may not appreciate or look kindly upon the fact that you mis-represented the true nature of your request for leave. I think you have to be careful how you frame this part, and clarify that part of the reason was for your mother, and part of the reason was the fear around the policy. There could also be other consequences that don't come to mind right now, but I will be paying attention to this and will be asking lots of questions to the Labour Relations Advisor.

Finally, I wanted to let you know that I have asked Mathieu, the Labour Relations Advisor, to try and resolve this informally. I reminded him of the very simple ask to change the leave code, and we'll see what he says. As I indicated when we first started this part of the process, the grievance is mostly used as leverage. The point is that if they change the leave code, they get rid of the grievance. 

In the meantime, can you please review all the materials I sent you, in preparation for a first level grievance hearing in September. I am off on holidays from August 8, returning Aug 28.

Have a good rest of the week,

[NAME REMOVED]

Labour Relations Team Lead, NCR

Chef d'équipe - Relations du travail, RCN

PIPSC/IPFPC"

5. November 2023: "I have been transparent from the very beginning regarding the low chances of success, as well as the risks of proceeding with the grievance. Please refer back to my emails of Dec 23 (2022), Jan 6, March 17, May 25, Jul 22 and 27.  In addition, your management has chosen to not be cooperative which indicates a lower chance of success." 

6. November 2023: "At this point in the process, due to the fact that we are unable to agree on the purpose and next steps of the grievance, my recommendation is to proceed with one of two options: 1) we proceed with the grievance within its limits, and you provide your specific feedback/changes, using track changes, in the grievance presentation, and return the amended presentation to me within 2 weeks of today; 2) if we are not able to agree on how to proceed with the grievance, withdraw the grievance and end the grievance process (which would come with appeal rights to my Director)."

7. June 2024: ""Should your Employer agree to change your leave code, there is a slim chance you could be captured by remedies ordered by the Board, IF the policy grievance is successful, and IF a remedy is awarded in the sense that it captures a class of employees. In other words, it is possible (but unlikely) that the Board could award some sort of remedy for anyone who falls under the leave code for LWOP due to the Policy. (Again, it would be for April 6 onwards, as that's what the policy grievance contests) However, the more likely result at the Board (if we are successful) is simply a declaration that the Treasury Board should have reviewed the policy when they said they would. If that is the case, then the individual grievances would come into play, to attempt to get financial remedy, for those individuals who have one."