Reasons for Decision
Page: 12 of 193
F. Appeal to the BOD
[56] Mr. Skinner appealed the imposition of the corrective measures to the BOD
(Exhibit 2, tab 66), as was his right under PIPSC’s applicable Dispute Resolution and
Discipline Policy of December 3, 2009. He also appealed the EC’s decision not to impose
corrective measures on Ms. Friesen in response to his counter-complaint (Exhibit 2, tab
67). The appeals raised issues of bad faith, conflict of interest, bias, and
procedural fairness.
[57] On June 3, 2014, Ms. Roy wrote a briefing memo to the BOD (Exhibit 2, tab 69),
outlining the factual background to the Mertler and Denton complaints and concluding
that pursuant to PIPSC’s 2009 Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy, the BOD’s “…
jurisdiction is limited to determining if the Executive Committee acted within its
mandate”. She also stated that according to that policy, “The Executive Committee’s
mandate is to make decisions that are not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.”
This conclusion was reported in the minutes of the BOD meeting on June 20 and
21, 2014 (Exhibit 2, tabs 70 and 71). These minutes also reflect the BOD’s decision, in
accordance with the Institute’s rules, to engage the services of a neutral third party to
hear the appeal of the two complaints in its place.
[58] Over a month later, on August 15 and 16, 2014, the BOD made the same
decision with respect to the Friesen complaint. The mandate letters signed between the
Institute and the selected third party stated that she would be limited to determining
whether the EC and the BOD acted within their mandates under Part C of the 2009
Dispute Resolution and Discipline Policy (Exhibit 2, tabs 79 and 80).
[59] On June 16, 2014, Mr. Skinner’s representative, Ian Tait, wrote to Ms. Roy
(Exhibit 20) about the upcoming BOD deliberations, requesting that they be allowed to
provide an opinion summary in person, given that she would be doing so. Mr. Tait also
asked that Ms. Roy recuse herself from any involvement in the appeal, alleging that
Ms. Bittman had already spoken to her and had provided her with “inaccurate and
unsupported information”. The letter further stated that Ms. Bittman, along with Yvan
Brodeur, a PIPSC vice-president, and Ms. Daviau, should be removed from the hearing,
since “hearing and voting on a disciplinary measure of their own making is contrary to
administrative/natural justice and procedural fairness” as well as an abuse of power
and a conflict of interest. Lastly, the communication requested that Steve Hindle, a
PIPSC vice-president and member of the EC as of April 30, 2014, also recuse himself,
Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and
Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act