It all started In January 2012.
Canada Post Corporation introduced several changes to the maintenance operating model.
Employees safety become no longer the corporation priority and quickly got pushed down the list by other factors.
Corporation has shown total disregard for safety procedures already in place.
Safety Hazard Report became a one way ticket to the constructive dismissal.
First quarter of 2012
In the first few month of the year 2012 I received several verbal warnings from the maintenance management team to stop reporting safety issues. This was 180 degree turn from what was expected from me prior.New era has really started.
I have addressed this with the engineering director P.S. on April 12, 2012. I was assured that his door is always open – to which my manager A.R, responded in saying and I quote;
“ You will regret it if you ever contact my superiors again”.
Sept 27 2012 – I filed a Safety Hazard Report.
electrical by-pass connection was present in the E-stop system of the small parcel and bundle sorter #1
Oct 1 2012 2:50pm – I received a disciplinary letter.
It was signed by superintendent X and back dated to Friday Sept 28 2012. (Coincident?)
The letter stated that my performance is short of expectation. It also stated and I quote
“any safety hazards you encounter first reported to me to avoid unnecessary machine down time”.
How can these words find its place in the same sentence?
“You must first come to maintenance superintendent for guidance.”
Those statements clearly undermine the seriousness of Safety Hazards
Oct 13 2012 – I filed new safety hazard report.
There was a broken 480V disconnect switch on the National Packet Sorter (NPS). I provided the solution and I offered to stay for as long as it would take to correct the problem.
This was not the answer the new management was looking for.
On duty superintendent refused to provide his opinion/decision in writing.
Oct. 19 2012 – I received the notice of the interview for Oct. 22 2013 9:30am.
Superintendent R.I. handed me the letter. Superintendent told me in a very scared tone of voice that he only wants all to go smooth and it’s “not him”.
Oct. 22 2012 – The interview
The interview was conducted by superintendents R.I. and G.C. The accusing party D.L. was not present. Individuals conducting the interview were not able to clearly explain or state what I had been accused of. The interview ended at noon and I received no answer to a single question I asked. All allegations are unfounded and remained unexplained by management. After the interview I was told by the union steward not to worry as they (the management) were just padding my file. ? Yes, I’m still trying to get my head around that.
Oct. 22 2012 – Another interview notice
At the end of the interview superintendent R.I. handed me another notification of interview. It was to take place on Tuesday, October 23 at 14:00. The purpose of the interview was to discuss the Hazard Report form filled out on October 13 2012. Letter clearly states that the disconnect switch was not working. Att.6 Att.6b amended
I’m accused of providing unsafe solution. How is disconnecting the power and replacing the broken switch unsafe? These are the questions that corporation officials failed to answer.
Oct. 25 2012 Suspension notice.
Now that I had 3 letters on my file manager A.R. suspended me for a day.
These events are no coincident. They are the perfect or better yet, the textbook example for constructive dismissal case.
What happened after is beyond anyone’s believe.
Continue reading here; Chapter II – Misleading at its best