The Labour Relations Board has the power to ask questions and investigate as well as allow for arbitration, but instead, a decision was made to deny arbitration. The following is my response to Labour Relations Board Vice-Chair Mullaly after the Labour Relations Boards denied me natural justice.

From William Warren Munroe, 763 Beach Rd, Qualicum Beach BC, V9k 1S2, July 17, 2008

To: Registrar, Labour Relations Board - British Columbia, Attention: Vice-Chair, G.J. Mullaly, Re: Constructive Dismissal


This is to inform you that I received the response to my request for arbitration from the Vice-Chair, G.J. Mullaly, on July 2, 2008. The letter did not arrive in over night mail as we had hoped. Upon returning from our holiday long week end, I finally received the letter. If dates are important, in that they will be used to deny natural justice, please send the letter via registered mail.

This type of delay has happened before. For example, the dismissal letter from the Deputy Minister dated April 11, 2006 but not delivered until April 28, 2006 by registered mail. (Indeed, I was accussed initially of not disputing the dismissal for just cause on time. I did dispute the dismissal on May 1, 2006 well within the May 28, 2006 deadline. This accussation was dropped just before the June 22, 2006 hearing.) This is important and yet not mentioned by the Vice Chair. Many times throughout this process, I have waited long periods of time, then given short deadlines to reply. It appears that the same tactics are still being used.

I look forward to correcting the many mistakes, and omissions, as soon as possible. Please rest assured, that I will respond within 8 months (the time it took for a response regarding my request to the Labour Relations Board (LRB) for arbitration). The many departures from the Master Agreement committed by the Ministry of Labour and Citizenís Services (referred to here after as the Ministry) are not mentioned and pre-date my letter to the Deputy Minister.

I find it interesting that my reply to the Deputy Minister in September 2006 should be used as an excuse to deny me natural justice, especially since my letter to the Deputy Minister in January 2006, delivered within the 30 day time limit, was considered acceptable. I received no reprimand for this. The Master Agreement states that the griever may (not shall) inform the Deputy Minister through the Union.

Also, I contacted the LRB in June of 2006 about my case and was told to exhaust all steps and procedures before submitting a complaint. I found out about going to the LRB from unemployment insurance. They investigated and told me that I was "escorted" off the job. An attempt was made by the Ministry to make it look as though I were to blame for the yelling directed towards me. Perhaps my co-workers "felt unsafe" because they were worried that I would tell people how non-statistical methods were used to create and change population estimates and so called population projections.

Since time is important in the procedures, I made every effort to inform the Deputy Minister and the BCGEU requesting arbitration. I contend that the delays in responding are used by the Ministry and the BCGEU to try to make the griever make a mistake in procedures and thereby the Ministry tries to justify denying arbitration and avoids addressing the spirit of the agreement: to provide better public service.

Indeed, the Ministry should have been dealing with the BCGEU, but instead, the Ministry wrote directly to me and also phoned me at home.

Indeed, in September 2006, rather than goading a response by writing to me directly (rather than use proper procedures) stating that my salutation regarding "constructive solutions" could be considered an abandonment of the grievance procedure, the Deputy Minister should have informed the BCGEU and not myself. There are several other examples of how the Ministry did not use proper procedures, yet only my legitimate response is used to avoid a fair hearing.

The Vice-Chair had the opportunity to ask for more information from myself, but chose not to. Instead, a flimsy excuse is again being used to deny natural justice, in an attempt to avoid allowing me to have my case heard by an independent arbitrator. I contend still that the discriminatory behavior directed towards me was not justifiable nor were my requests for mediation addressed with good will.

Thank you for your continued interest in finding constructive solutions aimed at improving work environments, and the products and services provided by the Ministry of Labour and Citizenís Services.


William Warren Munroe