Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Interesting how much the union went to bat for her immediately.
Quote:
Within hours of finding out Elizabeth Wettlaufer was suspended for making a medication error, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a grievance on her behalf, a public inquiry heard Thursday.
There was no investigation about why Wettlaufer was being suspended or whether she had put patients at the Caressant Care nursing home in Woodstock, Ont., at risk. Last June, Wettlaufer was convicted of eight counts of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault.
|
|
Grievances have to be filed within a short timeframe. When the union filed the grievance they were doing so based on the information their member gave them about the suspension. It’s also possible that the employee was suspended pending an investigation without being told what the actual reason was.
From the article:
Quote:
|
Unknown to her co-workers, managers or union, Wettlaufer killed seven people while she worked at Caressant Care.
|
It’s somewhat misleading when the article states the union did no investigation before filing the grievance, their investigation was clearly ongoing and the grievance would bring to light the information required to determine whether or not the grievance would continue to be pursued or whether it would be withdrawn.
Quote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london...ufer-1.4717729
Sad that a murder could have been prevented if the union hadn't been so quick to step up. On the news last night the union case manager(I think) was on the stand and asked if she had experience to evaluate Wettlaufer's case. She said no, then she was asked if she used the resources available to her(the union apparently has people who could have evaluated) she said no.
Shouldn't a union make sure whoever they are defending was dismissed for good cause before going in full defence mode? Or are they required to defend no matter what?
|
They have to get a response from the employer to make that determination. They aren’t required to defend no matter what, but they are required to do their due diligence, which appears to be what they did.
What I’d like to know is why the employer didn’t call the authorities as soon as they were aware that a crime had potentially been committed.