[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Yes, yes, there are concerns about the employer agreeing to the settlement. Could be something as simple as wanting to avoid a long out process ... who knows. But for the moment, I'm just asking about the union's role here.

I'm going to ask the same question for the third time.

Why would they specify as part of the agreement that her malpractice and inappropriate behaviour be buried? Given the nature of her work isn't this something that should be kept on the surface.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that they were only made aware of a fraction of what was on that employees record? Why would they ask that it not be held against her? In my opinion I would say because to that point, unless I’m missing something here, the employee hadn’t actually been found complicit in anything they were being accused of. At that point everything the employer had brought forward would still be considered allegations and the union are required to represent their members’ best interest.

Is this common union behaviour? To ask for serious malpractice and inappropriate behaviour to be sealed and buried from the next employer?

You haven’t established that that occurred even in this case. Do you know what specifically from the employee’s file the union was/wasn’t made aware of? If not, I’m not sure what you’re basing your theory on.

In fact, ONA labour relations officer Jill Allingham, who testified at the inquiry about her negotiating role, pressed forward with the suspension and subsequent termination grievance after she got Wettlaufer's personnel file, which detailed some of her many errors and inappropriate behaviours.

For all we know the union were only made aware of minor errors and inappropriate behaviours that would not be considered a risk to the public or they could have been made aware of very serious ones, we don’t know.