Ontario Nurse Charged With Eight Counts of 1st Degree Murder.

[Fuzz]

What? No they didn't do their due diligence. The union women on the stand admitted that. She said she ddidn't use the resources available to her, and made the call on her own, despite not being qualified to make the call on that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What? No they didn't do their due diligence. The union women on the stand admitted that. She said she ddidn't use the resources available to her, and made the call on her own, despite not being qualified to make the call on that.

I was only referring to the part in the article where it states they did no investigation prior to filing the grievance initially. I’m not defending what their agent did after getting that information, given the circumstances they clearly should have taken the case to their legal counsel.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

From what I understand she had already killed 6 times at this point. What gets me is the union basically forced the previous employer to give her $2000 and a letter of recommendation.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...was-concealed/

My understanding is she hadn't been charged or convicted of anything at this point. The Union got a settlement from its employer. That's what it should be doing.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Union got a settlement from its employer. That's what it should be doing.

And what is their obligation to public safety?

Here you have a woman with many instances of dangerous malpractice and the Union negotiates a settlement specifying that her file be sealed?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And what is their obligation to public safety?

Here you have a woman with many instances of dangerous malpractice and the Union negotiates a settlement specifying that her file be sealed?

Kate Hughes, a lawyer representing the Ontario Nurses’ Association at the inquiry, said the union knew only “a fraction” of what Caressant management knew about Ms. Wettlaufer’s transgressions.

She received the minimum severance, and the letter of recommendation was drafted by the employer, with no changes by the union.

“If that’s going to bat, it’s pretty minimal,” Ms. Hughes said in an interview.

So the union didn’t have all the facts, the employer who agreed to this settlement(that helped her get another job) did. But yeah let’s keep blaming the union.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So the union didn’t have all the facts, the employer who agreed to this settlement(that helped her get another job) did. But yeah let’s keep blaming the union.

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.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...ufer-1.4717729

I'll ask the same question again.

What is their obligation to public safety?

Here you have a woman with many instances of dangerous malpractice and inappropriate behaviour and the Union negotiates a settlement specifying that her file be sealed?

Why would they request for her file to be sealed and knowingly put the public at risk?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And what is their obligation to public safety?

Here you have a woman with many instances of dangerous malpractice and the Union negotiates a settlement specifying that her file be sealed?

Why do they have any obligation to public safety. They represent the employee not the public. If you hired a lawyer in a wrongful termination suit what do you expect him to do for you? Minimize the areas of your incomeptance and prevent it from getting out to future employers

The employer here settled and let it be covered up.

Public unions try to say they represent your kids and you as patients when you interact with them. They do not. They only represent the membership of the union. Everything else is branding.

The ONA is not a self regulated profession, the college of nurses of Ontario is.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bagor

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...ufer-1.4717729

I'll ask the same question again.

What is their obligation to public safety?

Here you have a woman with many instances of dangerous malpractice and inappropriate behaviour and the Union negotiates a settlement specifying that her file be sealed?

Why would they request for her file to be sealed and knowingly put the public at risk?

As quoted from the article, they were allegedly only made aware of a fraction of the member’s transgressions. I think you’d agree it would be difficult for them to make an accurate assessment of her risk to the public if they were not made fully aware of what she had done to that point.

Why would the employer agree to this settlement knowing the risk to the public? They were allegedly the only ones who had all the information.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

As quoted from the article, they were allegedly only made aware of a fraction of the member’s transgressions. I think you’d agree it would be difficult for them to make an accurate assessment of her risk to the public if they were not made fully aware of what she had done to that point.

Why would the employer agree to this settlement knowing the risk to the public? They were allegedly the only ones who had all the information.

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.

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

[GGG]

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.

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

What would your expectations of a lawyer you hire be? I would want mine to suppress anything that could affect my future employment. Why do you believe that the union has a duty to the public? (I'm not a fan of public unions but I think criticizing them for acting in their members best interest is kind of ridiculous)

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you believe that the union has a duty to the public?

Because they state that they do.

ONA is respected, united and committed to excellence in patient care in all health-care sectors.

There is zero commitment to excellence here. Just a commitment to burying past misdemeanours. Hardly promoting excellence in patient care.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Because they state that they do.

ONA is respected, united and committed to excellence in patient care in all health-care sectors.

There is zero commitment to excellence here. Just a commitment to burying past misdemeanours. Hardly promoting excellence in patient care.

Do you believe all advertising that you read?

[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.