Phone #: Cell #: ALRB File #: Alberta Human Rights Complaint #: August 28 2016, Due to the strike by Canada Post which could start as of Monday August 29 2016 I am sending this response back to you via email. Please accept this response via email due to the pending postal strike. As of August 25 2016 the Postal Union has issued their 72 hour notice which means the strike can occur as early as Monday August 29 2016. (See Item A ) Once again I have reached out to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 424 ( IBEW LU 424 ) and I have tried to resolve this matter. There has been a recent election in the IBEW LU 424 and a new business manager has been elected he was sworn into office as of August 11 2016. The new Business Manager for the IBEW LU 424 is John White. (See Item B ) In an effort to try and resolve this matter I emailed Mr. White asking to setup a meeting with him to try and resolve this matter on August 17 2016. When there was no response I sent the same email over to the IBEW LU 424 addressed to Mr. White again via fax on August 21 2016. (See Item H ) The IBEW LU 424 has refused to even try and work with me in this matter and refuses to even try to resolve this matter. The IBEW LU 424 will not even sit down and discuss this matter in a meeting. There has been no response from John White. In this letter to Mr. White (Item B ) I clearly state that I am willing to attend the IME. Dr. Chue has stated that this exam would be 3 4 hours in length and I have agreed to this. I have clearly also said that the Dr. Chue is willing to do all brand new testing and would be able to give the IBEW LU 424 the answers that they need as to if I can or cannot work and any recommendations that he may have. I also said that I would be willing to give the IBEW LU 424 a summary of the report which would include if I can or cannot work and as well as any recommendations that the doctor may have. These are the answers which the IBEW LU 424 is currently seeking and Dr. Chue could easily answer these questions. I have full clearance by my doctor, doctor Jahandar to return to work and as well as letters by Dr. Orimalade which states that having Asperger s Syndrome and A.D.D. should not preclude me from any job. (See Item C and Item D ). Dr. Orimalade is a specialist in developmental disabilities such as Asperger s Syndrome and A.D.D. and is more than qualified to make this decision.
The IBEW LU 424 has no legal obligation in regards to my ability to work since I have received my clearance letter from my doctor. Under Kevin Levy, the former business manager I agreed to attend the Independent Medical Exam ( IME ) and even had gone as far as to find the doctor to perform the IME, Dr. Chue once the IBEW LU 424 knew that I had a doctor who was willing to do the IME the IBEW LU 424 changed all the terms and conditions for the IME under Kevin Levy. I agreed to the terms and conditions set by Kevin Levy in his email dated November 25 2016. (See item G ) The union did nothing to even try and find a doctor to perform the IME so I went out and found my own doctor to perform the IME. The IBEW LU 424 has agreed that the doctor is suitable but then changed all the terms and conditions for the IME. (See Item E ) It is important to remember that this Dr. Charl Els has never seen me and has never done any kind of an examination of me. Dr. Els is extremely biased in this matter and is simply being paid by the IBEW LU 424 to make these statements and is in no way independent. The decision by Dr. Els that I cannot work was based off of 8 documents of which only 4 of them are actual medical documents relating to my Asperger s Syndrome and Attention Deficit Disorder. The very old report by Dr. Campbell was not meant to be used for work purposes and was designed to be used when I was going to school at NAIT. This report was also done prior to me being on any kind of medication or prior to me even being diagnosed with Asperger s Syndrome. There are documents in there as well related to my diabetes and a job description for an electrician as well. The amount of information which Dr. Els had available to him and which he made his decision off of does not allow him to make the decision if I can or cannot work. Dr. Els is in no way qualified to make the decision if I can or cannot work and has absolutely no background in developmental disabilities such as Asperger s Syndrome / Autism or A.D.D. when making this decision Dr. Els did not even do a consult with another doctor who does specialize in developmental disabilities. Dr. Els has made gross errors in his decision and is once again simply being paid by the IBEW LU 424 to make these statements. Dr. Els has a background in addictions, which I do not have in any way. There also have not been any injuries while I am on a job site which would lead the IBEW LU 424 to believe that I am a danger on any job site or that there is any kind of occupational risk to place me on a job site. In fact, since I have received full clearance from my doctor to return to work the IBEW LU 424 has absolutely NO grounds to keep me from working at this point. The IBEW LU 424 has never tried any kind of modified work program or anything to even try and get me back to work again. The IBEW LU 424 does have the duty up to the point of undue hardship to try and return me to work again. The IBEW LU 424 has done absolutely nothing to even try and do any kind of modified work program or anything to get me back to work again. This matter has been ongoing now since October 2012 and the IBEW LU 424 continues to wrongly keep me out of work even after I have full clearance by a medical doctor to return me to work again.
Kerr v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) (No. 4), 2009 BCHRT 196 (CanLII) (Item Q ) http://canlii.ca/t/23v0z Given the importance of work to a person s sense of well-being, I find that not returning a person to work after a leave of absence constitutes an adverse effect for purposes of the Code. As the Court noted in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. (1997), 1997 CanLII 332 (SCC), 152 D.L.R. (4th) 1: Seiu-West v Cypress Health Region, 2014 CanLII 21601 (SK LA) (Item R ) http://canlii.ca/t/g6qr3 98. It is prima facie discrimination for an employer to refuse to employ or to continue to employ an employee because of a physical or a mental disability. I need to be immediately returned to work and should be allowed to maintain my last out of work number with the IBEW LU 424 hall which means I would be able to find a job fairly fast because it would be an older out of work number. Under the Alberta Human Rights Act section 7 it states http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/a25p5.pdf RSA 1980 ci-2 s6;1990 c23 s2;1996 c25 s8 Discrimination re employment practices 7(1) No employer shall (a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person, or (b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or of any other person. Also under the Alberta Labor Relations Code section 26 and 152 states http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/l01.pdf Suspension or expulsion from trade union 26 No trade union shall expel or suspend any of its members or take disciplinary action against or impose any form of penalty on any person for any reason other than a failure to pay the periodic dues, assessments and initiation fees uniformly required to be paid by all members of the trade union as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the trade union, unless that person has been (a) served personally or by double registered mail with specific charges in writing, (b) given a reasonable time to prepare the person s defence,
(c) afforded a full and fair hearing, including the right to be represented by counsel, and (d) found guilty of the charge or charges, and if a monetary penalty has been imposed, fails to pay it after having been given a reasonable time to do so 152 (1) No trade union or person acting on behalf of a trade union shall (a) expel or suspend a person from membership in the trade union or deny membership in the trade union to a person by applying to the person in a discriminatory manner the membership rules of the trade union; (b) take disciplinary action against or impose any form of penalty on a person by applying to the person in a discriminatory manner the standards of discipline of the trade union. I have been suspended from being able to take any kind of calls though the IBEW LU 424 they refuse to allow me to take any calls which is a penalty against me. My dues are paid up in full and the IBEW LU 424 refuses to allow me to work. Mr. White take this letter as my request to appeal the decision made by Mr. Levy to suspend my dispatch abilities I want to immediately appeal that decision made by Mr. Levy as it is violating article XXV section 1(g) of the IBEW Constitution. (See Item I ) (g) Wronging a member of the I.B.E.W. by any act or acts (other than the expression of views or opinions) causing him physical or economic harm. By me not being allowed to work and having my dispatch abilities suspended since October 2012 this has caused economic harm towards me and has gravely affected my livelihood! I have never been served with any kind of charges by the IBEW I have never been given any kind of full or fair hearing in fact I have tried to appeal the decision by Kevin Levy to suspend my dispatch abilities and I have been denied any kind of an appeal process. I have absolutely no council in this matter which is extremely unfair and biased. In fact, I asked to go before the executive board to explain my side of the story and I was denied that ability to appear before the IBEW LU 424 executive board. Again by not presenting me charges in writing violates Article XXV section 2 and article XXV section 3 (See Item I ) of the IBEW Constitution and by refusing me any kind of an appeal process violates the IBEW Constitution article XXV section 12. The whole process for any kind of disciplinary action under Article XXV of the IBEW constitution has not been followed in this matter. The IBEW Constitution has not been followed in this matter I should have been allowed to appeal the decision to have my dispatch abilities suspended under the IBEW Constitution article XXV Section 12.
The IBEW constitution has not been fairly applied here in this matter and what has been done to me has been done in a discriminatory manner by not properly applying the IBEW constitution in this matter. Neither the ALRB or the Alberta Human Rights Commission has found that the IBEW LU 424 is right in this matter. The case for the ALRB is adjourned sine die and the Alberta Human Rights Commission is on appeal right now no one has found the IBEW LU 424 to be compliant with the law in this matter once again Kevin Levy is just delusional. In fact, in a response by Kevin Levy dated January 20 2015 he states (See Item J ) Sec. 2. The Business Manager may remove any member from any shop or job (when not in violation of any agreement) for not complying with our laws and rules or when he/she decides the best interest of the Local Union requires such removal. Any such removed member shall be entitled to a review of his/her removal before the Executive Board of the Local Union. So it says clearly that I have the right to a review of my removal which I was denied. Any such removed member shall be entitled to a review of his/her removal before the Executive Board of the Local Union. Then further down in the same letter (See Item J ) Kevin Levy then goes on to say They also declined to provide Mr. Executive Board the opportunity to present his position in person to the So I was supposed to have the right to appear before the executive board as per the IBEW LU 424 bylaws but then I was denied that right. That is unfair and once again the IBEW LU 424 bylaws are in no way being fairly applied in this matter. Also once again Dr. Els is in no way qualified to make the decision if I can or cannot work as he has no background in developmental disabilities or is Dr. Els in anyway impartial in this matter. I would also argue that under Article XV section 6 and Article XV section 8 that this bylaw conflicts with the IBEW Constitution under Article XXV which has not been followed in this matter and clearly outlines the procedures for a breach of the IBEW rules which has not been followed in this matter and the fact that I have been denied any kind of an appeal or ability to be able to appear before the executive board. (See Item K ) Sec. 6. L.U. s are empowered to make their own bylaws and rules, but these shall in no way conflict with this Constitution. Where any doubt appears, this Constitution shall be supreme. Sec. 8. All L.U. bylaws or rules in conflict with this Constitution and the rules herein are null and void. Once again for the terms and conditions for the IME the IBEW LU 424 is the one dictating the rules here and is simply paying Dr. Els to say what they want. (See Item E ) The IBEW LU 424 must also be reasonable in the information which they are asking for the IME.
The IBEW LU 424 asking for me to provide them a life time of medical information is unreasonable and a clear violation of my privacy. Also by the IBEW LU 424 denying me the right to my own medical information would violate the Health Information Act ( HIA ) section 7(1) http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/h05.pdf 7(1) An individual has a right of access to any record containing health information about the individual that is in the custody or under the control of a custodian. Also I found that the Canadian Society of Medical Evaluators ( CSME ) is just a professional association and does not have the right to regulate the medical profession in the province of Alberta and that is done by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The CSME has no right to regulate the medical profession in Alberta and has no right to dictate how this IME is to be performed in this province. Also the fact that Dr. Els is the secretary of the CSME as well makes this extremely biased. There also would be no need for any other questions to be asked. Dr. Chue has clearly stated that the testing would be brand new testing and would take 3 4 hours in length to perform. He is able to obtain all the data which needs from this new testing the IBEW LU 424 needs to not interfere with this testing and let the doctor perform whatever tests he wants to do. The doctor does not need any other information all the doctor needs to know in this matter is that I have Asperger s Syndrome and A.D.D. and the doctor and that the IBEW LU 424 has occupational safety issues and that they believe that there are risks to putting me on a job site. That is the only information really the doctor needs the doctor is able to perform all the needed testing to determine if I can or cannot work. The IBEW LU 424 cannot in any way be allowed to interfere in this testing otherwise it will not be fair and impartial and by the IBEW LU 424 posing questions to the doctor would result in an unfair IME and be biased in the favor of the IBEW LU 424. I would also in no way be controlling the information like the IBEW LU 424 is trying to say either the summary report with the doctor s decision if I could or could not work along with any recommendations made by the doctor would be faxed over to the IBEW LU 424 by Dr. Chue s office. The terms and conditions which I am proposing is very much like the ones proposed by Kevin Levy in his letter dated November 25 2014 I am making every attempt to try and resolve this matter what I am requesting is a fair and impartial IME which the IBEW LU 424 does not want to give me the IBEW LU 424 wants to ensure that the IME leans in their favor and refuses to actually give me a fair chance in this IME. The IBEW LU 424 is the one that continues to frustrate this whole matter the refuse to even meet for any kind of meeting to try and resolve this matter and continue to request an unreasonable amount of information in this matter. The IBEW LU 424 continues to work in bad faith in this matter and refuses to even try and resolve this matter. I have made all attempts to try and sit down with the IBEW LU 424 to resolve this matter but the IBEW LU 424 refuses to do anything to try and resolve this matter. I have tried to setup a meeting with the IBEW LU 424 to sit down and try and resolve this matter with them and they refuse to co-operate in any way! The IBEW cannot ask for the amount of information that they currently are asking for it is unreasonable and unneeded.
Even the bulletins of the Alberta Human Rights Commission agrees with me in their own bulletins (See Item L ) http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/medicalinformationdoctors.pdf (See Item L ) Page 2. Generally, employees have a right to privacy regarding their medical information. When providing medical information for a medical absence, the doctor should ensure that the information only: relates to the operation of the workplace and the job duties of the employee, and is relevant to the time period of the absence. The employer does not have an unconditional right to full disclosure of the employee s medical situation. There are very limited circumstances when a doctor needs to disclose the diagnosis. Page 3. medical information that is not employment-related. Only information that is related to the employee s functional ability to perform specific job duties is relevant to the analysis of an employer s needs. For instance, an employer does not need to know information about an employee s restriction on lifting if their job or any modified work does not involve lifting. Requesting a life time of medical information is not employment related and the IBEW LU 424 is clearly asking for way too much information in this matter. Also by requesting a life time of medical information would clearly violate the College of Physician & Surgeons Code of Conduct and as well as the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics. College of Physician & Surgeons Code of Conduct states: (See Item M ) (g) Avoid discrimination based on, but not limited to, age, gender, medical condition, race, color, ancestry, national or ethnic origin, appearance, political belief, religion, marital or family status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. (NOTE: In human rights legislation, this is known as protected grounds.) Under the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics, it states: (See Item N ) 9. Refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins_sheets_booklets/bulletins/obtaini ng_med_info_in_workplace.asp (See Item O ) Page 5. To assess an employee's needs, the employer may request only information that is relevant to the employee's job duties. The employer does not have an unconditional right to full disclosure of the employee's medical situation. Page 6. (Item O ) Human rights law applies to a collective agreement even if it is not mentioned within the agreement itself. There is also case law which supports my position as well in this matter Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Locals 1-S, 2-S and 3 v. Sasktel, 2011 http://canlii.ca/t/fmmt5 (See Item P ) Simply put the Union claims that the information being routinely sought in both the MAR and Great-West Life forms is too intrusive and more than is reasonably necessary. Further, it maintains that the authorizations are too broad. 91. As noted by Arbitrator Munroe in The British Columbia Public School Employers Assn. vs British Columbia Teachers Federation Award at pps 7 and 8, Arbitrator Hope went on in the Victoria Times Colonist Case to observe at page 12 of that Award: it is important to recognize that there is nothing inherent in the employer-employee relationship which vests in an employer a discretionary right to compel employees to compromise their right of privacy through the disclosure of personal medical information. In particular, that is not a discretion which falls within the retained rights concept which vests in an employer those rights coincidental with the management and direction of the enterprise and the work force which have not been bargained away. 97. The result is that there has to be a balancing of an employee's right to privacy of medical information versus an employer's legitimate business interests Arbitrators have generally limited the type of medical information which employee s must provide in the circumstances, and have almost universally held an employer is not entitled to know an employee s medical diagnosis. 144. History" must be limited to when the illness, disability or accident for the current absence began. It is not reasonably necessary to enquire into an Employee's medical history. 146. "Diagnosis (including any complications)" as well as "Primary", "Secondary", "Subjective Symptoms" and "Objective Signs (including results of current X-rays, blood pressure, laboratory data and any relevant clinical findings): please attach a copy of your clinical notes and all relevant test results and consultation reports related to this period of disability" are all too intrusive and must be replaced with an inquiry as to the nature of the illness or disability.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover, 2007 FC 28 (CanLII) (Item S ) http://canlii.ca/t/1q9rf The foundational principle is that employees have a strong right to privacy with respect to their bodily integrity and a medical practitioner; therefore, a trespass is committed if an employee is examined against his or her will. Consequently, the employer cannot order an employee to submit to a medical examination by a doctor chosen by the employer unless there is some express contractual obligation or statutory authority. (Thompson and Oakville (Town) 1963), 1963 CanLII 254 (ON SC), 41 D.L.R. (2d) 294 (Ont.H.C.) at p. 302) It does not follow that an employer can automatically demand that an employee undergo a medical examination. Rather, to balance the employee s right to privacy and bodily integrity, the employer must explore other options to obtain the necessary information. Altasteel's Ltd v United Steelworkers of America, Local 5220, 2000 CanLII 29230 (AB GAA) ( Item T ) http://canlii.ca/t/g2nk7 An employer may not refuse to allow an employee to return to work on the mere possibility of medical problems in the future That is exactly what the IBEW LU 424 is doing in this matter and it is a prima facie case of discrimination the IBEW LU 424 cannot continue to keep me out of work due to the possibility of future medical problems. The IBEW LU 424 has made it quite clear that they are not willing to participate in resolving this matter and a letter dated IBEW424 will not be responding to further demands by you that it agrees to the IME process dictated by, and with the conditions set by, yourself. The IBEW LU 424 is acting nothing short of a bully either I agree to their unfair terms and conditions no matter how unreasonable they are otherwise the IBEW LU 424 will continue to do nothing and wrongly keep me out of work. Once again I agreed to the terms and conditions of the IME in the letter sent out by Kevin Levy in his letter dated November 25 2014 and then once I agreed to that the IBEW LU 424 turned around and changed the terms and conditions of the IME to a bunch of terms they knew are unfair and would result in a biased IME in their favor. Once again it is the IBEW LU 424 who has frustrated this matter and continues to frustrate this matter and refuses to co-operate and work with me in any way on this matter. Unless the IBEW LU 424 is going to pay for a lawyer of my choice for me in both matters then they will continue to have to deal with me. I do not have any legal counsel in these matter. This is not my choice I want to have legal counsel but due to the failing legal aid system in the province of Alberta I am unable to get any kind of legal assistance in this matter. Because of this the IBEW LU 424 is taking advantage to me knowing I do not have legal counsel and expects me to just give them a life time of medical information.
The IBEW LU 424 has no right to dictate as to who they are going to deal with in this matter. I am the one being discriminated against by the IBEW LU 424 and I have every right to defend myself in these cases. I am more than willing to participate in a fair and unbiased IME and I have stated that multiple times to the IBEW LU 424. But the IBEW LU 424 continues to act like a bunch of spoiled little children who will just take their ball and go home of they don t get everything their way. By all means I have the right to a fair and impartial IME here which the IBEW LU 424 is not willing to give me. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) http://canlii.ca/t/1fqlk (Item V ) 20 Both parties agree that a duty of procedural fairness applies to H & C decisions. The fact that a decision is administrative and affects the rights, privileges or interests of an individual is sufficient to trigger the application of the duty of fairness: Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, 1985 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643, at p. 653. The Union Member (ME) has rights in this matter as well regarding privacy in this matter as well which the IBEW LU 424 clearly doesn t give a damn about. I am sick of being bullied and harassed by the IBEW LU 424 in this matter and it needs to cease immediately. If the IBEW LU 424 is not willing to co-operate in these matters, then there needs to be a ruling against the IBEW LU 424 and stating that my dispatch rights are to be immediately reinstated again. The terms and conditions which I am outlining are fair and impartial and would result in a correct IME result with no bias on either side. That is what I am looking for here is a fair and equal chance at this IME and not an unfair IME where the IBEW LU 424 has rigged the IME in their favor. The IBEW LU 424 continues to refuse to work with me in any way to try and resolve this matter. I have asked for a meeting with them and they refuse to respond. The decision to suspend my dispatch abilities needs to be immediately appealed in this matter and I need to be able to return to work again. Please accept this letter as my request to appeal the suspension of my dispatch abilities.