THE DEMOCRATIC REPORTER
Pages of Special Interest;
Other Table of Contents;
|This letter was delivered to the persons named, Feb. 12/01. The wording in this letter has, had its grammar changed very slightly to make it more readable. The font is a bold one, so words that were bold on the original letter don't stand out. |
As the City of Mississauga is escalating its use of harassment and violence against its own employees and as I am also a victim of the same methods, this letter is post in the hopes of bringing an end to the City's third world style of government.
Contact names with the union can be supplied, e-mail me for further information.
use of HARASSMENT & VIOLENCE before someone is crippled or killed!
City of Mississauga.
RE: Demand for explanation, regarding the violent anti-Union actions
Mayor H. McCallion & City Manager. Feb. 12, 2001
I am greatly alarmed at the escalating level of violence against members of the newest Union at City hall and members of the public in general. The City allows, if not encourages, more violent acts by its lack of concern regarding past violent acts. It has escalated to ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM, contrary to section 267(B) of the Criminal Code of Canada! The Mayor of Mississauga has literally told the world that Mississauga has a "zero-tolerance" for acts of "violence" on all City property and in City facilities. It is becoming clear that the City's commitments to its own policies, such as WORKPLACE HARASSMENT, STANDARD OF BEHAVIOUR, VANDALISM AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR IN MUNICIPAL FACILITIES and even CONFLICT OF INTEREST, are little more than token and bias. These policies are used mainly against those not on Hazel's team and to carry out politicians anti-democratic political agendas. I do not support these City's policies, especially the Vandalism and Violent Behaviour in Municipal Facilities, as it is so extreme it can be called fascist but as the Mississauga City Council has made it law, City staff must enforce it equally and fairly. Instead the City can be clearly seen, in the events noted in this letter (and there are other examples), to be turning a blind eye to offenders employed by the City, who violate these policies, so long as it is against those who are not on Hazel's team. There is great concern that these acts of violence and others noted in this letter are part of a effort to bust a Union and disrupt the upcoming Union elections by the election of Union stewards that are pro-Hazel. As a part of City efforts to eliminate this newly formed Union.
There are three individuals who were the driving force behind the Union drive at City Hall and now one is dismissed, one is off work on medical leave as a result of the harassment and one has been injured after being physically attacked. These brave men set out to create a Union to overcome the favouritism shown to some employees who were in tight with City managers and superiors. These persons were getting more hours, the better jobs, less work and usually are not qualified to be doing the building maintenance jobs they were (that is dangerous to the public using City buildings). This forced the working men and women at City Hall to form a Union to get the fair and honest working relationship with their employer that can only come from a Union. Doing a good job and working hard was not enough to satisfy the City. Also from my web-site another example that this corporate culture of favouritism had many benefits to those who had little regard for City policy/rules, (http//home.eol.ca/~donbar/persons/MarkF.htm#3), letters from the public regarding the City - "witnessed that an employee of the City can inappropriately use his employment connections to acquire the use of Hydro Mississauga's heavy equipment and manpower for his private landscaping in his backyard." How can they carry on so? Clearly they know the higher ups will protect them from their own actions/accountability and as long as they do other people's dirty work, they will stay in the City's/Hazel's good graces.
- 2 -
The first man (call him Tom), to fall was clearly set up. First Tom was followed around by security for days, hoping to provoke him, when that didn't happen a more direct approach was used. Only a couple of weeks after the Union filed its first unfair labour practices with the Labour Board, this happened. It was claimed that Tom verbally threatened a co-worker, who was not present and at a time when it was witnessed that he was alone with security. The police were called and they heard about four different versions of the story, "Ultimately, the police decided that there was no basis to lay criminal charges in connection with the allegations and, in fact, no criminal charges have been laid.", ever. However the City used the police intervention as grounds to try and go on a "fishing expedition", for whatever to "harass, intimidate and punish one of the Union's known key supporters". Tom was not willing to comply with this; he was suspended and later dismissed. At the Labour Board, while the Union was trying to get Tom reinstated, the Mediator sent them packing as the six persons representing the City, including a lawyer, said they didn't have the authority to make any decisions in this matter. After it was noted the City reasons for suspension and dismissal were inadequate. Does this sound like the City wants to resolve the matter fairly? I think not and I would like the City to explain its action regarding these events. I would like to know why the City sent highly paid staff to the Labour Board that do not have the authority to act for the City. Are they just puppets and who does make the decisions? How can the City claim to a just employer when it fires a reliable worker after the accusation is proved to be false? The City was conducting a malicious witch hunt, why would any reasonable person cooperate with that?
The Union was certified Feb. 25/00 and there is a contract but part of the deal was to set aside some 65 unfair labour practices with the Labour Board, a form of cover up, as the City wanted Union issues out of the way in time for the municipal election. The City also wants to be spared the embarrassment of the public seeing how it harasses and abuses its power over people by creating false reports and other methods. That the direction for this abuse came from the highest levels in the City. The efforts to undo the contract are on going.
City politicians didn't want the public to know the details of how it had taken work away from its own staff to give to outside contractors, unfair job evaluations, Union organizers harassed with numerous negative reports and disciplinary action. Generally, it was open season on Union men and women. The details of how to get ahead at City Hall, to gain favor with the City and be on Hazel's team. And the City has not given up, after all Hazel can tell you there is more then one way to skin a cat. Traditional political methods are remove your opponents from being involved, take over whatever organization exists and turn it into your own tool or in this case de-certify the Union. Why was so much work taken away from the qualified City staff and was there any form of kick backs' from these outside contractors?
The second man (call him Larry), had been harassed in the work place for so long and even more so as he fought to create a Union, so City workers would have some protection from the whims of managers and superiors, that he had to go on stress/medical leave. The City is still harassing him if he makes an effort to be involved in Union meetings and keep Hazel's team from hijacking their barging unit. His involvement in Union affairs should be seen as an act of self defence and self preservation. The City however, likes a corporate culture and the culture in the City as a whole, where people can't fight City Hall or Hazel's team. Is the City going to stop harassing Union members who only want a fair and reasonable work place free or harassment and politics, which clearly has not been the case in the past?
- 3 -
The case of the third man (call him Bob), was the most physically violent, so far. In this case Bob was attacked by a person involved in the setup of Tom and from Jan. 25, till Feb. 2, the City took no action against the attacker! I have been informed the attacker was allowed to carry on working at his job, whereas Tom was out the next day. If that is not bad enough, I was also informed that the attacker was, in a week from when the City knew he was charged with assault, partying as he has just been promoted!! The new motto at City Hall should be, who do you have to beat up, to get ahead around here. How is this possible? Further more I have been informed that Bob, a soft spoken man, was attacked by a man at least five inches taller and one hundred pounds heavier then he, that the doctor's report says there is injury to his lower back. It was not until a copy of the charge was faxed to the City that action could be seen to be taking place. City managers and supervisors were informed right away that Bob was thrown against a wall and collapsed to the floor (there is no doubt this took place and Bob was clearly injured), and that the same person had threatened Bob the week before. They went through motions of appearing to investigate but even when they were specify told by Bob, the City has "zero-tolerance" policies, they just swept it under the rug. Bob had to call the police. Are the City managers/superiors who oversee that section competent to carry out City policies? Bob calls in that he is not coming into work as he was injured by the attack and all the fancy policies the City has and their "zero-tolerance" for even hints of violence, are simple overlooked? Or is it that the City managers/superiors who oversee that section were carrying out a City or political bias against Union members and organizers? It is clear that the more serious the violent act the less severe the punish and response from the City. How is that possible and does it not show a double standard, an anti-Union bias?
Why? Is it because of a double standard at the City Hall? That those who are on Hazel's team get benefits and protection from their actions and everyone else gets shafted? After all a team looks out for its own members and interests. What the City did do is called a cover up. And what about the police? They have been very useful to the City, in this and other cases, such as being sent by politicians, after me as politicians didn't like my "demeanour". Why didn't they lay a charge in a case where someone was injured? From what I see they are on Hazel's team. Why did the City wait so long to take action? How is it that the City can suspend a noted Union organizer the next day and then wait over a week in the case of an attacked on a Union organizer before starting a proper investigation? How can that person get promoted, in view of what they have done? Will the City soon require for employment at the City, proof they are violent criminals willing practice their trade for the God-Mother?
But speaking of cover up there is another example of how the City/politicians directs its staff to commit acts that are wrong, that harass and which violated provincial legislation and at least one City By-law. As well as City policies such as the conflict of interest. Yes I am talking about Joan LeFeuvre. She withholds service as the FOI Co-ordinator to make sure I will not get records that will prove how badly the City is harassing me and states that no records exist regrading an event that the City Clerk called security against me for no apparent reason or with warning. No records? Someone is not doing their job (or maybe they are covering up for each other), and that can only mean a cover up to protect senior City staff or above. As Joan is working with the City Clerk, Arthur Grannum, to bring a legal action against me for factually reporting their violating provincial legislation and at least one City By-law, at the direction of the Mayor. There appears to be a pattern to the abuse/harassment the City dishes out to those who are not on Hazel's team.
- 4 -
That the word comes from the top to build a false history against them by filing false records to claim the other party is at fault, for the purpose of using City politics and the law to end their opposition to Hazel's team. It is call framing a person and it is unlawful but only if you are caught, right Hazel?
It would be appreciated if our Mayor, Hazel McCallion would go on the record with the reasons why she directed Arthur Grannum and Joan LeFeuvre to stop work on my FOI request (1994), and never had enough moral integrity to put her decision in writing so it could be legally challenged. I say and correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I will have reason to know I am right, that the Mayor knew she was breaking the law of the land and didn't write a letter, in order to cover up her actions, avoid the law and its consequences.
Yes old habits die hard, I say the methods used on me in the past are the same ones being used against Union members today and that more acts of violence and abuse are likely in the future. As a politicians our Mayor knows how to end the resistance of groups to her agenda, cut off the head and the body dies. As City employees see the City and its managerial staff not enforcing the City's policies to stop harassment against Union members and others not on Hazel's team, this encourages more acts of harassment and violence. They are setting a negative example of going after Union founders. In political terms, to claim that highly restrictive policies are in place to ensure there will be no acts of harassment or violence against City staff and then not enforce them or selectively enforce them on the victims (those not on Hazel's team), is called "The Big Lie". And it can only lead to greater and greater act of violence. Two pages of supporting quotes from City policies are enclosed.
Hazel McCallion, does it concern you at all, that people's career's, their health and that injuries are occurring at City Hall - that you are ultimately responsible for as well as being it's moral leader?
I would ask our Mayor to call off her goons and go on the record telling everyone to back down. Otherwise we can only know that you feel it will serves your political agenda to encourage more conflict and violence.
This is an open letter and it is posted on my web-site - home.eol.ca/~donbar.
I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want something explained. My phone number is (905) ***-**** & e-mail is email@example.com. There is an answering machine you can leave private messages on. As long as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone.
City of Mississauga policies, supporting quotes;
PURPOSE; The Corporation of the City of Mississauga's objective is to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each individual.
STANDARD OF BEHAVIOUR;
This standard of behaviour may apply while the employee is off duty, as well as on duty, if the employee's off duty behaviour is prejudicial to the City's interest, and/or if the behaviour impairs the employee's work performance, or impairs the trust and confidence that an employer is entitled to expect in an employee, and/or if the behaviour has negative consequences for the Corporation.
- 2 -
VANDALISM AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR IN MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[ I would say that a way to further your career (which means more money), at City Hall is to be on Hazel's team and go after the persons who oppose her political agenda. ]
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated