Ex-worker claims rights breach
Former Vancity employee says she was fired for boyfriend’s criminal links
VANCOUVER — A former Vancity employee has filed a human rights complaint against the credit union alleging she was unfairly dismissed because her boyfriend at the time had criminal links.
The woman, identified only as “C” in the case, said Vancity discriminated against her “on the basis of family status and marital status.” No hearing date has been set. But the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal recently ordered C to pay $2,500 toward Vancity’s legal costs after her lawyer improperly used documents provided by Van-City for a separate complaint filed by C against the Victoria Police Department.
Vancity sought to have C’s complaint dismissed because of the conduct of her lawyer, Terrence Becker.
Vancity would not discuss the case. “Vancity takes the protection of all human rights very seriously, including those of our employees, members and the community at large.
“As this matter is before the Human Rights Tribunal, we are unable to comment on the specific details of this case,” said John Allen, Vancity’s vicepresident of People Solutions.
In a July 29 ruling, tribunal member Norman Trerise refused to throw out the complaint, but did agree that Becker had “engaged in improper conduct.”
Trerise laid out some details of C’s human rights complaint in the ruling.
“The complaint relates to C’s termination by Vancity on the basis of her common-law association and financial benefits potentially received from a former partner engaged in criminal activity,” Trerise said. “Vancity denies that they discriminated against her, submitting that it would have suffered undue hardship if they were required to continue to employ C.”
C claimed that Vancity officials “aggressively interrogated” her on Sept. 25, 2014, “about her knowledge and involvement of the criminal actions of a former partner in life.”
“It is alleged that, at the end of this meeting, Vancity collected C’s access card and escorted her out of the workplace and told her that she was not to return to work indefinitely,” Trerise said.
“It is further alleged that, on October 14th, 2014, Vancity terminated C’s employment based upon her ‘direct common-law association and financial benefit from a known criminal offender.’ ”
C’s lawyer received documents from Vancity’s lawyer in November 2015 along with instructions that he was not allowed to pass them on to any third party.
The Vancity lawyer said that if Becker didn’t agree to keep the material confidential, he should return it to the credit union without making any copies.
But Becker turned around and provided the material to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner to support C’s “complaint filed against members of the Victoria Police Department,” Trerise said in his ruling.
Rollie Woods, the office’s deputy commissioner, said that he couldn’t comment on C’s complaint against the Victoria police “due to confidentiality provisions in the Police Act.”
By handing over the documents, Becker “compromised practice and procedure of the tribunal significantly and did so in the face of clear warnings,” Trerise said.
“The submissions of Mr. Becker reflected no remorse for the aforesaid improper conduct and, indeed, attempted to justify it. Such actions must be dealt with seriously so as to deter others from similar misconduct.”
But Trerise said it wouldn’t be appropriate to dismiss C’s human rights complaint. He also agreed to C’s request to have a ban on her name.