Fair treatment policy anything but

Nd Rubin Thomlinson report authors found issues in UPEI’S complaint process

There is one significant problem with the “fair treatment complaint” process used to resolve conflicts at UPEI — it isn’t fair. In fact, it’s about as fair as a cat in a cattle car. As Frederick Douglass once said: “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.”

The authors of the Rubin Thomlinson report write that: “UPEI would not provide us with any of these investigation reports (often written by HR Atlantic), so we are unable to comment on the … quality and whether they would be viewed as sufficient, should a… court, tribunal, or arbitrator, have occasion to review them.”

So, authors from the highly respected law firm, which exposed a devastating history of petty bullying at UPEI, were not provided the information they needed to judge whether years of fair treatment reports provided to UPEI would even carry weight in a court of law. This is very curious. (Let’s ponder why not— it’s not really complicated).

CIRCULAR PROCESS

Here is how the process does not work: The respondent— who is compelled by UPEI to go through the process — is asked to meet with an “investigator” and is asked to submit to questions, often from a lawyer— no legal representation is provided the respondent.

This is contrary to proper legal practice in Canada. Investigators apparently often ask questions about the respondent’s “feelings” though they are utterly unqualified to do so. (My feelings are for my wife and my cat).

If either party appeals, the complaint ends up, not at an independent arm’s-length law firm (or even one pretending to be), but right back at UPEI. There, senior administrators insert themselves into the once armslength process to pass judgment. At this point, even the pretense of fairness has flown out the window and crashed into a brick wall.

The authors of the Rubin Thomlinson report write that: “(UPEI) university community members … do not perceive that HR Atlantic is independent from the University… this is an issue that should be addressed.”

The reason community members do not perceive HR Atlantic as independent from the university is because it is not.

Ron Macleod, the “fair treatment advocate” for UPEI, the individual who decides which complaints are “investigated,” is a founding partner of HR Atlantic (they call him their “guru”), the firm that handles the majority of complaints.

He is hired by UPEI. When addressing complaints, he works for UPEI. The more complaints Macleod approves for “further investigation” the more money HR Atlantic and its founding partners — like Macleod— make. Sweet gig, eh?

SILENCING VOICES

One person should not be given sole responsibility for making such consequential decisions, and particularly when that one person profits to a greater degree every time he approves a complaint for further “investigation.”

Interviews with employees who have endured the process indicate these complaints often constitute petty harassment in and of themselves, and that the process is being used to silence critical voices in the university community. This administrative thuggery has to cease.

Considering the conduct of the present administration under the interim president throughout last year’s faculty strike (contravening the fair treatment policy themselves on an almost daily basis by maligning and belittling their own faculty and sessionals publicly via UPEI communications staff), ending the manipulation of processes that are supposed to be independent and have already been identified as problematic by Rubin Thomlinson will go a long way to healing this damaged university.

Let’s hope the new president and board address the issue immediately. Honestly, isn’t it time for UPEI to grow up? The whole fiasco has the faint sound of “Dueling Banjos” underneath it all.