Report of Review Committee

Complainant: Sister Sandy McDonald. Respondents: Brother René Coupal and Sister Janet Letwinka. That the respondents did violate the PSAC Constitution, Section 25, Subsection 4(e) (g) (m) and the By-Laws of CEIU, By-Law 10 Section 3(e) (g) (o). “As Co-chairs of the CEIU Convention Committee for Finance both co-chairs gave false and misleading information to members of the Committee in relation to myself and the region I represent. It was stated that Colleen Malinowsky and Pat Wakefield traveled to Alberta to help me with the regional accounts and I refused their assistance. There is no truth in this. It was also stated that CEIU National offered to pay someone to come out to Alberta and assist me with the accounts and I refused this assistance. Again there is no truth in this. It was also stated that this region is dysfunctional and not represented by the NVP and again this is not true.” Date of complaint: August 14, 2002.

Complainants: Sister Sandy McDonald, Sister Pat Wakefield. Respondent: Brother Cres Pascucci. That the respondent did violate Section 25 (5) (e) (g) (h) (l) and (p) of the PSAC Constitution as follows: “Since the vote to make Julie Paul an indeterminate staff member at the BC/YT Regional Office was defeated, the National President has sent many letters to the members of the BC/YT and Alberta/NWT/NUVT Regions criticizing the NVP’s from the regions because they did not support his position of [sic] the staffing resolution. In letters to the NVPs he made comments and imposed deadlines that were harassing and threatening to these leaders. He has deliberately criticized these leaders and interfered in the running of their regions, publicly and in meetings. Despite being asked to stop interfering in the regions, Cres has continued to send letters to the members, the latest being the week of September 23, 2001.” Date of complaint: October 1, 2001. [!]

The Review Committee requested, on a number of occasions, documentary material that would substantiate the first complaint, which did not outline any specific events or actions. That material was not forthcoming. The Committee decided that the first complaint, on its face, presented no case for the respondents to answer, and accordingly dismissed it.

The second complaint hinged upon remarks that were alleged to have been made during a session of the CEIU Pre-Convention Finance Committee, by Sister Janet Letwinka and Brother René Coupal. Brother Coupal retired in the interim from the Public Service, and is no longer a member of the PSAC. Hence his name was dropped from the complaint.

Interviews were held with Sister Letwinka (the remaining respondent), Sister Sandy MacDonald (the complainant), Brother Cres Pascucci, Sister Christine Walker and Sister Yvette Westlak, the latter two individuals having been present as delegates throughout the proceedings of the CEIU Pre-Convention Finance Committee.

The complainant herself was not present at the Pre-Convention Finance Committee when the remarks in the body of her complaint were allegedly made. Nevertheless, there seems little doubt that some comments similar in substance were indeed made, even if there is some dispute about the actual words used (e.g., “dysfunctional”).

Based upon witnesses’ statements, the context for these alleged remarks was concern expressed at various times during the proceedings of the Pre-Convention Finance Committee about the Alberta/NWT/NUVT Region’s finances, specifically with respect to regional rebates, which had been withheld for five years because orderly annual financial statements had not been submitted, for whatever reason.

Two resolutions had been placed before that Committee, which led to discussions involving the Alberta/NWT/NUVT Region. Having finally received the documentation that it deemed appropriate to release the regional rebates back to the Alberta Region, it was proposed that the regional monies be paid back in instalments, given the large amount of arrears owing. The second resolution, which was ultimately unsuccessful, was to force regions to make financial reports on pain of losing their rebates after a certain period of time.

After hearing the witnesses, it became apparent to the Committee that the attribution of the alleged remarks to the respondent, regardless of the words or content of those remarks, could not be substantiated. The witnesses were forthright in their responses to all questions put to them. One found herself unable to state positively that the remarks had been uttered by the respondent, although she was certain that they had been uttered. Another admitted frankly that the words set out in the complaint may have reflected only the substance of what was said, rather than the words, and that it was difficult to recollect who had made such comments in any event.

The respondent herself stated that her remarks had been in relation to the issue of outstanding financial statements from the Region. With respect to the first statement attributed to her, she stated that she had referred to assistance, not with the Region’s finances, but with an up-coming Presidents’ Conference in the Region. She adamantly denied having used words such as “dysfunctional,” and stated that she had chosen her words carefully when this matter came up.

Short of any conclusive evidence that Sister Janet Letwinka made the remarks attributed to her in the complaint, the Committee was of the view that the second complaint must be dismissed.

The Committee dealt with the third complaint by conducting a careful review of the documents submitted in support of the complaint, interviewing the complainants (Sister Sandy MacDonald and Sister Pat Wakefield) and interviewing the respondent, Brother Cres Pascucci, in the presence of his lawyer, Mr. Andrew Lister.

It is not in dispute, and indeed the documents were before the Committee, that Brother Pascucci did send a letter dated March 30, 2001 to Locals in the BC/YT and Alberta/NWT/NUVT regions, linking expected difficulties in servicing the members to a vote at the CEIU National Executive defeating a resolution to give permanent employment status to a term union representative at the Vancouver CEIU regional office. In the text of the letter, Sisters Sandy McDonald, Pat Wakefield and Colleen Malinowski were referred to by name as having voted against the resolution. Moreover, Brother Pascucci did attend a BC/YK Regional Council meeting held June 9-10, and, in the absence of two of the three NVPs mentioned in his letter of March 30, criticized their leadership at the gathering. While accounts differ in some respects, Brother Pascucci did not deny having expressed his disappointment with Sister Colleen Malinowski and Sister Pat Wakefield, as alleged.

Letters were provided to the Committee from Local Presidents to Sister Wakefield, critical of her for her vote at the National Executive, and making clear reference to Brother Pascucci’s March 30 letter.

Brother Pascucci was asked by the Committee about the role of a National President with respect to National Executive decisions. He stated, very clearly, that the National President should “stand by” Executive decisions, if not “defend” them.

Yet it is clear that in his letter of March 30, 2001 and his comments at the BC/YK Regional Council meeting, he did no such thing. He was unhappy with the decision of his Executive, and made no bones about it. He carried what should have been an internal Executive dispute to the membership. Far from “standing by” the decision, he was openly critical of three NVPs who had voted with the majority.

Brother Pascucci notes, quite rightly, that there was nothing non-factual or abusive in his letter and other communications on the subject. Moreover, he was firmly of the view that service in the Regions would be affected by the National Executive decision, and the Committee sees no reason to question his sincerity on this point. But neither matter is relevant to the question at hand: namely, that he used his authority as National President to sow discord in the Alberta/NWT/NUVT and BC/YK Regions, undermine the complainants in their role as NVPs, and be publicly critical, not only of a decision taken by his Executive, but also of individuals who had played a part in making that decision. A major part of the Executive officers’ role is to assist in making Executive decisions, a role that is compromised when they are open to public criticism by the National President if they are part of a decision with which the National President disagrees.

The Committee found Brother Pascucci’s explanations for the March 30 letter somewhat disingenuous. If the decision of the National Executive was going to have an impact on service in the Regions-and the Committee has no reason to disbelieve this-then the National President had a responsibility to find a solution to the problem. The Committee obviously has no difficulty, in principle, with alerting Locals to servicing problems, and would expect that a problem-solving approach would, over time, rectify the situation. But the Committee has serious difficulties with the approach taken by Brother Pascucci in this instance, which was essentially to publicly assign blame to NVPs who had been part of a democratic process of National Executive decision-making.

Turning now to the PSAC Constitution, and to the sections set out by the complainants as having allegedly been violated by Brother Pascucci, the Committee finds as follows:

Section 25 (5) (e): “publishes or circulates among the members, false reports or misrepresentations.” The Committee can find no evidence that Brother Pascucci violated Section 25 (5) (e).

Section 25 (5) (g): “slanders, libels or willfully wrongs an officer of the Alliance, its Components, Locals, or Area Councils.” The Committee found no evidence that Brother Pascucci slandered or libelled the complainants. But the Committee does find that he willfully wronged them in his actions as set out above.

Section 25 (5) (h): “uses abusive language or disturbs the peace of any meeting, or around any office or meeting place of the Alliance, Locals, or Area Councils.” The Committee found no evidence that Brother Pascucci used abusive language or disturbed the peace of a meeting.

Section 25 (5) (l): “deliberately interferes with an official of the Alliance or its Components, in the discharge of duties.” The Committee finds that Brother Pascucci did so interfere with the complainants.

Section 25 (5) (p): “sexually or personally harasses another member.” The Committee finds that Brother Pascucci personally harassed the complainants.

We hence uphold the third complaint, and find that Brother Pascucci violated Section 25 (5) (g), (l) and (p) of the PSAC Constitution.

Report of Review Committee

Part Two

Before getting to our recommendations flowing from the third complaint, the Investigation Committee believes that it is necessary to put some general observations on the record.

It is abundantly clear that longstanding clashes of personality had led to a no-win situation in which the National Executive at the time was unable to resolve problems in a collaborative manner. A clear example is the situation that indirectly gave rise to the second complaint, which we dismissed for lack of evidence. For five years, substantial regional monies had been withheld from a Region; for five long years, in other words, a serious problem remained unresolved. The Committee is forced to note that such a state of affairs cannot be blamed entirely upon one party or the other, but upon a flawed or nonexistent process for problem-solving, and the lack of political will to improve it. Such a situation was hardly of benefit to the membership, whom all union leaders, regardless of internal disagreements, are expected to serve.

Turning our attention to the third complaint, which we have upheld, we find that our contention in the previous paragraph is amply demonstrated by the events from which this complaint flowed. Shorn of extraneous detail, the events may be boiled down as follows: the National President (Brother Pascucci) was unhappy with a decision of the National Executive, which the complainants had supported. He took steps to embarrass the complainants politically, making critical remarks at a Regional Council meeting in BC/YK Region and sending a letter out to Locals in the Alberta/NWT/NUVT and BC/YK Regions, informing them that their NVPs had supported a motion that would cost the Regions with respect to membership servicing.

The fact that no abusive language was used, and that the complainants had indeed voted with the majority, is irrelevant. Brother Pascucci stated that a National President “stands by” the decision of his Executive. In fact, this should be expected of someone in his position. Instead, he proceeded to express his displeasure within the Alberta/NWT/NUVT Region, effectively exposing the two complainants to political fallout rather than recognizing that they were a part of a decision made by the National Executive as a whole, and respecting and “standing by” that decision.

Such actions as those of Brother Pascucci could have prompted retaliation-letters to the membership/activists putting the other side of the story and being critical of his leadership as National President. But what would the members make of such public leadership feuds? Do the latter instill confidence in the union?

The conduct of Brother Pascucci in the matter of the third complaint was, in the Committee’s view, grossly inappropriate. It was divisive, self-serving and threatened the integrity of the National Executive’s collective process. It unfairly targeted members of the National Executive who had voted in the majority on an issue. It had the potential to divide, confuse and discourage the membership.

The Committee believes that a strong message must be sent that such behaviour on the part of members entrusted with leadership responsibilities in the union cannot and will not be tolerated. Accordingly, we make the following recommendations:

That Brother Pascucci write a formal letter of apology to the complainants and to the current National Executive of CEIU for his actions;

That Brother Pascucci be suspended from membership for a period of one year; and

That Brother Pascucci not be awarded a CEIU Life Membership in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________ _______________ _____________

John Baglow Céline Préfontaine Barbara Stewart Chair

OTTAWA, September 15, 2003.