FILE PHOTO - It cost taxpayers in Summerland almost $100,000 to unsuccessfully fire one of the district's employees.

Image Credit: GOOGLE STREET VIEW

It cost taxpayers in Summerland almost $100,000 to unsuccessfully fire one of the district's employees.

But the employee kept her job, and then the district paid her even more for the period she was wrongfully out of work.

The employee, who The Herald has chosen not to identify, held the senior-most position and was unionized when she was shown the door in April 2020. Just 10 days before her layoff, a new power line technician was hired. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers filed a grievance on her behalf and were successful.

“The timing of this layoff in relation to the work commencement of the new (power line technician) is extremely suspicious,” the independent arbitrator ruled.

The district tried to appeal the ruling but was unsuccessful.

Information relating to the cost of firing the woman was obtained by community watchdog Brad Besler.

The district argued the details of the layoff were protected as privileged information, but the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled that it was not.

The district was ordered to create a record of the costs – the sum of $98,891.10 – for Besler, who posted the result on his Facebook pages and sent documentation to area media outlets.

Summerland Mayor Doug Holmes refused to comment on the matter, and its appeal, which have both been settled in court.

In addition to the nearly $100,000 in legal bills, the district was also ordered to repay the rehired worker for lost wages and benefits.

Summerland CAO Graham Statt wouldn’t say how much that was.

How could it have seemed like a good idea to fire a unionized employee with the highest level of seniority?

“At the time the district needed to lay off many staff due to a budget shortfall from unanticipated impacts from the global COVID-19 pandemic, including in small departments with just a few people like the electrical utility,” Statt said in an email.

“These kinds of budget actions were not uncommon during the pandemic and were undertaken by organizations around the world in response to similar pressures at that time. The legal expenses in this case are significant but they are far less than bringing on permanent staff as in-house legal counsel for personnel matters.”

Representing the district unsuccessfully – while racking up the $98,891 bill – was Vancouver law firm Roper Greyell LLP. They had two lawyers on the payroll.

Will the District be seeking advice from them again?

“In terms of legal counsel we make those decisions on a case-by-case basis,” Statt said.

He didn’t comment on why two lawyers were needed.

— This story was originally published by the Penticton Herald.

News from © iNFOnews, 2023