FILE PHOTO

Image Credit: FACEBOOK

A former District of Summerland employee is suing for wrongful termination.

Maarten Stam was earning an annual salary of $109,242 when his employment was terminated on June 30, according to a lawsuit filed, Dec. 22.

His letter of termination alleged he had been dishonest and his lawsuit claims that's not true.

Stam was hired as foreman for the District in 2010, was promoted to manager of public works for the District in 2013, and had several new responsibilities piled onto him in 2014.

He was overwhelmed by the general workload and was told it was only temporary until the District could hire more employees, according to the civil suit.

It seems as though 2017 was an extra stressful year for Stam – it was a particularly devastating summer for floods and wildfires and the District had to cancel employee vacation time due to a lack of resources, so when his mother died, he was able to travel to Holland for the service but had to return home immediately to get back to work.

In 2019, the District acknowledged the Public Works Division was overworked but never increased staffing.

“Just deal with it” was the solution he was given, which resulted in him performing uncompensated work after-hours.

“At or about this time, the District’s interim CAO continued to make promises to the public which resulted in even further operational work for Mr. Stam and the Works and Utilities Department,” according to the lawsuit.

In 2020, the District didn't renew the contract of its health and safety officer and unloaded the responsibilities onto Stam.

“At this time, fewer staff were expected to do more work,” the suit claims.

The District subsequently began allowing local businesses to get patio permits. “This decision unilaterally added yet another responsibility to Mr. Stam’s workload.”

Joe Mitchell, who had been recently hired as director of works and infrastructure at the time, commented that the workload given to Stam's department was insurmountable, the lawsuit claims.

Then Stam’s dad died and he was unable to attend the funeral due to his heavy workload.

“All of Mr. Stam’s stress caused by his intense workload, family loss, lack of sleep, little to no downtime and resulting marital stress began to impact him immensely,” the claim reads.

While facing “incredible stresses,” Stam was paying for more counselling than his work benefits would cover.

In February 2022, Giants Head Brewing applied for a patio permit.

Stam raised concerns with the District over the permitting procedure but was ignored.

“As well, this additional obligation increased the already overwhelming and unreasonable workload expected of Mr. Stam,” the claim reads.

The patio was installed around May and the public started complaining it wasn't safe enough.

Stam’s concern was with the planters. "These planters were top heavy, unsecured, and a hazard to potential customers as they could easily fall and cause damage.”

After speaking with the owner of Giant’s Head, Stam was promised the safety of the planters would be improved.

Over a week later, someone else called to complain about the safety of the brewery’s patio.

On June 22, Stam went over to check it out and didn’t notice any improvements made.

“Upon seeing that weeks had gone by with no change from the GHB business owner, Mr. Stam decided to test the safety of the patio planters himself and gave them a gentle nudge.”

The planter fell over and then knocked another planter over. Neither of the planters broke.

"However, this vulnerability to tipping demonstrated to Mr. Stam that the patio was unsafe for customers as laid out," the claim reads.

Then Stam left to take care of other tasks.

He left the planters knocked over “to evidence the concerns and so as to not provide the appearance that it could be business as usual.”

On June 24, Stam tried to email the brewery owner about the situation, but was unable to mention “the details of his testing of the planters.”

However, the email never made it to the owner, instead it was seen by Mitchell who forwarded it to the CAO. The lawsuit does not explain how this happened.

“The District then took the position that Mr. Stam was untrustworthy because he had not gone into a description of his nudging over the large planter to the business owner.”

The District investigated Stam’s conduct and found him to be untrustworthy.

“Further, the investigation was hastily conducted and did not allow Mr. Stam an opportunity to provide his account of the events," the lawsuit claims.

He was dismissed on June 30.

“Due to the hasty and harsh way Mr. Stam’s employment was terminated, Mr. Stam suffered feelings of embarrassment, shock, sadness, distress, confusion, disbelief, disappointment, rejection, discouragement, betrayal, feelings of being unsupported, disrespected, unsettled and disassociation,” the claim reads.

Throughout his tenure, he performed exceptionally and with an incredible work ethic, the lawsuit claims.

“The District created circumstances for Mr. Stam to fail in his employment again and again. When he did eventually make a mistake, the District was swift in their punishment of Mr. Stam in the most severe way possible within an employer’s authority,” the claim says.

He tried to find a better work-life balance while he was still employed and made Human Resources department aware of his unreasonable workload.

“Mr. Stam was open and honest with HR, often becoming tearful due to the stress he was experiencing in his personal and work life,” the claim reads.

He’s asking for damages for wrongful dismissal, aggravated damages, punitive damages, and costs of the legal action.

The District has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Information in this article is based upon allegations that have not been proven in court.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Dan Walton or call 250-488-3065 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2022