Bergeron v. Télébec Limitée and Alain Rivard

Bergeron v. Télébec Limitée and Alain Rivard
Collection
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Date
2004-05-21
Neutral citation
2004 CHRT 16
File number(s)
T741/4602, T742/4702
Decision-maker(s)
Doyon, Roger
Decision type
Decision
Decision Content
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
PIERRE BERGERON
Complainant
- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Commission
- and -
TÉLÉBEC LIMITÉE
and -
ALAIN RIVARD
Respondents
DECISION
MEMBER: Roger Doyon
2004 CHRT 16
2004/05/21
[TRANSLATION]
I. INTRODUCTION
II. EVIDENCE
A. Complainant's evidence
(i) Pierre Bergeron
B. Respondents' evidence
(i) Serge Faubert
(ii) Claude Mayrand
(iii) Alain Rivard
(iv) Lyne Doroftei
(v) Dr. Jean-Joseph Condé
(vi) Josée Ferron
(vii) Richard Leblanc
III. THE ACT
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF
V. ANALYSIS
A. Was the Complainant adversely differentiated against in the course of employment because of a disability (depression)?
(i) Layoff on December 6, 1995
(ii) Layoff on January 24, 1997
(iii) Layoffs in 1997
(iv) Layoff on December 24, 1997
B. Was the Complainant harassed by the Respondents in the course of employment because of his disability (depression)?
VI. CONCLUSION
I. INTRODUCTION [1] On October 10, 2000, Pierre Bergeron filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) against his employer, Télébec Limitée (Télébec). He alleged that his employer discriminated against him by treating him in an adverse manner in the course of employment and by refusing to provide him with a harassment-free work environment because of his disability (depression), contrary to sections 7 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act).
[2] Pierre Bergeron also filed a complaint on October 10, 2000 with the Commission, in which he alleged that Alain Rivard, a Télébec employee, discriminated against him by harassing him in the course of his employment due to his disability (depression), contrary to section 14 of the Act.
[3] At the start of the hearing, the Commission announced that the facts giving rise to the complaints warranted an inquiry by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It stated that its role at the hearing was limited to an opening statement in which it recalled the principles that must guide the Tribunal in all human rights matters, particularly regarding discrimination.
II. EVIDENCE A. Complainant's evidence (i) Pierre Bergeron [4] Pierre Bergeron was hired by Télébec as an installer/repairman on May 7, 1987. He had a college diploma in social science and a college diploma in electronics. It was a temporary position in the Rouyn-Noranda area. After three (3) months of working with a more experienced employee as his mentor, he was transferred to Ville-Marie where he performed his duties alone. In April 1988, he obtained a permanent installer/repairman position in La Sarre.
[5] In 1990, the Complainant applied for a splicer position in La Sarre and obtained the position on April 23, 1990. On November 20, 1995, he was informed that he would be laid off as of December 6, 1995 with recall rights for a period of 24 months.
[6] A collective agreement governs the labour relations of Télébec employees. The witness acknowledged that his seniority did not allow him to keep his job in his splicer job category, but did permit him to bump another employee in the installer/repairman job category because he met the requirements of the position that he had previously held for three years. The Respondent did not allow him to exercise his bumping right. He filed a grievance on December 6, 1995, which was referred for arbitration on April 25, 1996 and the Teamsters Union withdrew the grievance on April 30, 1997.
[7] Pierre Bergeron claimed that, had he been able to exercise his bumping right, he would have continued to have stable employment, but that the refusal left him feeling insecure, which was the cause of his depression in August 1996.
[8] During a meeting with the grievance committee in March 1996, he learned, without knowing the specific source of the information, that employees on the callback list were never hired back. However, he was called back to work as of March 26, 1996 as a lineman in Sainte-Rose on the Lac Abitibi project for a period of approximately two and one half months. His working conditions were not those provided for in the collective agreement in force at the time of his layoff in December 1995. For example, travel time was no longer paid and the meal allowance had been eliminated.
[9] On May 15, 1996, the Complainant was informed of his layoff effective May 31, 1996 with recall rights for 24 months. However, on May 27, 1996, Pierre Bergeron was informed that his layoff was postponed to a later date. From June 3 to 21, 1996, the Complainant obtained a temporary promotion as a splicer. On June 12, 1996, the Complainant was again informed of his layoff effective July 12, 1996, which was postponed to August 2, 1996.
[10] The witness stated that, around July 19, 1996, Claude Mayrand offered him a permanent installer/repairman position in Val d'Or starting August 6, 1996. Pierre Bergeron had submitted a transfer request on May 15, 1996 as an installer/repairman in Val-d'Or when two installer/repairman positions (Exhibit I-14) in Val-d'Or were posted; he accepted the position. His acceptance ended his temporary promotion. It was a demotion that suited him because of the permanent nature of the position. At the end of the posting period, the Complainant learned that the Respondent had not selected any of the applications it received. As a result, when he was offered this installer/repairman position, it was not, in his view, the position he had applied for. He understood instead that the offer was the employer's acknowledging his bumping right he had asserted through the grievance he filed after he his layoff on December 6, 1995. However, he had not withdrawn this grievance because he suspected his employer of setting a trap for him. In his view, Télébec believed that he would not be able to perform the duties of an installer/repairman and that he would quit his job. He claimed that subsequent events showed that his concerns were valid.
[11] On Tuesday, August 6, 1996, he reported in to Claude Mayrand, his immediate supervisor in Val-d'Or. The latter appeared not to have been informed of his arrival and he had no vehicle or tools to provide him with for performing his work. The Complainant went to the depot to collect his tools.
[12] The next day, a vehicle was made available to him and he put his tools in it to work with a colleague. At the end of the day, since he did not have enough tools to do the job satisfactorily, he suggested to his immediate supervisor that he take Thursday and Friday off and return to work the following Monday with a vehicle having the right equipment and that was used by a student whose job would be over at the end of the week. His immediate supervisor accepted his suggestion. The Complainant stated that, over the weekend, specifically August 10, 1996, he became depressed and attempted suicide.
[13] He consulted his attending physician, Dr. Guy Perrier, on August 12, 1996, who diagnosed him with major depression; the physician recommended hospitalization, but he refused. His physician referred him to a psychologist and scheduled a return to full-time work on September 16, 1996. He saw his physician again on October 1, 1996, and he extended his absence from work until November 4, 1996; he met with his physician again on October 30, 1996 and the latter scheduled a return to part-time work, with no restrictions, on December 2, 1996.
[14] During the week of August 12, 1996, Claude Mayrand went to his residence to give him medical form BC1935, which he was to have his attending physician fill out and return to his employer. Pierre Bergeron claimed that the visit was only an excuse to ensure that he was indeed sick. In addition, during his convalescence, which ended on December 2, 1996, he noticed that Claude Mayrand drove slowly by his residence in his vehicle several times. Pierre Bergeron believed that his immediate supervisor was checking up on him to see if he was at home, and he felt harassed.
[15] During the same convalescence period, since he had obtained a permanent installer/repairman position in Val-d'Or, the Complainant, who was living in La Sarre, took steps to find a place to live closer to his place of work. He signed a purchase offer for a house in Val Senneville on November 4, 1996.
[16] On November 26, 1996, the Complainant met with Dr. Jean-Joseph Condé, a Télébec physician, with whom he arranged a gradual return to work, with no restrictions, at a rate of two consecutive days for the week of December 2, 1996, three days a week as of December 9, 1996 and full time as of January 3, 1997. He went into work on December 2, 1996. He stated that he felt exhausted after those two days of work. He had the chance to meet with Claude Mayrand and Alain Rivard. In the Complainant's view, that meeting was intended to put a great deal of pressure on him to get him to quit his job. Alain Rivard reportedly said to him, You would be better off quitting than staying here.
[17] On December 9, 1996, in Dr. Condé's absence, he met with the nurse in the physician's office to explain that he had had difficulty doing two consecutive days of work the previous week. He arranged with the nurse to work two consecutive days that week instead of the three previously arranged.
[18] During that work period, Claude Mayrand and Alain Rivard, his immediate supervisors, took him to a room to criticize him for his work performance and unwarranted absences. He stated that he started to cry because of the criticism directed at him.
[19] During the week of December 16, 1996, Pierre Bergeron worked on December 16, 18 and 20. On Monday, December 16, 1996, Alain Rivard informed him that, in the next few days, he was planning to install a business telephone system that had three telephone lines with the potential of eight telephones. The Complainant asked Alain Rivard for training prior to installing the telephone system, particularly for programming it. Alain Rivard denied his training request and told him that he was given the installer/repairman position because he supposedly knew what to do. Throughout that day, he did wiring work at Val-d'Or Performance. He stated that he does not recall submitting a request to Claude Mayrand, during the week of December 16, 1996, for taking December 23, and 24, 1996 off.
[20] On December 18, 1996 when he arrived at work, the business telephone system was to be installed, and the Complainant went to the customer site, the Brasserie la Pépie in Val-d'Or. He first had to remove the existing telephone system and then install the new one. While he was working, the Complainant noticed a central office assignment error such that the telephone numbers were not routed to the right place. He managed to correct the problem with the help of a colleague who was performing an installation at a nearby business.
[21] The witness stated that his installation and programming work went fine except for preventing long-distance calls from the telephone set in the kitchen. He informed the customer that a colleague would come to complete the work.
[22] At the customer's request, the witness moved a public telephone. Since the work was not originally planned, he borrowed the required tools from a colleague and moved the public telephone. Pierre Bergeron was very satisfied with his day's work and believed that the customer was very satisfied too.
[23] Since he was on sick leave on Thursday, he went to work Friday morning, December 20, 1996. He was again greeted by Claude Mayrand and Alain Rivard. Alain Rivard criticized the quality of his work at Val-d'Or Performance the previous Monday. He told him that he did not need someone who could not keep up with the group. He even advised him to quit before it cost him his life.
[24] The Complainant revealed that he felt crushed and humiliated and that he burst into tears, but nevertheless began his day's work at a customer site to do pre-wiring. During the week of December 23, 1996, staff was reduced for the holiday period and he had to work on December 23 and 24, 1996 to respond to emergencies and he was then on leave until January 6, 1997. Around 3:30 p.m., he felt on the verge of tears. He returned to the office and cleaned his truck. The witness informed his dispatcher that he was leaving work and that he would notify the secretary. When he arrived at the secretary's office, he started to cry and was not able to talk to her; he indicated that he was leaving even though it was 4:30 p.m. and was supposed to finish at 5:00 p.m. When he left the secretary's office, he encountered Claude Mayrand. He was too upset to talk to him and he waved his hand at him. In spite of the depression symptoms he was experiencing, it was not until January 13, 1997 that he decided to see his doctor.
[25] He returned to his home in La Sarre and, at the end of the week, he thought he had partied too much or ate too much because on the morning of Monday, December 23, 1996, he was still at home sick, with gastro-enteritis.
[26] Before the start of his shift, he contacted the secretary to say that he would be away because he was sick and that, if he did not call the next day, he would be away that day too. He requested pay for the days he was away by using vacation days instead of sick leave.
[27] On January 6, 1997, the Complainant went to work. He claimed that, despite the arrangement with Dr. Condé for returning to work full time with no restrictions starting January 6, 1997, he decided that his work week would be four days. He said that he had spoken with his attending physician but there is no document confirming this.
[28] The Complainant stated that when he arrived at work on Monday, January 6, 1997, Alain Rivard and Claude Mayrand were waiting for him. They criticized him for leaving work on December 20 without informing his immediate supervisor. Alain Rivard also criticized him for his unwarranted absence on December 23, 1996, which showed that he could not be trusted. He again criticized him for the quality of his work, including at the Brasserie la Pépie. Alain Rivard reportedly added that a letter of reprimand would be placed in his file and he claimed that this was done. Pierre Bergeron tried to provide an explanation but they refused to listen to him and he again started to cry. In cross-examination, when asked to provide details about the letter of reprimand that was to be placed in his file, the witness referred to a memo dated December 23, 1996 from Claude Mayrand to Alain Rivard.
[29] After that meeting, he was assigned some pre-wiring work at a car dealership. He agreed to work with two colleagues from 4:00 p.m. to midnight for the next three days. He did pre-wiring in a government building.
[30] Even though he still believed that his work week was four days and that they were over, he went into work on Friday, January 10, 1997. At the end of his work day, he was summoned for a meeting with Claude Mayrand in the presence of Jean Levert, the union steward. Alain Rivard took part in the meeting via video-conference. He explained that, during the time he had been an installer/repairman, Pierre Bergeron had failed to demonstrate that he was capable of performing the new duties in accordance with the standards required for that position.
[31] As a result, he was returned to his original position as a cable splicer in La Sarre. However, since the position had been eliminated in December 1995, he was to be laid off as of January 24, 1997 with recall rights for a period of 24 months. Claude Mayrand issued him a written layoff notice dated January 10, 1997 (Exhibit P-21).
[32] After being laid off, Pierre Bergeron filed a grievance on January 26, 1997, which was withdrawn by the union on April 30, 1997. Despite his layoff scheduled for January 24, 1997, Télébec offered him, and he accepted, some splicing work for a project in Parc de la Vérendrye from January 27, 1997 to February 21, 1997, pursuant to an agreement with the Teamsters Union. He worked with Serge Chayer, another splicer. However, the usual working conditions provided for in the collective agreement were not respected. As such, the travel, accommodation and meal allowances had been eliminated. In addition, travel time from his home base to the place of work was not paid. He did not file a grievance, however.
[33] The Complainant claimed that, when he was laid off on February 21, 1997, Serge Chayer stayed on the job although he had less seniority than he did. However, the Complainant did not file a grievance.
[34] In July 1997, Pierre Bergeron received a telephone call from the Human Resources Department offering him work as a splicer for repairing the cable feeding the Chibougamau airport. This was for a 52-hour period of work during the week of August 4, 1997, which the Complainant accepted. The conditions of employment were confirmed in a letter to him from Claude Mayrand dated August 4, 1997. The working conditions, arranged through a letter of understanding with the Teamsters Union, did not comply with the collective agreement, according to the Complainant's claims, but he agreed to come back to work anyway, particularly since at the end of that employment period, he would have another 24 months of recall rights, and he did not file a grievance.
[35] Given that the first Monday of August was a statutory holiday, his immediate supervisor, Claude Mayrand, gave him permission to go from La Sarre to Chibougamau during the day on August 4, 1997 and start work on the Tuesday, specifically August 5, 1997. His immediate supervisor, Claude Mayrand, informed Lyne Doroftei in writing on September 16, 1997 that the Complainant's work was satisfactory.
[36] In October 1997, he was offered temporary work as a cable splicer for a period of approximately six weeks starting October 20, 1997, and he accepted. This was a project in Chibougamau of approximately six months. The work for the project was subcontracted out except for the splicing, which was assigned to the Respondent's employees. Once again, the conditions of employment for this project did not comply with the collective agreement by reason of a letter of agreement between the employer and the Teamsters Union.
[37] Pierre Bergeron believed that the agreements between Télébec and the Teamsters Union, which deviate from the provisions of the collective agreement, did not apply to him as a splicer because they referred only to technicians and linemen. When giving him the temporary assignments that he accepted, Télébec should have given him all the benefits provided for in the collective agreement. As a result, he believes that he was treated differently by the Respondent compared to other employees who were given the benefits provided for in the collective agreement.
[38] Although he disagreed with the specific conditions set out in that letter of understanding, he accepted the work and did not file a grievance. His immediate supervisor was Richard Leblanc. At the end of November 1997, his immediate supervisor informed him that the contract would be extended for an indefinite period. He understood from Richard Leblanc's words that he would have work until the end of the project. However, he did not recall Richard Leblanc's telling him that his temporary assignment would end on December 24, 1997.
[39] Pierre Bergeron stated that he had health problems at the beginning of December 1997. He maintained that he was expecting a relapse of his depression. On December 8, 1997, he went to the Radissonie-Chibougamau CLSC, where he saw a physician who prescribed Paxil for him. The witness revealed that he had a bad reaction to the Paxil and had to be hospitalized on December 9, 10 and 11, 1997 in Chibougamau.
[40] On December 10, 1997, Pierre Bergeron had a visit from Alain Rivard, who gave him written notice from his immediate supervisor, Richard Leblanc, that he would be laid off as of December 24, 1997 with recall rights for a period of 24 months.
[41] On December 11, 1997, a physician from the Radissonnie CLSC issued a medical certificate with a diagnosis of depression and sick leave starting December 9, 1997.
[42] The Complainant left the Chibougamau hospital on December 11, 1997. He travelled from Chibougamau to Val-d'Or using his employer's vehicle and then his own vehicle to his residence in La Sarre.
[43] He saw his attending physician, Dr. Guy Perrier, on December 15, 1997, who recommended sick leave from December 15 to 29, 1997. He saw the Complainant again on January 6, 1998. In his report, he described his patient's depression and recommended a return to full-time work on January 6, 1998.
[44] Following his layoff, the Complainant was never called back to work. Between May 21, 1998 and September 10, 1998, he filed 10 grievances. After reviewing them, the Teamsters Union concluded that all the grievances, except one involving payment of a lump sum, were unwarranted. The Complainant filed a complaint with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board on October 2, 1998 against the Teamsters Union for failing to respect its representation duty, but the complaint was dismissed.
[45] The Complainant produced an appraisal report for 1995 prepared by Jean Mercier, Director of Network Maintenance and Works. Jean Mercier said that the Complainant met the quality and productivity standards as an overhead, underground and building cable splicer. He contributed to the team's success on the projects they were assigned to. Moreover, the quality and administrative management of his work had improved and the employee handled his equipment and his occupational health and safety well. His effectiveness was equal to that of his colleagues.
[46] The witness also produced an appraisal report for 1996 prepared by Claude Mayrand dated March 3, 1997. The report described the Complainant's problems adjusting to changes in the company, which forced him to switch from a splicer position to an installer/repairman position. Productivity and quality of work were not being met. He could not handle the pressure brought on by a new position.
[47] Pierre Bergeron was asked to describe the duties of an installer/repairman during the three years after Télébec hired him, specifically 1987 to 1990. He was assigned to installation and repair of telephone lines in the residential sector. Work would be assigned to him by means of a work order. Installation consisted of running a wire from the junction box on the pole to the residence and then wiring the interior of the residence based on the number of telephone jacks that the customer had requested. The installer/repairman would also deliver telephone sets to the customer. At that time, telephone sets did not need to be programmed. Repair work required the installer/repairman to go to the customer's home to identify the source of the fault. If it was the telephone set, it would be replaced. If it was the wiring or connections, the installer/repairman would do the repairs. Residential work occupied about 80% of the Complainant's time.
[48] He was also occasionally called upon to do the same work in the business sector, but for about 20% of the time. He would install Panther telephone systems, equipped with programming that gave customers some features such as ring tones and the hold function. In the Complainant's view, programming a telephone system was much harder in 1987 than it is today. He would install public telephones, but the programming was not his responsibility.
[49] In March 1988, the Complainant received eight hours of training on the Trillium telephone system and, in March 1989, eight hours of training on the Tie telephone system. These were business systems. He acknowledged, however, that, despite the training his employer provided, he did not have to install and program these telephone systems. His work was limited to repairing the systems.
[50] On May 7, 1996, Télébec posted two installer/repairman positions (96-19NO and 96-20NO), one of which Pierre Bergeron applied for. To obtain the position, the candidate had to meet the minimum requirements. In cross-examination, he was asked to demonstrate whether he met all the requirements, namely:
College diploma in electronics or the equivalent and a driver's licence. The Complainant stated that he met these requirements.
Bilingual (French and English): an asset. The Complainant stated that he could write in French and English and could speak French fluently, but not much English.
Knowledge of various products and maintenance services (Norstar series and others): an asset. The Complainant acknowledged that, compared to 1990 when he was an installer/repairman, many more services were offered in 1995 and many products had been added, especially with the arrival of computers. More powerful and more sophisticated telephone sets he was not familiar with had flooded the market.
Ability to transact and communicate with customers. The Complainant admitted that in 1990 his work consisted of completing a work order, not selling telephone systems. Occasionally he would offer the customer an additional telephone set.
Knowledge of programming principles. Since he had only installed one programmable telephone system, the witness acknowledged that he had little knowledge of programming principles.
Basic data transmission knowledge. The Complainant admitted that he had no basic knowledge for meeting this requirement.
[51] The job posting also included a summary of the position, including:
Contact customers in advance. The witness acknowledged that he did not have to do this in 1990, and that in 1996, the installer/repairmen had become salespeople because they would recommend products to customers based on their needs.
Occasionally provide work estimates for business installations. The witness acknowledged that this was not included in an installer/repairman's duties in 1990.
Perform a basic inspection of one's vehicle, be responsible for it, drive it safely in the course of one's work and identify mechanical problems. The witness stated that these duties were the same in 1990.
Promote and sell the company's products/services and equipment. The Complainant stated that this was not part of an installer/repairman's duty in 1990 and stated that he was unaware that it existed in 1996.
Adequately represent the company to customers. The Complainant stated that he did not know whether this was part of an installer/repairman's duty in 1990.
Perform the work safely, accurately, promptly and courteously; be available to travel. These requirements were also part of an installer/repairman's duties in 1990.
[52] Pierre Bergeron also described a splicer's work. It involves joining wires. A central cable contains many smaller cables that are routed underground in different sectors. The splicer connects the wires. In 1992, fibre optics appeared on the market. The joining work was then done by laser. In addition to connecting wires, the splicer would also repair cut cables and replace worn cables.
[53] On July 2003, the Complainant prepared an information document about the current hearing, in which he wrote that it was the result of Télébec's discrimination and harassment towards him. The document was entitled [translation] Welcome to the Proceedings (Exhibit I-2). The Complainant placed this document on the windshields of vehicles belonging to the Respondent's employees in Val d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda. He had about 40 copies of the document. He also arranged for the document to be placed in the mailslots of Rouyn-Noranda employees and executives. He explained that he did this to obtain encouragement from his former colleagues.
B. Respondents' evidence (i) Serge Faubert [54] Until 1997, when he retired after 30 years of service, Serge Faubert was General Manager of Télébec's telephone network for Abitibi-Témiscamingue, which had about 125 employees under 10 immediate supervisors, including Claude Mayrand and Alain Rivard.
[55] Serge Faubert stated that in 1987 when he started in his position, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue telephone network was obsolete. Télébec had to invest heavily to provide the region with a cutting-edge network comparable to those in large urban centres. Massive hiring was required for that. Serge Faubert indicated, however, that as the work progressed, he identified that layoffs would be necessary, and they occurred at the end of 1995.
[56] The cuts were made among executives and employees, particularly those assigned to installing poles and cables and to splicing. The witness explained that the possibility of layoffs hugely affected the workers' morale, and they became worried and anxious.
[57] Before proceeding with the staff reductions, the witness took part in meetings with human resource managers and union representatives to ensure that the layoffs would be done in accordance with the collective agreement.
[58] Lists of employees likely to be called back to work for specific projects were prepared, and the employees who were laid off had recall rights for 24 months, as per the collective agreement. To reduce operating costs, Télébec intended to subcontract out work. However, to give preference to recalling employees on the callback list, Télébec and the Teamsters Union agreed, through letters of understanding, to amend some of the working conditions set out in the collective agreement.
[59] Pierre Bergeron was then notified on November 20, 1995 that he would be laid off as of December 6, 1995 due to a reduction in work following a company reorganization.
[60] Serge Faubert stated that, at the end of 1996 or the beginning of January 1997, he met with Claude Mayrand and Alain Rivard, the Complainant's immediate supervisors, to discuss the fact that the Complainant took days off when he was needed at work. The witness stated that, in his view, Pierre Bergeron's conduct warranted a written disciplinary measure placed in his file.
[61] The meeting also dealt with the issue of the Complainant's skills and ability to perform the installer/repairman duties. His immediate supervisors believed he did not have the technical qualifications for the position.
[62] Serge Faubert revealed that he understood their assessment. He explained his claim by the fact that the installer/repairman duties had changed a great deal over the years. In fact, when the Complainant was working as an installer/repairman from 1987 to 1990, his duties generally consisted of residential installations and repairs. In 1996, the duties became much more complex since the work was done in the business sector and required the installer/repairman, in addition to doing installations, to program more sophisticated systems. It was therefore much more specialized work and required working with customers; the installer/repairman had to promote and sell equipment.
[63] Serge Faubert also stated that he had met with some of the Complainant's colleagues, including Jean Levert, the union steward, who informed him that the Complainant was not capable of fulfilling the installer/repairman duties. He wanted to know what Télébec's intentions were with respect to keeping that employee on staff.
(ii) Claude Mayrand [64] Claude Mayrand has been employed at Télébec for 20 years. When he was hired, he had a college diploma in electrotechnology. He started out as an installer/repairman for three years. He then worked for a year and half on a team of workers who installed poles, cables and strands. He was then assigned to maintenance work, such as cable repairs, for about two years. Claude Mayrand was then assigned as an installer/repairman in James Bay for two and half years. When he returned from James Bay, he was promoted to Manager of Line Planning and Estimating. Two years later, he became Manager of I&R (installation and repairs) from 1995 to 1998. In 1998 he was promoted to Manager of Network Management until he went back to school in 2000.
[65] The witness was asked to describe the tasks specific to the position of installer/repairman for the residential and business sectors between 1987 and 1990.
[66] In the residential sector there were two parts to the installer/repairman work. First there was exterior cabling, which involved running service wires from the pole to a box at the customer's residence. Then there was interior cabling, where the installer/repairman would install wires in the house to provide access to the telephone set connections. Performing these tasks required knowledge of the colour coding of cables in order to do the connecting.
[67] The second part was repair work. It involved disconnecting the customer's telephone line to check the line's resistance and the condition of the ground.
[68] The witness submitted that, overall, the installer/repairman at that time would spend about 95% of his time in the residential sector.
[69] Claude Mayrand stated that the installer/repairman would occasionally perform his duties in the business sector. This involved installing small telephone systems called Trillium and Panther by doing cabling. He would also do programming using predetermined fixed registers. As an example, the witness mentioned assigning lines to telephone sets and the type of ringing. The witness felt that 1% of the installer/repairman's work involved programming.
[70] The witness explained that, in 1992, microprocessors came to the business sector, which led to the appearance of numerous telephone systems. Because of microprocessors, the volume of data sent to telephone sets increased. Programming languages could therefore be integrated into the telephone systems. With the disappearance of fixed registers, customers could now have systems that were more tailored to their needs.
[71] Claude Mayrand believed that, because of the new technology, the installer/repairman had to add analysis work to his regular duties. The witness illustrated that statement with the arrival of the Norstar telephone system, which had three lines and eight telephone sets. According to him, this system was not very complex. Then came the 032 and SL1 systems, and programming them required knowledge of register management.
[72] The witness stated that video-conferencing then appeared on the market. The installer/repairman had to deal with a new technology, which was also true with the arrival of the Internet.
[73] As for the residential sector in 1996, the installer/repairman duties changed, partly because the obsolete network had been updated and partly because new installations were less frequent, and so was the need for repairs.
[74] He maintained that, in 1996, 90% of the installer/repairman's work was devoted to technical aspects, programming and customer relations, and 10% to the install/repair work as it was in 1990.
[75] The witness was asked to describe how the knowledge of someone with a college diploma in electronics was necessary for the duties of an installer/repairman. He explained that this diploma gave the installer/repairman sound basic knowledge of electronic concepts such as capacitors, the phenomena associated with inductors, and aspects of resistance and programming.
[76] The witness stated that, confronted with the new technology, Télébec put telephone systems in service centres, such as those in Val d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda, to enable installer/repairmen to become familiar with the new equipment and upgrade their skills. Information sessions were also given by the manufacturers of these systems.
[77] Claude Mayrand was Pierre Bergeron's immediate supervisor when he came into work in Val d'Or on August 6, 1996. He acknowledged that there might not have been a vehicle available for him to do his work. However, he added that the Complainant was then teamed up with another installer/repairman for doing cabling at Forage Benoît. Claude Mayrand went to the site to ensure that the work was up to standard. He recalled that the Complainant's colleague told him that the Complainant was rusty and not very productive.
[78] Claude Mayrand recalled that Pierre Bergeron was then away sick and returned to work on December 2, 1996. At that point, he was no longer the Complainant's immediate supervisor; Alain Rivard had taken over that responsibility. He himself was Pierre Bergeron's immediate supervisor only in Alain Rivard's absence.
[79] Claude Mayrand recalled that, during the week of December 16, 1996, when Alain Rivard was away, the Complainant asked for permission to have December 20 and 23, 1996 off. Claude Mayrand contacted the Network Operations Centre to find out the workloads for those dates. After receiving a response from the Network Operations Centre, the witness denied the Complainant's request, given that the workload required all staff to be on duty.
[80] The witness stated that, on December 20, 1996, he went to the work centre in Val d'Or. At around 3:30 p.m., he met Pierre Bergeron in the hallway. He greeted him and exchanged a few words with him, and the Complainant told him that things were going fine. Claude Mayrand stated that, when he got back to his office, the Network Operations Centre called to notify him that the Complainant had left work around 3:30 p.m. because he was sick, whereas his shift was to end at 5:00 p.m. Claude Mayrand realized that the Complainant had neglected to inform him before leaving work, even though he should have done so.
[81] In addition, on December 23, 1996, Claude Mayrand was filling in while Alain Rivard was away. He received a call around 8:00 a.m. from Chantal Bédard, the secretary, informing him that the Complainant had contacted her to notify her that he could not come in to work because he was sick and to record his absence as vacation days.
[82] Since Claude Mayrand knew that an employee could not take vacation without prior authorization, he contacted industrial relations to determine what procedure he should follow. They informed him that a disciplinary measure could be placed in Pierre Bergeron's file for unwarranted absence. He then designated the absence as sick days. Claude Mayrand decided to put off making a decision until after the holidays, when the Complainant's immediate supervisor, Alain Rivard, would be back at work. However, he did write a letter to Alain Rivard that same day describing the events and suggesting a meeting with the Complainant on January 6, 1997.
[83] Claude Mayrand did meet with Alain Rivard on January 6, 1997, and they decided that they would meet with the Complainant on January 7, 1997. Alain Rivard asked Claude Mayrand to accompany him since he was there during the events. The witness recalled that the meeting was held in a meeting room at the Val d'Or Work Centre around mid-afternoon on January 7, 1997. It lasted 20 or 30 minutes.
[84] Claude Mayrand recalled starting the meeting by telling Pierre Bergeron that he had not followed the procedure for leaving or being away from work and that his absence had disrupted operations and obliged colleagues to work overtime. The witness recalled that the Complainant accepted these comments stoically. Alain Rivard then spoke and pointed out to the Complainant that there were problems with his productivity and to inform him if there were specific things he needed for performing his work, because he wanted him to be comfortable in his job. Claude Mayrand stated that the Complainant said that everything was going well in his job and that he was just as capable as all the other installer/repairmen. Claude Mayrand also recalled that he was polite during the meeting and that at no point did the Complainant cry.
[85] When the meeting ended, Claude Mayrand continued speaking with Alain Rivard. They discussed the Complainant's skills and ability to perform the duties of an installer/repairman. Claude Mayrand expressed his concerns to