The former head of the antenna news broadcast accused the FNCC-CSN-affiliated union of acting “arbitrarily” and “in bad faith” after its tumultuous exit from the public network in the summer of 2021. The Council rejects these allegations.

In her complaint, the former journalist claimed that her union adviser, Mr^e Julien Boucher-Carrier gave bad advice and it took too long to file a complaint for constructive dismissal and damage to reputation. This complaint was lodged beyond the statute of limitations provided for in the collective agreement. M^Me Nadeau hoped his lawsuit against his employer could be heard in arbitration thanks to a favorable decision by the CIRB, despite his late filing. Other arguments are now needed to convince the referee.

From the outset, the council rejected the former Radio-Canada headliner’s complaint against the STTRC “on the grounds that it was made outside of the prescribed 90-day period.” The court-like court wanted to decide on the matter.

At the center of the dispute: a “constructive complaint about dismissal”, the woman^Me Nadeau wanted to file a motion against Radio-Canada, addressed to his union on March 16, 2021, July 7 and 8, 2021, and August 24, 2021. As recently as August 25, 2021, the STTRC amended an existing complaint to include the issue of “constructive termination.”

An arbitral tribunal concluded that this ground should have been the subject of a separate complaint. Therefore, a second complaint was filed on February 16, 2022, but the 30-day statute of limitations provided for in the collective agreement had expired.

According to M^Me In particular, according to Nadeau, the union made a mistake “by refusing to conduct a serious investigation and review of applicable case law to determine whether it had been the victim of a constructive dismissal.” The STTRC acknowledged an error in the summer of 2021 but argued that it did not warrant a complaint to the CIRB.

According to the panel, “the union demonstrated that it understood the complainant’s situation, obtained the details of the case, expressed its interpretation of the legal concept of constructive dismissal and repeatedly analyzed whether the complaint was merited in the light of that interpretation and was open.” to amend its decision if the complainant presents new facts.”

“This shows that the union has reached well-considered conclusions,” writes the decision’s author, Sylvie MD Guilbert, attorney and Vice-President of the CIRB.

Defamation Complaint

Go back. On February 17, 2021, Pascale Nadeau was suspended for a month without pay following an internal investigation triggered by an anonymous report of “inappropriate behavior”. This “disciplinary sanction” led to the filing of a first complaint on February 25.

On August 5, 2021, Radio-Canada announced the “retirement” of its presenter, who had been on sick leave for several months. Pascale Nadeau claimed to have been forced out of office, leading to the filing of a second complaint of “constructive dismissal”.

M^Me Nadeau also urged his union on August 24, 2021 to file a complaint against his employer for defamation and defamation in connection with public statements and tweets mentioning that the former antenna boss had caused “multiple victims”.

Originally, attorney Julien Boucher-Carrier incorrectly argued that only the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide reputation and defamation cases. After M^Me Nadeau sought the advice of a “personal counsel,” and these questions were eventually incorporated beyond the statute of limitations in the February 16, 2022 “constructive dismissal” complaint.

In its decision, the board recalled that “the union has the right to make mistakes that do not otherwise indicate malicious intent or arbitrary behavior”.

“In this case, the Council believes that the union has not conducted a sloppy or superficial investigation into the issue of defamation or defamation,” the decision reads. On the contrary, the Board believes that the union has made a reasonable analysis of the circumstances of this case. »

Hearings on the merits of the first complaint, relating to the suspension, are still ongoing. The second complaint must also be adjudicated by an arbitrator.

Accompanied by The pressPascale Nadeau’s lawyer in the case, Sophie Cloutier of Poudrier Bradet, said she was “disappointed and very surprised” by the CIRB’s decision. “But for us it doesn’t stop there,” she explains on the phone. M^Me Nadeau is keen that the referee’s complaints are heard on the merits. »

Isn’t it odd that his client now has to work with the union – with which she was in conflict – in these cases? “C’est la vie,” she says.