Last summer, someone complained to the ombudsman’s office that the Yukon teachers’ union’s appeal process was unfair to them, stemming from a harassment and retaliation complaint against the union. Following a formal investigation into the “systemic nature and significant impact” of the Yukon Association of Education Professionals’ appeals process, the Yukon’s ombudsman’s office has provided a handful of recommendations to the union.
The ombudsman’s office’s investigation found a “problematic appeals process which was compounded by a lack of training and a limited pool of individuals to hear an appeal,” as noted in the 27-page report, dated Jan. 30, 2025. The complainant isn’t named or identified by occupation in the report.
The problems cited include not hearing the appeal quick enough, unfair practices in the conduct of the appeal and that people who didn’t have proper training to conduct the appeal were nominated to do so.
Five recommendations came out of the ombudsman’s office’s investigation including amending policies and bylaws, providing appropriate training and re-hearing the appeal.
The educators’ union is working on adopting the ombudsman office’s recommendations, according to an email statement on behalf of the union’s Special Committee.
“We welcome the oversight and guidance, and appreciate the collaborative efforts of the Ombudsman to reach a resolution in this matter,” reads the statement.
The educators’ union has three to six months to carry out the recommendations, as noted in the ombudsman's report.
If suitable action isn’t taken within a reasonable amount of time, then the ombudsman may submit a report to the commissioner in Executive Council and the Yukon Legislative Assembly about the matter.
The ombudsman is expected to notify the complainant about the result of the probe within a reasonable timeframe.
The complaint
On Oct. 13, 2021, the complainant reported a harassment and retaliation complaint to the educators’ union, according to the ombudsman's report. The complaint involved members of the Finance Committee; thus, it was made to the Ethics Committee chair, who in turn formed an Independent Investigative Committee (IIC).
The chair of the Ethics Committee was the only person tasked on ICC. That person hired an outside investigator — Tonie Beharrell of Southern Butler Price LLP — to look into the complaint, and an investigation report was filed with the IIC in late 2022.
That investigation report revealed several findings related to the harassment and retaliation complaint, but didn’t make any recommendations.
The IIC issued its decision regarding the complaint on June 7, 2023. IIC determined, based on the investigator’s findings, that several instances of harassment and retaliation had happened. IIC imposed disciplinary actions against the Finance Committee members.
The decision determined that releasing the investigation report and the decision would “unfairly prejudice the reputation” of the Finance Committee members and refused to circulate the information to the union’s membership.
By email, the complainant appealed portions of the appeal on July 5, 2023. Concerns revolved around whether the disciplinary action was sufficient, accusations of bias, and the choice not to release the report and the decision on the investigation.
Given allegations of conflict and bias, another committee — the Special Committee — was formed to hear the appeal. The ombudsman’s report refers to difficulty recruiting members for the committee. In the end, an eight-hour session was held on April 17, 2024, and the Special Committee came to a consensus with respect to the appeal.
Over the next 11 months, the complainant inquired with the union about the status of the appeal. On June 5, 2024, the complainant got a copy of the report, which upheld relevant portions of the initial appeal and dismissed the complainant’s appeal in full.
The complainant complained to the ombudsman’s office on June 27, 2024.
The main issues at play in the ombudsman's probe were: did the Special Committee members have a bias or conflict of interest, what process was followed to hear the appeal and did the union conduct the appeal in a procedurally fair way.
The ombudsman’s office’s investigation didn’t find any evidence of bias, but the procedure followed to make the appeal decision was unfair for reasons mentioned in the report including that committee members lacked familiarity with the contents and context of the investigation report and spent an inadequate time on the matter.
The ombudsman’s investigation uncovered concerns related to the complainant’s right to procedural fairness.
“While not an excuse for the Authority, we find that there was no maliciousness to the failure to follow principles of procedural fairness, simply a lack of knowledge and training,” reads the ombudsman’s report.
The special committee overly limited its scope when reviewing the decision, per the ombudsman’s report.
“The narrowly read interpretation of the email by the Special Committee is procedurally unfair and a breach of the right of the Complainant to be heard during the Appeal process,” the report reads.
The union’s lack of established policy or procedure around appeals constitutes unfairness to the complainant, as does the delay the complainant experienced, according to the ombudsman's office report.
Contact Dana Hatherly at dana.hatherly@yukon-news.com
