Dionne Investigation Statement .pdf
Original filename: Dionne Investigation Statement.pdf
Title: Dionne Investigation Statement
Author: Guy Fawkes
This PDF 1.3 document has been generated by Word / Mac OS X 10.7.5 Quartz PDFContext, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 10/07/2016 at 02:47, from IP address 209.197.x.x.
The current document download page has been viewed 749 times.
File size: 93 KB (2 pages).
Privacy: public file
Download original PDF file
June 20, 2016
Mr. Georges Nadeau
Investigator for ACEP-CAPE
Dear Mr. Nadeau,
It’s been over a year since I was asked by the EC Bargaining Group and CAPE leaders to
take over the position of Chief Negotiator. I managed to get some past emails to help me
write this report. I will start with the following quote from Michael Donohue’s email
dated November 3, 2015.
On Nov 3, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Michael Donohue <firstname.lastname@example.org>
“Our lead negotiator (Claude Danick) left largely because he couldn't put up
with you. That was a huge loss. Then you asked Lionel to take the job, but you
wouldn't actually let him do the job. You spoke when you shouldn't have at the
table. You had secret and completely inappropriate meetings and phone calls
with Cynthia (TBS Negotiator). You tried to monopolise the discussion in the
back room. And you undermined Lionel's position at every step. Then you laid
him off at the very last second. Now you continue to try to ram through your
own personal goals and agenda, with total disregard for the input of the
That paragraph about sums it up. I have to agree.
On March 11, 2015, I was offered the Negotiator position on a contract basis. As I had
been part of the EC, TR and LoP groups for about a year and a half, I knew pretty much
what the bargaining issues were. So I went about to organize the bargaining sessions to
the best of my knowledge. I had been a Negotiator before and had been to the bargaining
table for many years as a Research Officer.
On April 28-30, 2015, the EC Group had its first bargaining session with TBS. The first
two days, things went on in a normal way. On April 30, just before noon, as we were
about to leave the bargaining table, Emmanuelle (Tremblay) took over the session with
an outburst of grievances addressed to TBS’s Negotiator (Cynthia). I had never seen this
kind of behaviour before. When we got back to caucus, I had to tell Emmanuelle there
was only one Negotiator at the table and that she should let me be the spokesperson since
I was paid to do it. She hesitantly nodded she understood. From that moment, the team
realized we could have a problem with her perception of bargaining.
On the same day, right at the end of the session, she again started to negotiate with the
TBS Negotiator. She also met with Cynthia while we were at caucus before we called it a
day. The EC members were openly wondering who was CAPE’s Negotiator!!
During the next bargaining session, on June 23 and 25, Emmanuelle “hijacked” the
sessions with an agenda of her own on the issue of Sick Leave. She prepared a document
on the subject that we took June 23 to discuss and rearrange. This document was
presented to the Employer (I understand the purpose for this document was to buy time
before the election coming in October). This document was not discussed by the team
prior to the bargaining sessions. This upset the team and made them question their role in
Then in September 2015, as the federal elections were about to happen, Emmanuelle
decided the following (without asking the team):
From: Emmanuelle Tremblay
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:14 PM
To: Lionel Dionne; David Hinton
Cc: VP Ann Nemec; ME COLLINS; Karen Johsnon; Nick Giannakoulis;
Subject: RE: EC Group update, for you information
I have asked Lionel to start working on a survey tool that will allow us to also
seek a revised mandate from our members post October 19. Your views will be
sought as soon as we have a draft ready. We will also have to explore ways of
engaging members directly (town-halls or focus groups) to make this a more
Looking forward to it!!
I have to insist on the words “revised mandate”. Who revises a mandate in the middle of
bargaining? And who decides on the “revision” of a mandate without first asking the
bargaining team what they think about it?
At that point, the little confidence the EC team had with Emmanuelle was quickly
disappearing. I have to say I agree.