Ex-contractor was wrongfully banned from City of Winnipeg work following 'nasty' accusations: judge

A longtime heavy machine operator should be allowed to get his old job back, says a Manitoba judge whofound a ban against the worker was based on "nasty and wrong assumptions" made by a city worker following a petty dispute.

The worker, a 59-year-old man, had been a contracted machine operator for the city for about 18 years until he was banned from all city work, after a supervisor accused him of attempted theft and trespassingwhile trying to restockhis truck ahead of a job the next day.

The operator later sued the city for loss of income.

Manitoba Court of King's Bench Justice Chris Martin dismissed that claim on Monday following a three-week-long trial, but said the city should allow the man to return to his old job if he pleases, since the ban was "neither well-grounded nor just."

The plaintiff "was not dealt with fairly," Martin wrote in an April 15 court decision. "It is the only right way to make amends."

CBC is not naming the plaintiff in order to prevent any further damage to his reputation.

The 59-year-oldhas operated tandem trucks, backhoes and other heavy machinery for about 50 years, beginning as a child on his family farm, and workedfor the city's water department and wastewater department under his own company, which was subcontracted solely to another contractor for the city from 1999 to 2017.

But he hasn'tbeen allowed to work for the city since then, following a string of disputesbetween him and city workers, and complaints the judge's decision said had "no basis in fact."

On March 31, 2017, the crew's supervisor accused him of not wearing proper safety equipment and making a rude comment to his foreman when he was confronted, which the operator later denied.

That same day, "a petty misunderstanding" between workers at the same job site about the man's willingness to help other crew members led the supervisor to blame the man, even though he didn't do anything wrong,Martin wrote in his decision.

A few weeks later, the city's contract administrator met with city personnel, including the supervisor, about the man's"supposed misbehaviour" and decided to ban him from working with the water department.

The contract administrator's inquiry"was essentially just to hear what [the supervisor] told him; he did not drill down into the accusations at all," Martin wrote.

"He justified his decision as desirable to stop the reported misbehaviour and to support [the supervisor], who clearly did not want" the man working with the city water department, the decision said.

Alleged attempted theft

After that first ban, the plaintiffcontinued to work for the city's wastewater department, but soon after was barred from working for that department too, following "careless and damning accusations" made by the same supervisor months later, the court decision says.

The supervisor told city personnel the 59-year-oldlied, trespassed and attempted theft when he drove his tandem truck to pick up mud from an outdoor yard shared by the city's water and wastewater departments.

The man had been clocked out of work, but went to restock the truck since he knew he'd need the mud the next day for a wastewater job, Martin wrote in his court decision.

But when he got to the site, there was no one working on the wastewater side, so he drove to the water department's side to ask a backhoe operator for mud. The operator refused and reported what happened to the supervisor, who sent an email to city personnel demanding they ban the operatorfrom city work altogether.

Two days later, when he was in a city building used by both departments, the supervisor told him he wasn't allowed to be there and threatened to call police if the man didn't leave. The supervisor again sent a complaint about the operator to city staff.

By Dec. 1, the city's contract administrator had decided to permanently ban the operatorfrom city work because of the alleged attempted theft and the earlier complaints made by the supervisor, according to the court decision.

No one asked the plaintiff about what happened during the alleged theft attempt or asked for his side of the story following the earlier spring 2017 incidents, the court decision says.

'Nasty and wrong assumptions'

Martin found that the city isn't liable for the plaintiff's loss of income, in part because the city contract administrator did not intend to cause economic harm and "acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the city."

Instead, Martin urged the city's lawyers to tell city personnel to lift the bans against the man.

Neither of the bans"were objectively, reasonably justifiable based on anything [the plaintiff] did or did not do," Martin wrote.

If the spring 2017 incidents had been handled between the plaintiffand a "bias-free manager," the operatorlikely wouldn't have been banned from working in the water department, the decision said.

The city supervisor also "jumped to nasty and wrong assumptions" in his accusation of attempted theft against the operator, the judge wrote.

The 59-year-old "is a hardworking, fundamentally honest and decent man," Martin's decision said.

"The city should act honourably and voluntarily lift both bans, particularly as most of the city employees involved have moved on."