The most significant excerpts for the D.P. (David Phillip) Jones arbitration decision concern 1) his reasoning concerning overturning the discipline of the two weeks suspension, and replacing it with a letter of reprimand; 2) his reasoning concerning rejecting the termination; and 3) his reasoning concerning non-reinstatement. The full arbitration decision can be read here. The important claims made by Arbitrator Jones are highlighted in the documents.
Arbitrator Jones’ reasoning concerning the two week suspension is provided below.
One of the most serious failures of Jones’ reasoning concerns his claim on paragraph [581] that
“There is no evidence to indicate that the Employer ever suggested that social media
communications were somehow exempt from the Personal Harassment Policy, the Code of
Conduct, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, or the Alberta Human Rights Act.” This is contradicted by the MRFA’s January 16, 2024 submission, which references this evidence from the Eichler1 investigation of the “gang of 17”:
It is also contradicted by Widdowson’s notes of the cross examination of Investigator Eichler by the CAUT lawyer on January 18, 2023 during the arbitration hearing:
Provost Elizabeth Evans was also questioned, on June 13 and 14, 2023 under cross examination, about how MRU rejected investigating Milena Radzikowska’s 2019 complaint about Widdowson’s social media activities. On June 14, Provost Evans was directed to look at Eichler1’s investigation report (at Appendix 10, which contained his findings about Widdowson’s complaint against Radzikowska. Radzikowska was found not to have harassed Widdowson because she had been told in 2019 that personal social media activities were not covered by MRU’s policies). Evans looked at the report over lunch, and after lunch she stated that Radzikowska’s complaint did contain “public social media” posts, but these were not investigated.
Below are the notes of Evans’ testimony after lunch.
Arbitrator Jones’ reasoning concerning the termination is provided below.
One of the most interesting areas of this excerpt is where Arbitrator Jones refers to Widdowson’s termination letter (available here).
The Arbitrator then recognizes on p. 288-289 that almost all of the 12 “factors in assessing the appropriate disciplinary measure” were either “inaccurate”, “not…proved in the arbitration hearing”, or “not worthy of being considered in a university that values academic freedom”.
The “twelve items” that are not “grounds” but are “factors in assessing the appropriate disciplinary measure” are posted below. The yellow highlighted items are those that Arbitrator Jones maintains were proved in the arbitration (although he argues that factor 7 did not recognize that others besides Widdowson had also contributed to a “toxic workplace environment”). The blue highlighted items are those that were disproved in the arbitration process. The pink highlighted items were not mentioned by Arbitrator Jones, but Widdowson has documents that disprove factor 5, and show that factors 9 and 11 are inaccurate. It is assumed that factor 6 is not something that should be held against an employee, as they have no control over the resources that are spent on “investigating and administrating complaints”.
Arbitrator Jones’ reasoning concerning non-reinstatement is provided below.
Arbitrator Jones gives nine reasons why Widdowson cannot be reinstated. In these reasons, Jones does not recognize that Widdowson only works with one person who testified, Duane Bratt, and he was not involved in the “Twitter war” where Widdowson was mobbed by about 40 colleagues (bullet 1). Widdowson continues to deny that her “social media communications” were “harassing” as they only consisted of nine Tweets (these Tweets have been compiled in this post), four of which were directed at the anonymous MRU Anti-Racism Coalition, and another four were in response to being provoked. Only one – about “misgendering fatigue” and the LGBTQ initialism was unprovoked (bullet 2). Co-workers who are “reluctant” to see Widdowson return are completely hostile to academic freedom and should not be rewarded (bullet 3). Widdowson continues to “persist” in her belief that her Tweets were not harassing (bullet 4). Widdowson is “hostile” to those who are “hostile” to the academic mission of the university (bullet 5). Bullet 6 is made up and did not happen. Is bullet 7 about “civility”? Is the arbitrator arguing that there is a civility clause in the Collective Agreement? The “friction” shown in the Watchman and Lindstrom complaints was due to their opposition to academic freedom (bullet 8). Widdowson has “implacable views and attitude” because she believes she is right and she stands on principle. Is it being asserted that she should change her views when it is not warranted by reason, evidence and logic (bullet 9)?
