This has scary implications.....
Ottawa told to reassess security clearance for fired federal worker
PAUL WALDIE From Monday's Globe and Mail March 23, 2009 at 4:11 AM EDT
Article Link
When the Vancouver RCMP arrested Sanjeev Gill in 2003 on kidnapping charges, it looked like a clear-cut case.
RCMP officers said they had evidence linking Mr. Gill to an organized gang suspected of numerous murders. They alleged that Mr. Gill helped plan the kidnapping and bought weapons for the gang, and that his car was stained with the victim's blood. The victim had also picked out Mr. Gill from a photo lineup, police said.
The charges caused a sensation. Mr. Gill worked for the federal government as an employment insurance investigator, and had access to sensitive government databases. The RCMP pushed officials at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to fire him immediately, fearing he had accessed a witness-protection database. An RCMP homicide inspector even shared information about the case with an HRSDC manager who was a former RCMP officer.
The pressure worked. Mr. Gill was fired and stripped of his security clearance.
Internet Links
Tribunal decision (PDF)
Three years later, a jury found Mr. Gill not guilty. But when he tried to rejoin the public service, the government turned him down. After several failed attempts to get his job back, Mr. Gill complained to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, saying he had been blackballed.
During the hearing, federal officials stood by their actions. Mr. Gill's alleged association "with the organized crime gang posed a threat to Canadian citizens and to the security of the [HRSDC]," officials said. The RCMP was a "trustworthy and credible police organization," one HRSDC official testified, with no motivation to provide false information.
Now board adjudicator Dan Quigley has sided with Mr. Gill, and criticized the department for blindly accepting the RCMP's allegations. In a decision, he awarded Mr. Gill seven months pay as compensation and ordered HRSDC to reassess him for a security clearance, which would open the door to rehiring him.
"One of the underlining premises in determining procedural fairness is whether an employee is presumed innocent until proven guilty," Mr. Quigley said in his ruling dated Feb. 11. "In this case, [Mr. Gill] was presumed guilty at the outset. For these reasons I have concluded that the duty of procedural fairness owed to [Mr. Gill] has been breached."
Mr. Quigley noted that HRSDC officials knew Mr. Gill had not improperly accessed government computers and he did not have access to the witness protection files. They also failed to give Mr. Gill an opportunity to respond to the RCMP allegations, and cancelled a meeting to go over the results of an internal investigation.
Even though the RCMP wanted Mr. Gill's security clearance revoked immediately after his arrest, "it was not their decision to make," he said.
Mr. Quigley said the federal government has a duty to ensure its employees are trustworthy, and it was appropriate to suspend Mr. Gill without pay pending an internal review. But a decision to revoke a security clearance requires careful consideration.
"The impact on the employee is not only fatal to his or her current employment but also to future employment in the federal public service. As such, the degree of procedural fairness raises the bar from minimal standard."
Mr. Gill said he was happy with the decision, but still frustrated by the government's conduct.
"You hear about this in Third World countries," he said in an interview. "You are thinking that you are living in a fair world, but you know what? I found it is unfair. They can do anything they want."
He said he told HRSDC officials and the RCMP that he knew two of the alleged gang members in passing and they occasionally played pickup basketball together. Most of the RCMP's evidence was never introduced during Mr. Gill's trial - the bloodstains turned out to be tiny drops not connected to the victim - and no RCMP officers testified during the public service hearing.
"At the end of the day, if I get my job back or not, [the ruling] made me feel good. Because I knew all along it was all wrong, what they did to me," he said.
The HRSDC has not appealed the ruling and a spokesperson for the department declined comment.
More on link
Ottawa told to reassess security clearance for fired federal worker
PAUL WALDIE From Monday's Globe and Mail March 23, 2009 at 4:11 AM EDT
Article Link
When the Vancouver RCMP arrested Sanjeev Gill in 2003 on kidnapping charges, it looked like a clear-cut case.
RCMP officers said they had evidence linking Mr. Gill to an organized gang suspected of numerous murders. They alleged that Mr. Gill helped plan the kidnapping and bought weapons for the gang, and that his car was stained with the victim's blood. The victim had also picked out Mr. Gill from a photo lineup, police said.
The charges caused a sensation. Mr. Gill worked for the federal government as an employment insurance investigator, and had access to sensitive government databases. The RCMP pushed officials at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to fire him immediately, fearing he had accessed a witness-protection database. An RCMP homicide inspector even shared information about the case with an HRSDC manager who was a former RCMP officer.
The pressure worked. Mr. Gill was fired and stripped of his security clearance.
Internet Links
Tribunal decision (PDF)
Three years later, a jury found Mr. Gill not guilty. But when he tried to rejoin the public service, the government turned him down. After several failed attempts to get his job back, Mr. Gill complained to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, saying he had been blackballed.
During the hearing, federal officials stood by their actions. Mr. Gill's alleged association "with the organized crime gang posed a threat to Canadian citizens and to the security of the [HRSDC]," officials said. The RCMP was a "trustworthy and credible police organization," one HRSDC official testified, with no motivation to provide false information.
Now board adjudicator Dan Quigley has sided with Mr. Gill, and criticized the department for blindly accepting the RCMP's allegations. In a decision, he awarded Mr. Gill seven months pay as compensation and ordered HRSDC to reassess him for a security clearance, which would open the door to rehiring him.
"One of the underlining premises in determining procedural fairness is whether an employee is presumed innocent until proven guilty," Mr. Quigley said in his ruling dated Feb. 11. "In this case, [Mr. Gill] was presumed guilty at the outset. For these reasons I have concluded that the duty of procedural fairness owed to [Mr. Gill] has been breached."
Mr. Quigley noted that HRSDC officials knew Mr. Gill had not improperly accessed government computers and he did not have access to the witness protection files. They also failed to give Mr. Gill an opportunity to respond to the RCMP allegations, and cancelled a meeting to go over the results of an internal investigation.
Even though the RCMP wanted Mr. Gill's security clearance revoked immediately after his arrest, "it was not their decision to make," he said.
Mr. Quigley said the federal government has a duty to ensure its employees are trustworthy, and it was appropriate to suspend Mr. Gill without pay pending an internal review. But a decision to revoke a security clearance requires careful consideration.
"The impact on the employee is not only fatal to his or her current employment but also to future employment in the federal public service. As such, the degree of procedural fairness raises the bar from minimal standard."
Mr. Gill said he was happy with the decision, but still frustrated by the government's conduct.
"You hear about this in Third World countries," he said in an interview. "You are thinking that you are living in a fair world, but you know what? I found it is unfair. They can do anything they want."
He said he told HRSDC officials and the RCMP that he knew two of the alleged gang members in passing and they occasionally played pickup basketball together. Most of the RCMP's evidence was never introduced during Mr. Gill's trial - the bloodstains turned out to be tiny drops not connected to the victim - and no RCMP officers testified during the public service hearing.
"At the end of the day, if I get my job back or not, [the ruling] made me feel good. Because I knew all along it was all wrong, what they did to me," he said.
The HRSDC has not appealed the ruling and a spokesperson for the department declined comment.
More on link
