Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Bill Barratt says lawsuit not about the money

Former CAO seeks more than $400,000 for two years' wages
68346_l

Bill Barratt said it's not about the money; that's not why he's suing the municipality for wrongful dismissal.

Instead, it's about righting a wrong and clearing his besmirched reputation at the end of his long municipal career.

"It's about the principle," the former CAO told the Pique this week. "It's about treating people with respect."

In a civil claim filed in the B.C. Supreme Court on Sept. 22, Barratt said he was wrongfully dismissed this summer, decided, according to his claim, by council in a 4 to 3 vote at a closed-door meeting.

According to his claim that is a breach in his Employment Contract, which means he is entitled to more than $400,000 - 24 months' salary and benefits.

"My reputation is important to me," said Barratt. "I've given 30 years to the municipality and I don't tolerate that kind of shit. It's that simple."

As the news of the lawsuit went viral, community members expressed their dismay at another lawsuit against the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW), the second this year. The RMOW is going to court with asphalt plant owner Frank Silveri in November over the zoning of his operations.

When asked about the backlash in the social media, Barratt said:

"If I worried about public opinion I would have left that job 15 years ago. At the end of the day if I'm wrong I guess the courts will say that. But I don't think I am."

With the matter now before the courts, Mayor Ken Melamed, speaking from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) convention said he could not comment on the case.

"It's not appropriate for me to speak to it given that we're now facing legal action," he said.

"I guess council will have to have a discussion in the next closed meeting about the letter and give direction to our legal counsel based on input from the legal counsel."

The notice of civil claim, however, lays out Barratt's side of the story.

The claim states that in January Barratt advised Mayor Melamed that "he intended to retire on June 30, 2011 or a date after the hiring of his replacement, whichever was later."

The claim then states that the RMOW advised him around June 21 that council "resolved to terminate his employment in advance of his chosen resignation date by a four to three resolution. The four Council Members who voted in favour of terminating Mr. Barratt's employment were Members Milner, Forsythe (sic), Lamont and Zeidler."

In response, Barratt wrote to council saying "his termination of employment would be contrary to his Resignation letter and his terms of employment. No replacement had been hired by the Defendant (the municipality)."

Council was at the time in the process of hiring a new CAO through a recruitment company.

Pique obtained a copy of the internal memo Barratt sent out to staff to announce his departure dated January 12, 2011. In it he states: "I am committed to a smooth transition for the organization, and will be working through to the end of June (or longer if required) to ensure adequate time for the hiring process for a new CAO."

According to the claim, on July 6, while Barratt was on holidays, the RMOW "advised Mr. Barratt of its decision, incorrectly characterizing it as an acceptance of his retirement, and that Mr. Barratt would continue to receive his accrued vacation time and benefits."

This week Barratt described his reaction to that news as "incredulous." His 30-year career was over and he was to clean out his desk after his holidays.

"If you were in my shoes... how would you feel?" he asked.

He said the municipality put a good spin on the story in July, saying he retired.

"But the people in the know, know," said Barratt. "Those are the people closest to me, people that I deal with professionally."

The claim states: "The Defendant's termination of Mr. Barratt's employment in advance of his chosen retirement date caused damage to his reputation because it resulted in Whistler residents believing his employment was terminated for just cause."

So he is looking for general damages for wrongful dismissal and breach of his employment contract as well as costs.

Also, according to that contract, two-third's of council members must vote to terminate his employment.

"Clearly it was contentious and under the act it requires two-thirds of council so I would say it was irresponsible, spiteful and they didn't leave me a lot of room to move," said Barratt.

"What did they gain by doing that? I don't get it.

"You've got to look at those four individuals and go 'what the f- were you thinking? Like, why? It could have been so smooth, easy. I mean I pissed them off, fine. There was some contentious issues. They didn't like my advice (on the asphalt plant). We'll see where that all ends up. You know, get over it. So they got this petty. Fine."

The RMOW has 21 days to respond to the civil claim.