Unfortunately, there is a confusion over the legal term "fired not for cause", thinking it means fired "for no reason".

There is always some sort of "reason" when a worker is let go, even if it's just in the employer's imagination. However, an employer doesn't actually need any reason at all. Yes, sometimes people are let go "for cause" (stealing etc.) and no financial severance is owed, but, when someone is let go "not-for-cause", the employer has financial obligations.

Not-for-cause situations can include simply not having room or money for the employee anymore or the boss just not liking him, or the employee being of a different race, or the boss having a vivid dream. If the boss wants to fire "for cause", the question isn't whether there are reasons or not, it's whether they are VALID reasons which can be sustained in court (because an employee has the right to sue for wrongful dismissal). Obviously, none of the reasons above could stand up as "cause" no matter how valid the boss may regard them.

Firing not-for-cause makes the question of validity irrelevant, leaving only the question of whether the severance is fair (according to certain established guidelines). Thus the employer, fellow-employees or other observers and the ex-employee can all have their opinions as to whether the firing was right, necessary etc. etc. and what s/he was fired "for" -- but the point is moot. And to make it so was the employer's decision.

A friend told me that a board member took pains to make it clear to her that I had not been "fired", but "dismissed". His terminology was incorrect, but I think he was trying to express the difference between "fired for cause" and "not for cause". So would anyone say that this board member was lying? The board or CSSM chose to fire me not for cause and so I merely report what they have said.

Thus, I do not have "cause" on my record and that matters to me, especially because I also do not have any unsatisfactory performance appraisals in my file. For that matter, nor do I have any excellent appraisals. Any concern about (or pleasure with) my job performance was never serious enough for formal action or appraisal at all. Thus this silence and absence of cause indicate merely satisfactory work and a dismissal that was "just one of those things".

My point is not whether they fired me for good reason or not (especially since their reasons are unknown to me).

My concern was and is over what DBC needed to do in order to heal our dysfunctional team, as others recognized us to be. And it's my personal opinion that this was not the right choice.

The Board mandated three versions of reconciliation or reintegration. I agreed to each, but each in turn was abandoned, despite my willingness to co-operate with it.

In the first version the professional they hired, based on interviews with my co-workers and me, recommended mediated discussions of our various concerns. Finally, by that point, I knew that they had some criticisms of me and I was prepared to discuss them. Initially, the board gave him this role, but my co-workers withdrew from the process after two initial goal-setting meetings, before the process actually began.

So a second professional was chosen and he recommended the third version, that is, that the Board conduct this mediation. They had been dealing with this situation/my "case" for almost a year and, as late as their March 31/04 meeting with me appeared intent on returning me to my duties, according to the wording of my Health Leave Agreement. I gather that they did not consider any "reasons" for firing me to be compelling at that point. They urged me strongly to agree to their plan for returning me and I did.

My concern is that the choice made in the end was not about Redemption, but only Rejection and I wonder what sort of precedent that sets for future ministry.