Reporter Denies Wrongdoing

A former Vancouver Sun real-estate reporter has denied his employer's claim that he took a "secret benefit" from a major developer. In testimony at a January 18 arbitration hearing at a West End hotel, Wyng Chow rejected company lawyer Don Jordan's allegation that he took advantage of his position with the newspaper to obtain a reduced price for a condominium from Concord Pacific.

"I did not take a benefit from Concord," Chow said. "I accepted a settlement from Concord. There is a difference."

CEP Local 2000, which represents Vancouver Sun editorial employees, filed a grievance against last December's firing of Chow, a 32-year veteran of the paper. In the company's opening submission at the hearing, Jordan told arbitrator Rory McDonald that Chow's "secret benefit" was not disclosed to his employer and constituted a "fundamental breach of the employment relationship".

Union lawyer Carolyn Askew told McDonald that Chow did not engage in any misconduct. She described Chow's transactions with Concord Pacific as "private and personal" business: "There was nothing untoward in his conduct and certainly nothing that would give rise to his termination."

Askew claimed that between the time Chow bought a presale townhome in 1995 and when he moved into the unit two-and-a-half years later, the floor plan had been altered without his knowledge or consent. Askew said that Chow eventually sold this townhome and later bought another unit in a different Concord Pacific project.

"The entire transaction was essentially a wash financially in a period of time when he could have reasonably expected to earn a profit," Askew said.

The first witness, Vancouver Sun editor-in-chief Patricia Graham, testified that she received an anonymous phone call last August 5 from a person claiming that Chow had been taking "sweetheart deals". Graham said that the reporter claimed there was no truth to the allegations. She added that Chow acknowledged he and his wife had previously had a "problem" with Concord Pacific over a floor plan.

"They then purchased another condominium for a lower-than-market price," Graham said. "He would not provide details because he said he had signed a confidentiality agreement."

She claimed that after examining sales prices in his building, she concluded that Chow paid much less than his neighbours. "Mr. Chow told us he had received a financial benefit from a party he was covering," Graham claimed. "That's a conflict of interest."

She claimed that after Chow was fired, the company received copies of his correspondence with Concord Pacific over a two-and-a-half-year period. In one of those letters, Chow referred to company officials as "fuckers", and in another Chow claimed that a Concord Pacific executive had "killed the relationship we have built up in the last four years".

Under cross-examination, Graham agreed with Askew's assertion that the Sun had no written code of conduct for newsroom employees at the time Chow was fired. However, Graham claimed that all reporters know that certain things are unacceptable, including making up facts for stories, stealing someone else's work, and writing about someone who is providing a financial benefit to the reporter.

Chow testified that he regretted the tone of his letters to Concord Pacific, but denied seeking improper benefits. He also claimed that the dispute with Concord Pacific was "a private matter relating to my personal life". He added that he and his wife wanted two bedrooms and a den for mahjong, and the original floor plan included sufficient storage space to create a mahjong room.

"They ended up converting the den into a pantry," Chow claimed.

Jordan pointed out that the company reduced the sale price by $15,000 after Chow objected to the revised design. "You received compensation in 1997 for the change in the floor plan," Jordan insisted.

"I didn't recall receiving anything at the time," Chow replied. "Now my memory has been jogged and it does appear that I did receive something."

Jordan said that despite this price reduction, Chow continued writing letters to the company until December 1999, seeking a benefit. Chow responded that Concord Pacific's price reduction was "not adequate compensation" because of other problems, including a requirement to hacksaw a railing to fit a queen-size bed into an upstairs room.

Jordan later claimed that Chow paid $39,000 less than other buyers for a unit in another Concord Pacific project in 2001. Chow responded that this occurred because a former Concord Pacific executive had "offered to settle our long-festering dispute". Chow also claimed that he had no idea what other purchasers paid for their units in the building.