Fired in October 2002 from their jobs with the Carcross Tagish First Nation (CTFN), Cindy Huebschwerlen and Eileen Wally have been ordered reinstated in their positions.

Last month's order was made by Paul Love, a Human Resources Development Canada adjudicator.

The two will also receive back pay of $41,000 each for the more than one-year period they were missing.

'Both employees are committed to providing service to the clients of the CTFN and wish to return to their jobs,' reads the decision issued on Dec. 4.

'For the above reasons, I order that Huebschwerlen and Wally be reinstated to their permanent positions, forthwith, as social assistance and case planning coordinator and coordinator drug and alcohol services, respectively, with the (CTFN).'

Under federal legislation, workers who have been employed with the same employer for a year and who aren't covered by a collective agreement can launch a complaint alleging unjust dismissal with the labour program office of HRDC, no later than 90 days from the date of firing.

The first step in the process sees a labour affairs officer attempt to work with the employer and employees to settle the dispute. The officer acts as a mediator in trying to find a settlement acceptable to both parties.

If that doesn't work, the employee can request that the issue go to an adjudicator.

The Minister of Labour then decides whether an adjudicator will be appointed.

It is generally up to the employer to prove the dismissal is justified.

The hearing involving Huebschwerlen and Wally was held last Nov. 3-7, with further submissions coming forward on Nov. 11.

The hearing learned Huebschwerlen, a social assistance and case planning coordinator, started working for the first nation off and on in 1986, becoming a permanent employee in 1997.

In 1999, she left work until January 2000 for medical reasons. After the director of health and social services was fired, she became the acting director while also working in her other roles.

From around July 2001 until she was fired, Huebschwerlen was in the social assistance job.

During her work, she often dealt with the territorial government to keep children, who were taken into government care, in the community.

Huebschwerlen was also licensed to operate as a foster home and occasionally acted as a placement for children.

Wally began working for the CTFN in land claims in 1972. In 1994, she became a permanent employee as a community education liaison coordinator. Wally was transferred to the alcohol and drug position in 2001.

In that role, she worked with many former students of residential schools who suffered abuse and had addictions problems, the decision reads.

In termination letters to both workers, the CTFN alleged it had been advised confidential information and files had been disclosed to members of the public.

'As you have been previously advised, such unauthorized disclosure are contrary to the terms of your employment and your signed confidentiality undertaking,' reads each of the letters.

Huebschwerlen's termination letter notes that disclosing confidential information has been an ongoing concern with her and she '(has) failed to comply with previous written directives to rectify your inappropriate conduct of disclosing such information.'

During the hearing, CTFN officials argued they had just cause to fire Wally and Huebschwerlen. It said each had disclosed confidential information about clients to other clients, YTG and violated the employer's protocol to deal with child protection issues in-house within the health and social services department of CTFN, and that Huebschwerlen disclosed confidential information about salaries to a client.

The CTFN also claimed there were allegations the director of health and social services was a 'sexual predator' and Huebschwarlen participated in a plan to set him up for a false claim of sexual harassment.

Love referred to some of the evidence presented by one client, who remains unnamed in the decision, as hearsay.

'In my view, the facts in this case concerning the alleged breaches of confidentiality rest almost entirely on the evidence of (the client),' the decision reads.

In Love's view, the client was untruthful in giving her evidence about consuming alcohol and her state of sobriety at the hearing.

During the hearing, the client was crying and looking at Heubschwerlen and asked her a number of times what she should say.

The client offered to kiss the adjudicator when she was told to respond to a question under cross-examination along with a number of other things that seemed consistent with someone impaired by alcohol.

She denied drinking excessively the night before the hearing. However, when she was confronted about the smell of alcohol on her breath, she muttered, 'Can you still smell it?' and put a candy in her mouth, the 59-page document reads.

CTFN argued the client's credibility shouldn't be decided based on character evidence.

'I note that Huebschwerlen and Wally have denied communicating confidential information to (the client) about other clients,' Love stated.

'The only source of proof tendered by the employer at this hearing was (the client). (The client) was not a credible witness, for the reasons expressed above. I find that the employer has not proven that Huebschwerlen or Wally communicated confidential information about other clients particularly (another client) to (the client).'

On salary disclosures, Love found 'the testimony at the hearing was similarly devoid of any real content or description from which one could infer truthfulness.'

The client, who also testified on the salary matter, was not able to describe how to get the information she said she saw.

'(The client) watched Huebschwerlen gain access to the common server and saw icons on the screen, but she did not see confidential information,' the report reads.

The allegations that confidential information was given to social workers was determined by Love to be hearsay evidence as well.

'Wally and Huebschwerlen are entitled to payment of their salary from the date of termination to the date of this decision,' the report reads. 'The amount shall be paid forthwith, less any usual statutory deductions.'