Here's an interesting newsblog from London Ontario. This blogger, Butch McLarty, is an investigative reporter specializing in municipal politics. He has put up a story about the city outside workers union (CUPE) which is creating quite a dust up at city hall.
altlondon.org

Butch claims the outside worker's union president is acting in an illegal and high-handed manner by signing a personal remuneration package with the city outside of the collective agreement and has, until recently, been keeping it a secret from his executive committee and membership.

I would be particularily interested in hearing comments about whether or not it is appropriate for a union president to enter into secret agreements with the employer that permit him to be paid:

(1) In an amount above what is set out in a letter of understanding for dedicated union president. (level 14 instead of level 9).

(2)Additionally he is paid paid a weekly salary outside of schedule "A" to item to compensate for wages lost as a result of not being able to act in a supervisory position while occupying the office of president (this is due to the locals by-laws which call for an immediate resignation of any union officer who accepts a temporary acting supervisor position.)

This whole thing seems so fundamentally wrong that it is baffling how it can occur in the first place.

AltLondon changed it's format a while ago, and since then I haven't been as regular a visitor as perhaps I should be.

Thanks for reminding me of it's existance, Kilgour.

After a wave of one bungle after another coming out of City Hall, there seemed to have been a bit of a respite. But now it seems someone has found some sources, and the rock has been lifted off the damp earth again.

It'll be fun to watch the creepy crawlies scurry for cover.

And Butch is right. The London Free Press and Church Bulletin is devolving into a paltry shadow of the paltry shadow of it's former self. Never known for it's investigative journalism even in it's heyday, now that it has been gutted by it's robber baron corporate overlord, Quebecor, it has ceased to be relevant to Londoners.

It was not easy excavating through all the sensationalist adjectives in this item, but if you tough it out to the end (my congrats in advance to anyone who does), it looks as if you have a worker, elected to a full-time union position, who will be on leave with pay, but would apparently earn less than he would have while still working in the ranks because of loss of access to acting pay in a higher position. So, an agreement is signed to make him whole to the tune of the $105 per week. Without this agreement, presumably he would be losing money by taking a union leave.

We face this same problem in many of our units. As a union, we don't like to pay full-time people elected from the ranks very much more than the fellow workers they represent. Often, the prescribed salary (whether paid by the employer, when we are fortunate enough to bargain paid union leave, or whether paid directly by the union) is exactly the same as the salary while at work.

But - when you're working, you typically have other sources of remuneration, such as shift/weekend premiums, overtime, etc. - or (as in the case of this CUPE officer) acting pay if acting positions are fairly frequent.

It's hard enough attracting energetic and committed people to thankless union jobs, without also asking them to take a cut in take-home pay. So, what our locals often do is to calculate an amount reflecting the average loss (of o/t etc.), and they add that to the salary.

If the difference is to be paid by the members, obviously they will have to approve it. But if we succeed in getting the employer to pay (which is always our aim - because our philosophy is that the employer should pay all the costs of the operation, and the trade union is there whether he likes it or not) - do the members always have to approve it by vote in a meeting? Not in my union.

However, I don't know CUPE's rules, and that's an internal union matter.

But this scandal-mongering article says that the "illicit" gains should be returned to the taxpayer!!!

Yeah, right.

What is perplexing about this whole affair is that the union pres took the local through two rounds of negotiations and renewed the existing LOU for dedicated president at the level 9 rate.

All the while he failed to advise his bargaining committee or the membership at the ratification meeting that he was being paid outside of the letter himself.

At some point it should be clear to the president that the subject should be brought into the open for ratification.

This resonates of a breach of trust to me.

As for the appropriateness of the measure, particularly given its apparent secrecy, the answer is it is pretty outrageous, actually. It appears to be an abuse of authority; authority that has been given by the members. I have no idea whether it is a breach of an oath, but would not be surprised.

With respect to the legality, it may be a tough question. I believe that the concept of "exclusive bargaining agency" is the same in Ontario as it is in B.C. If the President was holding himself out as being the President when entered into the arrangment; then there may be an argument that the employer has no liability.

To say though that the agreement is actually valid, presupposes that the President had, in his capacity as President such authority. The Constitution and Bylaws would need to be checked. If I was to guess, I wouldn't be surprised that there is a requirement for ratification of a collective agreement by the membership. If so, then the deal could not form a part of the CA.

If the private arrangement does not form a part of the CA, then it would likely be unenforceable. "Exclusive bargaining agency" stands as a bar to individual contracts of employment unless they are specifically recognized by the bargaining agent (the union).

Sorry to be so obtuse, but there are too many facts missing to be more exact. Also there may be quirks in Ontario law of which I'm unaware. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that the whole thing stinks to high heaven (based upon trade union principles) and is very likely an arangement without a legal foundation.

take a minute to scroll down a bit there are three stories on this matter which give more details.

If he didn't, the union should take action against him.

How in God's name can such an incident be a matter of public interest?

If he is taking money without authorization, did anyone call the police? That's what we do in our union if someone is committing fraud or theft of union funds. That's what all unions I'm aware of would do.

Now, this helps. I will research along this line to find out more. Someone mentioned to me that a personal services agreement is prohibited in a trade union and it appears that this is a reflection of the same fundamental principle in labour law at play here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
If I was to guess, I wouldn't be surprised that there is a requirement for ratification of a collective agreement by the membership. If so, then the deal could not form a part of the CA.

If the private arrangement does not form a part of the CA, then it would likely be unenforceable.

---

With all due respect, munroe, that is ridiculous. Unions and union officers sign agreements every day which are not part of the collective agreement and which are not subject to ratification. Grievance settlements are but one of a myriad of examples. And some of them are indeed "secret", in the sense that they may involve issues of privacy or sensitivity to employees, and are specifically available only to those officers on both sides responsible for enforcing the agreement.

"The cited article makes it appear as if the very principle of what was done is fraudulent and tantamount to theft of taxpayers' money. That is the lowest form of scandal-mongering."

I can't speak for Butch but I think the presumption from a taxpayers point of view is that no unionized city employee should be paid more that what is in a collective agreement. A LOU forms part of a collective agreement. It follows that the collective agreement is ratified by city council and becomes a matter of public record. If remuneration agreements fail to meet a reasonable test of transparency they become a matter of public interest.

I can't say I personally agree with unionists' opinion that this issue or the method of reporting it forms the lowest form of scandal mongering.

I would add that I am the first in line in the defense of a bona fide trade unionist noting that we all make errors and learn from them.

Winning an election or two isn't the qualifier for me, I've known both good and bad and that goes for staff reps too.

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: Kilgore Trout ]

It's easy to hurl charges on websites and in newspapers. What about calling in the proper authorities?

ETA: I guess I should spell this out.

A municipal official signs a secret deal with a private entrepreneur. The entrepreneur promises to do favours for the municipal official, while the municipal official gives the entrepreneur some money. The deal is specifically not made public, not brought before the appropriate decision-makers on either side, and not provided for by any existing regulations.

Shall I find the section of the Criminal Code which has been violated? Glad to do so.

Call the police.

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Grievance settlements do not alter the contract. Yes, they quite often contain "gag orders". Settlements quite commonly specify they are "without prejudice" and even if the words do not appear, they are treated as "without prejudice". Try relying on a previous settlement as a basis for arguing at arbitration.

I don't think we have any differences on how internal union matters need to be handled. I say that because of the Winnipeg thing in the other thread. As democratic organizations with established procedures, we can take care of our own problems. The media generally is sensationalist and looking to smear the entire movement with anecdotal "examples" as if they are viewing the tip of some mythical iceberg.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
To bring this home, on the facts we have been provided (if they are true) I think it is fair to condemn this type of behaviour.

---

Ok, let's do a prima facie analysis and assume the facts are as provided.

If the deal was indeed secret and not provided for by municipal authority, then certainly the municipal official is guilty of a corrupt act, perhaps misappropriation of funds. The same may be true of the union official.

If the intent of the two individuals was to defraud then it may wander over into the criminal. For example, if both of the two who made the arrangement knew it was improper, but did so to divert public funds without authority then perhaps it would possibly be criminal.

There are too few facts to even speculate on this.

The police are quite reluctant to involve themselves in such grey areas, unless there is at least some evidence of actual fraud. Even when there is, they do make judgements before they proceed. Let me give you two examples:

We were engaged with a horrendous employer recently. It completely mismanaged a publicly funded contract, ran out of money and simply locked its doors. We sought and obtained an LRB Order against the Employer for illegal lockout and went to the police simply to recover certain personal effects for the workers that were left on the premises. The cops refused to assist in retrieving the goods claiming it was simply a private civil matter.

The second example is a fellow named Solitaro. He headed the "General Workers' Union"; a Rat organization eventually "purchased" by CLAC. The members found certain benefits were not being paid as the money went "missing". They went to the police who did investigate and Solitaro was charged and convicted of fraud and theft.

The difference between the two was scale; but also intent. The personal goods were not seen to have been "stolen", the money clearly had been.

Perhaps these examples are not on point with the issue here, but I hoe they are illustrative of the approach likely to be taken in deciding whether it is a police matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
Not necessarily, unionist. It certainly is not as simple. Two parties believe they have the authority enter into a contract. Both base their actions on a misjudgement, but a consideration was paid from one party to the other.

---

Yeah, yeah, but we agreed to analyse based on the facts as provided - and the allegation was that this deal was kept secret.

By the way, having no intent to defraud may be a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it is certainly no defence against corruption charges under Sections 119-125 of the Criminal Code.

I have no view as to how the police would respond upon investigating this. But if the facts are presented - a union official secretly accepting public money from a public official - tell me again why you wouldn't call the police and let the Crown decide how to proceed?

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

The grievance that has been filed will most likely generate some resolution to the matter.

I think we can all agree that it would be an interesting case to put in front of an arbitrator. To wit: If one union member is paid over and above any schedule set out in the collective agreement is the employer required to pay all remaining members in kind?

Other questions that arise when things are not done properly the first time:

Should the president be asked to step aside from the decision on whether or not to proceed with the grievance?

Should the grievance be thrown out as anti-union and or a personal attack on the president?

There is an area of the criminal code posted in one of Butch's earlier articles. It deals with taking secret commissions. Also to be considered is a potential complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to address interference issues on behalf of the employer.

As you can imagine this is the talk of the workplace and your input is helpful.

I will keep you updated.

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: Kilgore Trout ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:
If one union member is paid over and above any schedule set out in the collective agreement is the employer required to pay all remaining members in kind?

---

That's easy: the answer is, absolutely not. The arbitrator is bound by the terms of the collective agreement. He can annul a purported "secret agreement" which is not executed by the proper parties (pretty tough to prove if the president signed it) and which is contrary to the collective agreement. But he certainly can't rule: "Hey, you overpaid one dude, now be fair and overpay everybody!!"

quote:

---

Should the president be asked to step aside from the decision on whether or not to proceed with the grievance?

---

Why is this even being grieved? If the president acted improperly, charges should be filed under the CUPE constitution. If guilty, he should be penalized. If he was acting within his authority, no arbitrator will ever annul this thing. You're on the wrong path here.

quote:

---

Should the grievance be thrown out as anti-union and or a personal attack on the president?

---

If it genuinely alleges a violation of the collective agreement, why throw it out? But please note carefully: A grievance can only allege a violation by the employer, not by a union officer! Of course, if the grievance is justified, there may be collateral consequences for any union officer that acted wrongly, but such consequences would be light years outside the jurisdiction of the arbitrator in a case like this.

On the other hand, if someone is just using the grievance procedure as a cheap substitute for filing charges against the offender - either charges under the constitution, or the Criminal Code - then yes, it should be torn up.

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Okay, I'm still struck with the fact that the employer sat through two rounds of negotiations with the local and agreed to renew the LOU that set out the pay for dedicated president to be a level 9 in schedule "A" all the while knowing that it was in fact paying the president a level 14. The remuneration agreement for a weekly salary in addition to that was never tabled, disclosed or ratified. The LOU was ratified (in conjunction with a new collective agreement) twice at a level 9.

For a moment, instead of taking a view to punishing the president which is another matter. Do you think the employer should be held accountable for overpaying the president while representing to other members that if they chose to run for the position they would have to settle for a level 9?

I have to leave the computer for a few hours...thanks!

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: Kilgore Trout ]

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: Kilgore Trout ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:

For a moment, instead of taking a view to punishing the president which is another matter. Do you think the employer should be held accountable for overpaying the president while representing to other members that if they chose to run for the position they would have to settle for a level 9?

---

As munroe has said, it really depends on the facts.

What if this happened when the secret deal was first bargained:

quote:

---

Union pres: We want additional remuneration to cover lost acting pay opportunities.

Employer: Ok, but won't other employees misunderstand the arrangement and claim that they're entitled to the same thing?

Union pres: We're prepared to keep in confidential in order to avoid any confusion.

Employer: In that case, fine.

---

Is the employer guilty of something here? If the union pres led them down the garden path and represented to them that this was all legit under the union's rules - and if the union pres is an authorized signatory on the bargaining agent's behalf - then maybe the employer should have been more diligent in asking some tough questions, but why would it be "held accountable" for complying with a union request that was moreover signed by the designated representative?

Or, another scenario - the employer somehow knew the pres had no authority to do this, but they like this dude because he is pro-management, and they made this secret deal to reward him... Then whether or not the employer loses a grievance, the employer could be found guilty of an unfair labour practice, interfering in the internal administration of a union, contributing money to a trade union (or union officer), etc.

quote:

---

Is the employer guilty of something here? If the union pres led them down the garden path and represented to them that this was all legit under the union's rules - and if the union pres is an authorized signatory on the bargaining agent's behalf - then maybe the employer should have been more diligent in asking some tough questions, but why would it be "held accountable" for complying with a union request that was moreover signed by the designated representative?

Or, another scenario - the employer somehow knew the pres had no authority to do this, but they like this dude because he is pro-management, and they made this secret deal to reward him... Then whether or not the employer loses a grievance, the employer could be found guilty of an unfair labour practice, interfering in the internal administration of a union, contributing money to a trade union (or union officer), etc.

---

You have successfully delineated the issue as it sits among the membership. I confess my inclination is with the latter scenario and my objectivity is compromised through my affection for a militant union.

I hold that the union management relationship is adversarial by nature and I abhor union officers who run to the employer when called to participate in feel good programs and "team" initiatives.

Most often those types appeal to members who are acting supervisors or just plain bootlickers that share an anti-union attitude.

The president in question is not without a history. During the 2001 28 day strike he walked off of the picket lines claiming a city offer was misrepresented by the former president.

He participated in organized union busting activities which included renting a hall and taking to the stage to preach on the weaknesses of the local following the strike, promoted leaving CUPE at that event (for the CAW by the way) and set out a plan of action to remove the union officers who were in place during the strike.

His first act of office upon defeating the former president was to remove key activists from committees and stack them with his buddies. It was during that time that I became familiar with the concept, "tyranny of the majority".

Labour peace at any cost is the new approach with - concessions at the bargaining table, wholesale contracting-out of work, record breaking terminations and unprecedented restrictions on union time for all stewards but the president.

So many words in the Alt London article, so many words here, when only one would suffice.

Bribery.

Bribery plain and simple.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:

You have successfully delineated the issue as it sits among the membership. I confess my inclination is with the latter scenario and my objectivity is compromised through my affection for a militant union.

---

Tommy, I don't want to comment on the police just yet. Let's just say we are in the middle of a brainstorm among activists about what to do. There are several options we are discussing.

No, probably not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:
I try to talk the younger members into becoming active but as unionist mentioned earlier it is hard to attract energy and commitment to a thankless job.

---

Take my advice for what it's worth. Don't despair. Just keep up the fight. When you least expect it, some seemingly cynical young person will come along and do something small - win some point for a fellow worker - feel great about it - and take up the struggle, resisting and hesitating all the way, just because it has to be done and there's no one else to do it.

There are people around me who have urged me to run for council, and while there are many good reasons why I shouldn't ( there are too many things I don't know about municiple politics in general, and in London politics in specific) the over ridding consideration is that council isn't where the power is, it's in City Hall buerocrats.

quote:

---

What is perplexing about this whole affair is that the union pres took the local through two rounds of negotiations and renewed the existing LOU for dedicated president at the level 9 rate.

All the while he failed to advise his bargaining committee or the membership at the ratification meeting that he was being paid outside of the letter himself.

At some point it should be clear to the president that the subject should be brought into the open for ratification.

---

In my opinion, a major violation of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Section 44.1 Mandatory ratification vote. There are time limits for making complaints to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

[ 07 July 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
Originally posted by Kilgore Trout

In my opinion, a major violation of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Section 44.1 Mandatory ratification vote.

---

But it might be better to look at s.44(3) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act for the relevant section requiring the membership to ratify a collective agreement.

[ 08 July 2007: Message edited by: Robo ]

Section 58(5) - a provision typical to all labour codes that I am familiar with - reads:

quote:

---

Nothing in this section prevents the revision by mutual consent of the parties at any time of any provision of a collective agreement other than a provision relating to its term of operation.

---

The fact that the "secret deal" wasn't ratified is therefore irrelevant, as I mentioned above - side agreements and settlements are reached every day without ratification.

The two avenues to pursue are:

1. Were the union constitution and bylaws violated? That of course requires charges filed using the internal union procedure.

2. Did the secret deal constitute an interference by the employer in the administration of the union, or an illegal financing of a union officer? If so, then file a complaint pursuant to Section 70:

quote:

---

No employer or employers’ organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers’ organization shall participate in or interfere with the formation, selection or administration of a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union or contribute financial or other support to a trade union, but nothing in this section shall be deemed to deprive an employer of the employer’s freedom to express views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence.

---

I don't know whether the deal formed a part of the collective agreement, although your right about the ability of parties to alter agreements mid-term. It's interesting this appears to be express in the Ontario Code as it is accepted, but not express, in B.C. Again, it's a question of authority, but I've discussed that before.

Without the actual agreement, I can't assess the strength of the grievance. For example, on rare occasions I have seen CAs with "me-too" clauses. I do know that arbitrators are highly unlikely to rule in favour of a benefit or on any money issue unless it was expressly agreed at the table.

On the unfair, in B.C. the Board will normally not take jurisdication of a matter that may be arbitrated. In fact, given our wording, the LRB will usually decline to hear an unfair filed by a prty to a mature collective bargaining relationship (the exceptions being bargaining in bad faith, or an issue arising in the context of a decertification or a raid).

Hele v. Miller Transit Ltd.

According to altlondon.org a CUPE Local 107 trial committee found the president not guilty. That decision cannot be appealed. At least four members of a trial committee (maximum of five members) must agree, for a finding of guilt.

The CUPE national executive board can place CUPE Local 107 under trusteeship [CUPE constitution Article 7.7 (a)].

[ 08 July 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:

I don't know whether the deal formed a part of the collective agreement, although your right about the ability of parties to alter agreements mid-term.

---

I assume from all we've heard that the deal isn't part of the collective agreement - otherwise it's not secret, it's been ratified, and we're talking for nothing!

quote:

---

It's interesting this appears to be express in the Ontario Code as it is accepted, but not express, in B.C. Again, it's a question of authority, but I've discussed that before.

---

It's also explicit in the Canada Code. In the Code du Québec, any modification of the c.a. in mid-term (or as a whole) needs only to be filed with the Minister of Labour to take effect. If it's a question of authority (as I have said and you appear to agree), then we need to see the constitution and bylaws, and also what representations have been made by the union to the employer as to who authorized signatories are. Either way, it's hardly a grievance issue - unless (I guess) the union can show that the union pres has no authority to sign deals like this and that the employer knows that, therefore... the deal is null and void.

quote:

---

Without the actual agreement, I can't assess the strength of the grievance. For example, on rare occasions I have seen CAs with "me-too" clauses. I do know that arbitrators are highly unlikely to rule in favour of a benefit or on any money issue unless it was expressly agreed at the table.

---

You're right, we don't know the c.a., but pardon me for finding it hard (impossible) to believe that there is a contract clause saying that if one individual gets a benefit (improperly, it seems), then all must get it!

quote:

---

On the unfair, in B.C. the Board will normally not take jurisdication of a matter that may be arbitrated.

---

Out of respect for you, your time and your tenaciousness and notwithstanding an element of denial on my part.

Yes, this has, in part, been dealt with internally, it may be easier for you to follow if I list the events:

During the run up to the last election one of the candidates for the president charged that the president was receiving extra pay from the employer.

Many of the more militant old school members were not happy to hear that, but to be honest, many were of the sentiment "We've got him now!"

The president offered copies of two out-dated agreements that went back to April, 2004 to the executive committee. The executive committee was shocked to receive them.

One document was a LOU for dedicated president with no signing page it
set out a higher rate of pay than the LOU for dedicated president that had been ratified on two occasions after bargaining (in the common fashion ie: renew the list of LOUs and attach) for a new CA, once in 2005 and again in 2006.

Another document was an agreement that stated that the union had approached management to discuss make-up pay for the president in an amount ($105.80 weekly) calculated to compensate specifically for loss of opportunity for acting pay. The newly elected president occupied a position that was the top paying job in the bargaining unit. He acted in a supervisory position when his boss was off and had acquired all the necessary training to do so. As such, the only acting job he could take that would bring him an increase in pay was to act as supervisor.

Union By-Laws prevented him from taking an acting supervisor position unless he complied with the By-Laws and "resign immediately".

In our place of work there is a pool of individuals who fill in for management vacancies and those members are known as acting supervisors. It is important, in this context, to note that the employer recognizes members who act and gives them training opportunities and schooling. If a member wants off the list (and this happens) they have to basically resign as an acting supervisor by letting the employer know they will not be doing it anymore.

Those documents were given by the president to the executive in July of 2006.

The documents were immediately leaked to the membership, as the GMMs were not held during the summer.

In September a steward rose on the floor and requested that the letters be brought forward for ratification.

The president told him that he would bring them the following month.

Next month the member who had requested them was not at the meeting and the president did not bring the letters forward.

In November the member once more made the inquiry and an argument ensued.

In December the member wrote a letter to the secretary outlining a charge under the CUPE constitution. The charge declared that the president should resign because the by-laws say that if one accepts an acting manager position in any capacity he must resign immediately.

In February a trial committee was elected from the floor of the general membership meeting. A member who was named to represent the president brought in a group of members who never attend meetings and nominated 14 of them from a list.

Other members were nominated from the floor by the complainant.

An election by secret ballot was held.

The president and the complainant each had three chances to exclude members from a narrowed down field of 11 to get to a trial committee of 5.

In addition the constitution reads that those members who would be named as witness' cannot be part of the trial committee.

During the initial nominations the president rose to exclude the entire executive committee stating that they would be called as witness. Two of those nominated from the floor to sit on the trial committee were never called to witness at the trial.

The make up of the trial committee looked daunting to the group who had brought the charges, one was an acting supervisor himself which raised concerns.

Some didn't want to be on the committee at all but they were told by a cupe staff rep who was "overseeing" the process that they "had" to participate whether they wanted to or not.

The complainant and the activists who supported the charge were, even in the face of an inexperienced and management friendly trial committee under the tutelage of a CUPE staff rep, confident that there was no way that the president could not be directed to resign in accordance with the By-Laws.

Months passed and then the trial began. The president had no defense except to say that what he had done was not an "impeachable offense".

The word finally came down in the form of a letter stating simply 'The trial committee finds ********* not guilty" with five signatures.

That's it. No explanation, no report on why.

The complainant was stunned.

Here we have a president who refused to resign as an acting supervisor for the city, instead he went to them and said " You know I can't act as a supervisor while I'm president and do you think I can get some money to make up for that?" Paraphrased of course. The city was like, " Well we would hate to see you miss this opportunity to be union president so we will pay you the acting supervisor's pay you will be missing out on while you are over there doing that." Nasty paraphrasing .

We are left with these questions among ourselves.

Do we end it all with the simple ruling of the trial committee?

Do we make a motion on the floor in September to cancel the letter of understanding for dedicated president? (my idea)

Do we file a grievance against the employer?

Do we call the cops?

Do we file a complaint with the OLRB?

Do we send the trial committee back and say "Not good enough, explain yourselves"?

Do we make a motion that the president bring the letters forward to ratify?

Do we test the patience of the membership by laying more charges, this time specific to the fact that the president kept those deals secret for 18 months and went through two rounds of negotiations without telling anyone?

whew...

[ 08 July 2007: Message edited by: Kilgore Trout ]

Had he not occupied a union position, he could have made more money as acting sup'r. Some members may not like the idea of taking a set-up as acting sup'r, but apparently it is legal under union rules - so long as you're not occupying a union position (I think?).

Therefore, in theory, anyone in his position would indeed take a salary cut by running for a union job - and I can understand a local union negotiating a top-up to take this into account.

I certainly can't understand one union officer negotiating a benefit for himself, with no one else's knowledge, and keeping it secret for so long. But then, the issue becomes, did he violate any article of the constitution or bylaws. You don't like the trial procedure, but there it is and it has made its decision.

[NOTE: I find it odd that a "not-guilty" verdict is not appealable under the CUPE constitution, but that seems to be the clear language - very odd indeed - it would seem to allow local union cliques to cover up their own misdeeds without external oversight, and I guess that's what you're claiming happened here!]

quote:

---

[/list] Are we done trying to bring this thing into some form accountability?

Do we test the patience of the membership by laying more charges, this time specific to the fact that the president kept those deals secret for 18 months and went through two rounds of negotiations without telling anyone?

---

The time limit for making complaints is: within ninety days of the accuser becoming aware of the alleged offence [CUPE constitution Article B.6.2 (a)]. Local union trial committees may dismiss complaints without trials [Article B.6.4 (b)].

The CUPE national convention is in October 2007, in Toronto. Support from CUPE Locals

[ 01 August 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

[NOTE: I find it odd that a "not-guilty" verdict is not appealable under the CUPE constitution, but that seems to be the clear language - very odd indeed - it would seem to allow local union cliques to cover up their own misdeeds without external oversight, and I guess that's what you're claiming happened here!]

---

That was a nasty bit of concession bargaining Paul Moist tabled with the staff unions. I heard that he stated he would not leave the table with out getting his way with their pension plans. I wonder if he will make out any better at the ballot box this fall. I also heard that Claude had a bit of a meltdown with the mediator over the same issues. My local will not be attending even though it is less that two hours away. Fractured as we are. Paul Moist and London CAO Jeff Fielding are apparently good friends from Jeff's days in Winnipeg. Our local president spends a lot of time with Jeff at city hall and carries his (oh so original) message of "go team go" back to our members. Got a problem? He will go and see Jeff for you. Jeff can fix it....sometimes.

Funny thing though, during our militant days the city was always trying to get us to buy into one TQM plan or another and we mobilized and resisted.

The cops were actually consulted and a retired LPD fraud squad Detective looked at the evidence and said quite firmly that charges should be laid. However after talking to the LPD their investigators ho-hummed the issue by saying it sounded like an internal union matter ... which incidently the Retired Det. had told me they would most likely do because of their conflict of interest in that their employer is involved.

Regardless I decided to use kid gloves on him to try and get him to resign and not have to jump through all the hoops .... one must remember also that any union activism in our workplace results in immediate reprisals from our employer under their "Right to Manage" which includes the worst work and shift assignments, since our CBA doesn't specify clear seniority rights to these areas because our employer prefers to reward any and all anti-union management wannabe bootlickers with all preferable work choices.

Trout outlined the dilema fairly accurately, but it should be noted that 10 years ago our city amalgamated and absorbed another Local (Local 4) ... and remnants of this Local still to this day hold resentment against our current Local 107 because we sued the former Local 4 when they tried depleting their union coffers before we assumed them ..... but that's another chapter, however it still lingers in the workplace.

Our employer continually promotes divisiveness in the workplace via rumours and blatant lies.... the King Liar would be [Name removed by moderator]. Years ago when [Name removed by moderator] tried decertifiying our Local he wooed many members by simply telling them that they would soon be earning $38 if we decertified and went to the CAW ... after I explained to many members the repercussions of decertifying without successor rights an angry [Name removed by moderator] hunted me down and gave me the typical scare tactic of "I'm gonna sue you for $50,000 for slander crap" ... of course he never did.

So you can see where this whole mess began. Furthermore before [Name removed by moderator] became President our employer actually let him campaign for weeks on end with a city vehicle and full pay (he was their pony), but when other candidates complained our employer just made him use his own vehicle ... and most likely still gave him full pay.

From day 1 in office he removed ALL the activists from ALL committees without explaination.(He has stated at several GMMs that as President he can whatever he wants) I'm not kidding when I say I spent 2 years to get back onto the Contracting Out committee .... each month our grand poobah would claim he would "look into it" and this went on forever until finally another member resigned to let me back on the NOW dysfunctional committee.. and [Name removed by moderator] even had the gull to fight my re-appointment. Oh and by the way in that 2 year period we have had 8 separate jobs contracted out in varying degrees and the committee met ZERO times ... even though the terms of reference forbid contracting out without union consultation appeal processes. Oh and BTW we have twice since my return to the committee and [Name removed by moderator] is essentially a mute. This guy is a management mole through and through and he doesn't ever deserve the respect of being addressed as a Brother.

Now knowing a little bit about [Name removed by moderator]'s character or lack of .... you'll be surprised to know that his secret deals were a complete fluke that we even found out about otherwise noone would even know. An addin point to Trout's prior info ... his secret deals actually expired in 2005 even though we believe firmly they are not valid presently any bribes he is receiving don't even have a secret deal to even fall under.

The step 2 of the grievance process is later this week, but based on the past few years experience I'll just likely get the 'form letter' response "No" that our manager's are trained to send off. Yes they actually send managers to course called "Just say No" .... unbelieveably true. I couldn't make this stuff up.

Incidently the redress in our Group grievance seeks pay equity as outlined in our anti-discrimination or restriction clause re: wage rates or any other reason.... which gives the option for [Name removed by moderator] to be either payed correctly OR pay us all incorrectly. Either or redress will produce pay equity. We just want an arbitrator to restore pay equity according to our collective agreement.

At the end of the day it is in fact the taxpayer who is being ripped off, we as a Union may have been lied to and misrepresented since the secret deal was a Memorandom of Agreement which he signed on behalf of the Union and only becomes valid upon ratification. He has actually admitted his guilt at the internal Trial. This is a case of a flagrant breakdown of the core component of democracy of a trade union. And our employer knew for sure that ratification is a requirement because for years our employer would call members up the day after GMMs to confirm if LOU's or MOUs got ratified.

Incidently a 5 years ago when our fearless and criminal leader first became an acting supervisor he followed our bylaws and resigned all his committee positions ..... but obviously when he was elected [Identifying position removed by moderator] he didn't want to give up his hefty management salary and instead conciously opted to secretly circumvent our bylaws and ultimately undermine everything that trade unionism stands for.

If [Name removed by moderator] even attempts to withdraw this Group grievance before arbitration you can have my word that my next stop will be an office of the RCMP.

[ 09 July 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_107_Veteran ]

[ 09 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

However after talking to the LPD their investigators ho-hummed the issue by saying it sounded like an internal union matter

If [Name removed by moderator] even attempts to withdraw this Group grievance before arbitration you can have my word that my next stop will be an office of the RCMP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_107_Veteran:
You can't be sued for speaking truth. Nothing was written which already hasn't been written, admitten and verified long before today.

---

Calling someone "our fearless and criminal leader" is "speaking the truth"? Charges haven't even been laid, let alone a conviction entered - how else does someone become a "criminal" in our society?

You obviously don't like this dude very much, but my overwhelming feeling is that you would feel exactly the same way about him had he never signed this secret deal. Correct? You didn't think he was all peaches and cream before you found out about that? That tells me the secret deal is really not the heart of the issue. Oh, and I find the bloggers who complain about misuse of taxpayers' money scandalous and anti-union in their spirit, just thought I'd let you know.

I am not anti-union, nor have I ever been anti-union. In fact, I've been a volunteer union organizer in the workplace on several occasions and lost my job due to lawful union organizing activities on two occasions. Despite the protections for employee organizers in the Labour Relations Act, we all know that if the employer wants to can you, they can and do. Either that or the workplace becomes so poisoned, working there is out of the question. That's another story.

What I am against, however, is seeing the integrity of the collective bargaining process compromised by anyone, let alone an elected executive member of a trade union and its civic employer, in this instance a public sector union.

Anticipating that the story would be portrayed (to marginalize it) as little more than an "internal union matter" -- which it is clearly not -- by City management-several members of city council wanting to bury their heads in the sand on this one, I made sure to emphasize in the story that monies paid to this individual outside two ratified CAs, came from London taxpayers.

Simply put, these payments were unauthorized and inappropriate.

There has been concern shown about how activists pursue an issue of this nature. As a matter of choice and strategy, I do not think it is normally good to engage the media as there can be a tendency for the corporate media at least to take any anecdote and turn it into a "see how bad unions are" diatribe. The question then became whether there was a legal strategy or not. I'm not convinced there is, even based upon the latter information which did not become available until after the initial debate occured. I'll be interested to know about the outcome of the strategy that has been chosen. Hell, believe me, I've been wrong before...

From the perspective of a working journalist, I can see how you have identified a wider interest. That interest is with the politics at London City Hall which allowed for this to happen. I appreciate you can't get at one issue without getting the entire picture. To do otherwise would not be responsible journalism.

My only hope is that this entire interchange is something you will find useful. It is a collection of opinions from people with some experience in labour, but only an evolving understanding of the specific case. I don't want to presume to speak on the part of Unionist, but I do think all of the thoughts we have offered have been qualified by that.

I was born and brought up in London so this whole matter has a particular interest to me. As I say, I'll be interested to see ow it plays out. For one thing, I've "bookmarked" your website.

[ 10 July 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

The discussion here has been helpful for all concerned, I'm sure, and I certainly appreciate where unionist is coming from.

I will say, however, that www.altlondon.org has since its inception in 2001, come from a leftish point of view that is quite clearly pro-labour. I took over the site in December of 2006 at the behest of its former operator and have carried on the tradition.

Coming from London, Ontario, I assume that you are familiar to some degree with past Byzantine fiascos at London city hall and the old P.U.C-London Hydro that involved to some degree the former Local 4 of CUPE.

Herein lie the roots of the ongoing "problem" at CUPE Local 107, which "swallowed" the old Local 4 due to the provisions of the provincial London-Middlesex Act of 1993, during the massive annexation of surrounding Town and Township lands.

The CUPE Local 107 28-day strike of 2001 was largely an attempt to harmonize pay and benefits between the two groups, but inequities in the workplace still remain, as I understand it.

The much-publicized and protracted London Hydro fiasco, which I covered extensively as a journalist from 1996-1997 (two full years), exposed a "culture of entitlement" (some say "corruption") at London Hydro, involving both management and the union (they worked hand in hand to line their own pockets).

This appears to now have slopped over to Local 107, due to the current philosophies of some (certainly not all) of its executive and members.

For example, in another story that Alt-London broke in 2005 I believe (maybe 2006, I'd have to search my archives) involved an acting supervisor (a former Local 4 individual) of Local 107 who was convicted of fencing stolen sports equipment from City of London property during working hours. The Free Press also covered this story after Alt-London did.

Several 107 members are trying to straighten this mess out with limited (to date) success. As I understand, there have been some veiled (and not so veiled) threats as a result of the media coverage by Alt-London and subsequently the LFP. You can imagine which side is doling out the threats -- the group that doesn't like the exposure.

And clearly, City management enjoys a divided union and are quite happy with the local's current "leadership."

To offer an answer to unionist as to how the current leader was elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2006, it's like any other election in the province, civic, union or otherwise.

1. Not all the membership/ electorate votes or stays abreast of the issues or gets involved in the campaigns or the election;

2. BS often baffles brains;

3. All elections are sales jobs, some more successful than others.

My hope is that the "truth" will evenutally come out, as it usually does. That's where I see www.altlondon.org as playing an active role.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_107_Veteran:
You can't be sued for speaking truth. Nothing was written which already hasn't been written, admitten and verified long before today.

---

Well, we have no way of verifying that claims you're making are true. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But you're using a pseudonym on a message board to attack someone using his real name.

Wise choice.

Otherwise you'd be an aging alcoholic tarbender at the Ceeps or Barney's, like the rest of us Beautiful Losers, staring at all the younguns' wondering why we wasted our lives staring into a beer bottle.

In all seriousness, the protracted multi-faceted fiasco at London Hydro was the biggest thing to hit London since the first steam locomotive arrived in 1853.

People were frogmarched out of the building left, right and centre, numerous criminal charges were laid for theft and successfully prosecuted and George Avola, the chairperson of the London Hydro Commission, was convicted on three counts of municipal corruption (bribes related to a planning application) after a week-long trial.

The thing took more twists and turns than a roadmap of Georgia.

quote:

---

Grievance settlements do not alter the contract.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific if you think settling a grievance alters a CA.

---

Well, strictly speaking, a with-prejudice grievance settlement could very well alter the interpretation of a clause of the collective agreement. Or, it could even alter the language. It all depends on what the grievance settlement says. In the Canada Labour Code, for example, the parties have the right to amend any provision of the collective period except its term. Nothing prevents them from doing so in the course of settling a grievance.

quote:

---

I suppose the exception always proves the rule, but perhaps I should have said originally that grievance settlements are rarely designed to alter the actual terms of the collective agreement.

---

In reality, there are no 'rules' as far as the grievor is concerned; and his rights are illusionary at best.

"Rules"; oh man, that's rich.

[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: Nicholas Hughes ]

[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: munroe ]

quote:

---

Nicholas, I assume you must have a story. Unionist has done a good job of setting out the aspect of the procedure that is relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicholas Hughes:
... unionist -the defender of all things union ...

---

Why thank you.

quote:

---

But I would suggest that unionist has pulled that "99%" figure out of his figurative 'ass'

---

Figurative? Hardly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by munroe:
Fly at it, Hughes. It's pile on time, this round.

---

I have had several cases myself and they have absorbed huge amounts of time and effort, with mixed results. I'm not aware of any situation of this nature where a grievance settlement has altered the express terms of a CA, but many provisions as they exist have required arbitral interpretation. Changes to the CA to meet concerns arising from arbitration awards have led to changes in language through collective bargaining.

The idea that somehow a union is to blame for a mixed result and the worker's interest is somehow not a concern is quite simply incorrect. That said I can sure understand an individual's frustrations.

One wag on the other website hit the issue leading to this exchange "spot on". But for the union, the benefit itself would likely not exist. I might add, if the benefit was offered by a non-union employer, the entire fight would be left to the individual alone.

quote:

---

Fly at it, Hughes. It's pile on time, this round.

---

quote:

---

I've been around here for just a short period, but I'm impressed with the accuracy of his assessments.

---

quote:

---

I'm not aware of any situation of this nature where a grievance settlement has altered the express terms of a CA...

---

quote:

---

The idea that somehow a union is to blame for a mixed result and the worker's interest is somehow not a concern is quite simply incorrect.

---

quote:

---

That said I can sure understand an individual's frustrations.

---

quote:

---

One wag on the other website hit the issue leading to this exchange "spot on". But for the union, the benefit itself would likely not exist.

---

The fatal flaw in your argument fails to take into account that for all intents and purposes the benefit did not exist; if it had then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh, I suppose it 'existed' in theory; but that's about all because the reality was something entirely different.

[ 19 July 2007: Message edited by: Nicholas Hughes ]

The circumstances I reviewed (without a full review) in the specific case identify neither a full grievance settlement, nor any alteration of the collective agreement. There was litigation to interpret the meaning of a provision in an agreement; that's not the same at all.

quote:

---

The circumstances I reviewed (without a full review) in the specific case identify neither a full grievance settlement, nor any alteration of the collective agreement. There was litigation to interpret the meaning of a provision in an agreement; that's not the same at all.

---

Take particular note of provision 2 b (reproduced for your convenience below):

2 - b. disputes regarding eligibility for such benefits will be between the Claimant and the insurance carrier and hence not subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure. (emphasis added)

That, my friend, was far more than a simple "alteration of the collective agreement"; I think you'll agree that this particular aspect of the settlement constituted a total abrogation of the decades-long-held right to grieve on matters of eligibility for disability benefits; not to mention the union's duty to its disabled members to ensure those benefits are duly provided as per the collective agreement.

The final provision of the settlement (see No. 3 provided below) effectively took the union's winning arbitration award and rendered it invalid for all intents and purposes (at least with respect to the union members whose hard-earned dues had actually paid for it)

3. Labatt and the Union agree the December 9, 1999 arbitration award between the parties (the "Second Taylor Award") will be considered a nullity and it will not be referred to or relied upon by either party in any future proceedings. The March 31, 1997 arbitration award by the Taylor Arbitration Board (the "Original Taylor Award") will continue to be of full force and effect. (emphasis added)

It should be noted that the "Original Taylor Award" referred to above was deemed inconclusive by the LRB, which required the Taylor Arbitration Board to issue its subsequent December 1999 award.

For those unfamiliar with Chuck Puchmayr, he has since become an MLA and is the designated Labour Critic for the provincial NDP party; a party that purports to represent the interests of working people.

As a revealing sidenote, and of particular interest to me, at least, is the fact that Puchmayr actually signed the agreement twice; once for the employer and once for the union. It was as if he couldn't decide whose interests he actually represented. A telling slip-up, indeed.

One thing that can't be denied was that in no way did Puchmary's sweetheart deal with Labatt advance the interests of the members of his union. And the surreptitious way the deal was entered into confirmed for me that Mr. Puchmayr had delivered a 'stab to the back' of the union's members suffering with disabilities, both now and for the forseeable future.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: Nicholas Hughes ]