In Response to our wonderful pres accusing some of our members of wasting our money ... i did not want to embarrass the pres at the meeting but Just how much did that free trip to England cost the IBEW did we learn anything out of it or that we just were giving a reward to our pres for helping win the last election with his political savvy I sure as shite did not get a report on just what the English did after Margaret thatcher screwed the unions.....But that is just me... I. most of the time, want to know what i get for my money.... Just silly that wayAll the serious faces at the the head table last night also told me that some people were put on notice and that it was not a total victory for the A team..... but they did spend 20 odd thousand dollars of our money to help the contractors.....against an action being carried out by some of our membersI see something wrong with that picture.... maybe it is just meBut i can only tell you what i can see and thinkso to one and all have a great weekend
It also showed that local 353 officials would participate in opposing the action by sending high priced counsel into the proceedings to argue that the applicants (Gullins, Hussey, Lloyd, Speranza) had no standing to bring a complaint at the OLRB.Vice Chair McKee ruled that we did have standing. Local 353 officials spent $11,700.00 + $11,724.88 = $23,424.88 that we know of so far for senior lawyer Al Minsky to argue that the IBEW had dealt with the election challenges and we shouldn't be at the OLRB. Our action dealt with contractor interference not with IBEW internal issues.The local union administration would not allow the membership to debate and vote on a motion to pay for legal counsel to address contractor interference but spent at least $23,424.88 of our money to argue against members standing to address the issue and that we should not be at the OLRB to address those types of issues.Our counsel argued that it was exactly the place to be. At last night's June 2009 meeting President Barry Stevens accused the members who pursued the action of wasting local union money but consider what Al Minsky represented and the arguments he made and decide for yourself who is responsible for wasting members money.
QuoteThe local union administration would not allow the membership to debate and vote on a motion to pay for legal counsel to address contractor interference but spent at least $23,424.88 of our money to argue against members standing to address the issue and that we should not be at the OLRB to address those types of issues.Our counsel argued that it was exactly the place to be. At last night's June 2009 meeting President Barry Stevens accused the members who pursued the action of wasting local union money but consider what Al Minsky represented and the arguments he made and decide for yourself who is responsible for wasting members money.The fact they stopped the members from using local union money and then threw our money around to stop the evidence from being brought to light says so much! Did they get the members permission to do that. How does Barry Stevens justify spending $24,000.00 to send a lawyer in to say that members have no right to go to the labour board to fight the contractors. This just another stinky situation for the Joe admin.
The local union administration would not allow the membership to debate and vote on a motion to pay for legal counsel to address contractor interference but spent at least $23,424.88 of our money to argue against members standing to address the issue and that we should not be at the OLRB to address those types of issues.Our counsel argued that it was exactly the place to be. At last night's June 2009 meeting President Barry Stevens accused the members who pursued the action of wasting local union money but consider what Al Minsky represented and the arguments he made and decide for yourself who is responsible for wasting members money.
Hearing Joe read the OLRB decision last night gave me some time to think. Who was the lead brainiac (Speranza) that came up with the strategy?Troy made hay of the absentee ballot in 2008, but fizzled in his efforts to get any traction. Proving that bullying doesn't work in every situation. As for the OLRB decision, what a waste of money, time and energy. The fact that Speranza, Gullins, Hussey and Lloyd had to modify their initial claim for damages because they were absurd to the nth degree, and in the end came away with NOTHING, proves they are empty intellectual vessels. A variation of the empty suit.One year of wasted effort. Perry, you will never hold a job in the brotherhood ever again, maybe not on the tools. Who wants you? As for Al Cohen, I love you even if you are myopic in your hate for Joe. You guys lost. Period. Let me say it again, you got trounced. No better yet, you got your asses handed back to you with a note that said, "pull my finger." Oh boy, did you guys get the shit kicked out of you. Gullins involvement at the OLRB (Redpath) was a bad enough debacle, you can now add this decision to your trophy case.Absolute fools, and you guys still don't get it. wPerry this is not a good omen for 2011.
I hope to post that letter on this forum so we can understand what the vice chair's decision means. There is much to learn from that letter and GoodTradeUnionist's interpretation doesn't do it justice as you will see once we begin to examine the letter and what it says.I believe the action pursued by the members involved was totally worth the effort and that it will have great impact for the future. It illustrated to me once again how the system has flaws and that there is a gap in the justice available to union members.It also showed that local 353 officials would participate in opposing the action by sending high priced counsel into the proceedings to argue that the applicants (Gullins, Hussey, Lloyd, Speranza) had no standing to bring a complaint at the OLRB.Vice Chair McKee ruled that we did have standing. Local 353 officials spent $11,700.00 + $11,724.88 = $23,424.88 that we know of so far for senior lawyer Al Minsky to argue that the IBEW had dealt with the election challenges and we shouldn't be at the OLRB. Our action dealt with contractor interference not with IBEW internal issues.The local union administration would not allow the membership to debate and vote on a motion to pay for legal counsel to address contractor interference but spent at least $23,424.88 of our money to argue against members standing to address the issue and that we should not be at the OLRB to address those types of issues.Our counsel argued that it was exactly the place to be. At last night's June 2009 meeting President Barry Stevens accused the members who pursued the action of wasting local union money but consider what Al Minsky represented and the arguments he made and decide for yourself who is responsible for wasting members money.Local 353 counsel argued that the action be dismissed because of delay. Vice Chair McKee found that delay is significant because after the election a contractor no longer had the opportunity to address the complaint, nor can the board order them to do so.He also said that...The acts complained of are not trivial , in the sense that the election was a close one, and may have been influenced by small factors. However, the acts complained of constitute acts or words by an employer that are directly or explicitly supportive of one side in an election. Such actions may well step over the line drawn by section 70, but it it is not so plain and obvious a violation of the act the matter is free from debate.For these reasons, I conclude that there is no labour relations purpose in inquiring into this complaint. I do not mean to be unsympathetic to the applicants, even if union elections are generally a long way from polite debating society. To come close in an is no doubt disheartening for the unsuccessful candidate in every case. In this case, however, there is no labour relations purpose to be served by allowing this complaint to go forward. I therefore exercise the Board's discretion and decline to inquire into this complaint of a contravention of the act.Now that is just a couple of paragraphs from the decision and just couple of my impressions. Some of Mr. McKee's conclusions make sense but what they really do is point out to me the flaws in having legislation that puts so much onus on filing a complainint during an election about issues that may not be discovered till after the election. The contractor's actions had great effect on local 353 members and the election but what is being said is that the board can only affect the contractors action before the election and cannot hold them responsible for any damage they do to the election by their interference.The context of this argument leads me to wonder about the IBEW First District because there were complaints lodged during the elections with the Phil Flemming's office in plenty of time to act on internal issues and in my opinion IO interfered by ordering the elected election judge to include the disputed absentee ballots with the rest of the ballots.Also if the issue of delay is so critical in elections then why is it the IBEW International office does not act with expedience. If the the IBEW First District office had dealt with the challenge within weeks as Al Minsky stated at the hearing then why did it take till after the members of local 353 had filed a complaint at the OLRB for a decision to Robert Gullins challenge. Also I have still not received a decision to the challenge I filed despite another promise that it would be delivered to me on the week of June 8, 2009 which was over today?Just a few of my thoughts about this issue, I hope that the letter from Labour Board David A. McKee can be posted here for you all to read and discuss further.