News: IBEW Locals in 15 States and Provinces Have passed a Motion To Support The OMOV Proposal

  • December 01, 2020, 09:57:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length

*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 01, 2020, 09:57:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: Lowrise Residential Contract May 2013  (Read 6087 times)

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Lowrise Residential Contract May 2013
« on: May 25, 2013, 02:44:27 PM »
Now that the lowrise members have voted to accept the contract offer on Thursday May 23, 2013 I would like to open a discussion so that we may have a place to analyze the issues and read some opinions about what took place during the negotiations and what motivated the members into making the decisions they made and how they may feel about how they were represented in the process.

I am at a bit of a disadvantage at the present time about what took place in the meeting because I was not allowed to stay in the meeting. It appears to me that I was singled out by the officers and unfairly removed from the meeting.

I spoke with some of the members as they left the meeting hall and they were disappointed that the vote went about 55% in favour of accepting. I'll say 55% because I am not certain of the exact numbers at this time. I believe the count was somewhere around 50 to 40 in favour of accept.

I attended the meeting and passed out an information newsletter that I wrote and printed the afternoon of May 23, 2013. As I read it today I see that there a few uncorrected spelling errors.

I wanted to take the opportunity to be sure to address some "unfinished business" as I choose to call it in my newsletter related to a couple of issues from the April 2010 Lowrise Ratification Meeting held at the Bellagio Banquet Hall.

Tony Chiappetta took issue with a comment that I made in that newsletter where I quoted him as saying "The contractors ain't gonna give you shit" He screamed at me and said "Get your facts straight, I said the arbitrator!" as he pushed me and ripped the flyers from my arms and then stomped on them as they lay on the ground. Business Manager Steven martin was about 5 feet away when this happened

If I have misquoted Tony then I apologize.

I think it's only fair that he apologize to me for his actions.

Very soon.

But the point is this, it was made very clear to everyone at the meeting that only members that work directly under the agreement would be allowed to comment on the agreement and Tony Chiappetta does not work under the lowrise agreement.

Also he shouldn't have been making statements that would sway the members to vote a certain way, especially a statement like..."The arbitrator ain't gonna give you shit"

The Chairman Barry Stevens made it clear to all those present that officers and business representatives were only there in the capacity to answer questions related to facts, not to sway the members in any way with their opinions about how to vote.

Now Tony Chiappetta took the stand and testified as a witness for the charging party at a trial board where I defended myself against charges of "Causing a Disturbance" at that meeting.

I had a right to be there, the International Vice President Phil Flemming sent a letter to qualify that any dues paying member could attend the meeting and as such I have the rights of a dues paying member in good standing. When the Chairman Barry Stevens would not allow me to comment on the pension plan I challenged the chair as is a member's right to do. It is a Chairman's duty to accept a challenge of the chair and step down, the members are then asked if they support the chair or the member.

That is the way it is supposed to be according to the IBEW Constitution that all the officers present swore an oath to uphold, not only did the Chairman refuse to accept a challenge but all the other officers present sat on their hands and did not do their duty to uphold and defend the IBEW Constitution.

I was ejected from the meeting for calling the chairman a disgrace. In my opinion I was entirely justified in using that word as it's definition refers to being out of order. The Chairman Barry Stevens was out of order and abused his power as chairman and president and the other officers failed to do their duty and defend the IBEW Constitution.

After serving a penalty of not being allowed to speak at the next three meetings I attended June, July, and August 2010, and being subjected to a further injustice of not being allowed to enter 2 meetings in December 2010 and January 2011 because of another erroneous ruling by then President and Chairman Barry Stevens I received a letter from Phil Flemming informing me that I was now allowed to resume attending meetings because Barry Stevens ruling was inconsistent with the IBEW Constitution.

In June 2012 the IBEW International Executive Council reversed the ruling of the Local 353 Trial Board and ordered that I be reimbursed any monies that I had paid in any assessed penalties or paid as assessments during the appeal. There was no money to reinbursed and the injustice of being ordered to not be allowed to speak upon the threat of further penalties of being banned from participating in the next 12 local union meetings was not addressed.

When I received the transcripts of my Trial Board Tony Chiappetta's testimony was missing, specifically the part where he admits to saying as he reiterated to me outside the Bellagio on May 23, 2013. Since I made my own recording of the Trial Board proceedings and I transcribed the missing portion and provided it to the IBEW First District office. I felt it was my duty to do so. 

The Local union officers specifically George Smith Recording Secretary supported strongly by Robert White the President/Chairman would not read the International Executive Council's decision at the regular local 353 union meeting, but they had no problem reading the charges and the flawed decision but would not read a decision from the highest body in the IBEW overturning that flawed decision by the Local 353 trial board (participated in by them) that lead to a member being unjustly penalized in a manner that contradicts the IBEW slogan of being the union of hearts and minds. :(

I believe that when the officers swear an oath to uphold the IBEW Constitution they commit themselves to doing it fairly and evenly without double standards.

No current sitting local 353 officer had the courage or integrity to stand and support what in my opinion would have been fair in that regard.

Sad but true Brothers and Sisters.

Let's hear about what the low rise members feel about how Steven Martin and the lowrise negotiating team represented them in these negotiations... in particular the loading the trucks for no pay issue that some members were complaining about to me.

Also I hope we hear some of what was said at the meetings this year.

               
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
Re: Lowrise Residential Contract May 2013
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2015, 06:18:26 AM »
Contractors, arbitrators... meh!
Fact is, Chiappetta spoke at a meeting that he was not allowed to.
Speranza never did speak until after spoken to.
Correct me if I am wrong Perry.

NO RECORDING OF WITNESS, TONY CHIAPPETTA, AND A PORTION THEREAFTER, IS ON THIS TAPE, AS PER THE TRANSCRIBER jb

Transcript Produced From The Complete Digital Recording of the June 8, 2010 Local 353 Trial Board Proceeding  Made By Perry Speranza.

The following is the portion of the trial not included in the transcripts produced by local 353 and provided to me and the IBEW First District office.


White: So Barry Stevens has called his first witness Tony Chiappetta, carry on Barry please

Stevens: Tony, just for the purpose of reading into the case here, to the best of your recollection… since the inception of the Lowrise unit have I.C.I. members been allowed to speak at their special called meetings.

Chiappetta: No

Stevens: And when I asked Brother Speranza to leave the meeting. Did he?

Chiappetta: No

Stevens: Did he have to be escorted from the meeting?

Chiappetta: Yes

Stevens : In your opinion does Brother Speranza’s behavior disturb the harmony and peace of the union meeting?

Chiappetta: In my feeling, yes.

Stevens: That’s my questions

White: Thank you… Ok, Perry any questions or clarifications, on what was just presented?

Speranza: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Tony, Brother Stevens said to you just now… have I.C.I. members ever been allowed to speak at the meetings. Is that the proper way that you understand who is allowed to speak at the meeting… or is there another way it is described?

Chiappetta: Even past presidents have made that clear, it has always been made clear that I.C.I. members are not allowed to speak.

Speranza: What I’m trying to say is… is that the way the Chairman says it at the beginning of the meeting? Does he no I.C.I guys are allowed to speak. Or does he say something else?

Chiappetta: Nobody working under this collective agreement will be allowed to speak.

White: Anyone not working under the agreement

Speranza: Anyone not working, that’s my understanding….  Now was there anyone that was not working under the agreement that spoke? Do you remember?

Chiappetta: At this past meeting ? No… Myself I tried but I…

Speranza: What happened when you tried.

Chiappetta: I was pulled away and then I walked away.

Speranza: Did you say anything

Chiappetta: I tried, I said a few words and… but as a point of information. I’m on the negotiating committee and speaking to the dealings in negotiations that’s probably the only leeway I have to speak on.

Speranza: Now, as a rule though… it’s pretty clear, Brother Stevens said and I’ll read it. He says that only members working under the agreement are allowed to speak so…. And I’m not, I don’t agree with it, because you’re a rep and you can and did say something at the meeting. You technically are not allowed to speak but you are an exception to the rule, Is that right?

Chiappetta: I didn’t speak. I ahhh… it’s only the first time I’ve ever gotten up at one of those meetings in a long time.

Speranza: Do you remember what you said?

Chiappetta: There was some confusion about some issues. Ahh but when I was asked to leave I reluctantly bowed and I got out of there…   I knew it wasn’t my place to get up there but I thought that at the time I had to.

Speranza: Do you remember telling them that…

White: Sorry, Perry, Perry…  sorry, Perry, clarification is about what was said you’re going into more than clarifying you’re asking him questions.

Speranza: But I’m trying to bring the point out that what he said… and then it will be up to the Trial Board to judge on whether what he said is factual or not. That’s what I’m trying to do.

White: Alright go ahead then.

Speranza: He’s saying no I.C.I. and that’s not right because the actual rule as we found out is… the rule is anyone not working under the agreement is not allowed to speak but now he says he did speak.

Chiappetta: I believe it was on a point of information strictly because I was one of the lead negotiators.

Speranza: Yes, but you told the members at the meeting… that the arbitrator ain’t gonna give you shit, did you not?

Chiappetta: I did say that.

Speranza: You did… Ok now, if you’re not allowed to speak then why would you make such a comment to try and sway the members?

Stevens: Point of…  Mr. Chair… Mr. Chairman

White: Perry, Perry

Stevens: No… No, brother chair I question here…. Brother Speranza was not in the meeting. He is only talking hearsay from his point of view. He has been told by someone else that line of questioning is not proper. His line of questioning has no validity because he was not in the room.

White: Brother brother, sorry, brother Speranza, my point I’d like to make is as a lead negotiator someone has to speak for the committee. There were 3 lead negotiators, there were three people that negotiated the deal and that was all guys not working underneath, now that’s the job of business representatives is to represent the members … Ok, you can’t expect then not to be allowed to speak at a meeting.

Speranza:  Ok but Brother, you’re just the chairman right? What I’m trying to say is …

White: Sorry excuse me…

Speranza: That the rule is…

White: Perry, I’m trying to clarify that if this man is lead negotiator and someone asks a point of information he has to give them his point of view because that what he is doing is clarifying what happened.

Speranza: But I understand that and I… and I…

White: but what you’re trying to say is that he is not allowed to speak… and I’m saying that he was clarifying.

Speranza: What I’m trying to say is he wasn’t clarifying he was directing them to do something.

White: Brother, that’s not what came out from what Barry said.

Stevens: Brother… Brother… Mr. Chair…The fact is, is that Brother Speranza

White: sorry tape ran out


Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Lowrise Residential Contract May 2013
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2015, 09:54:46 AM »
I had a right to be there, the International Vice President Phil Flemming sent a letter to qualify that any dues paying member could attend the meeting and as such I have the rights of a dues paying member in good standing. When the Chairman Barry Stevens would not allow me to comment on the pension plan I challenged the chair as is a member's right to do. It is a Chairman's duty to accept a challenge of the chair and step down, the members are then asked if they support the chair or the member.

That is the way it is supposed to be according to the IBEW Constitution that all the officers present swore an oath to uphold, not only did the Chairman refuse to accept a challenge but all the other officers present sat on their hands and did not do their duty to uphold and defend the IBEW Constitution.
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!