IBEW Representative Tom Reid, Can He Provide Proper Justice?

[PSperanza]

Sadly attending a local 353 union meeting does not seem to be about fairness, justice and respect for each member’s right to participate in a proper parliamentary style meeting. A proper assembly is conducted according to rules and the rules need to be applied properly and fairly to be able to claim respectability.

Parliamentary rules are meant to allow opposing views to exist while allowing important and necessary business to be conducted. When the fundamentals of proper procedure are undermined by incompetence or biased manipulative improper interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order I believe it amounts to arrogant abuse of power that undermines the whole concept of fairness.


I regularly attend the meetings in my unit in Toronto and try to go to as many of the other unit meetings as I can when I am able. Recently I have attended each of the last 6 unit meetings that cover the months of May and June in local 353. We have 3 units (North Barrie, East Bowmanville, South Toronto) therefore 3 unit meetings per month all in the same week from Tuesday to Thursday.

In my experience of attending meetings I never witnessed such a high attendance at these meetings by the officers and business representatives as I did recently. It was like a call for all hands on deck had been made. Now with all of these experienced union officers and paid representatives on hand you would think that proper procedure according to the rules would exist. After all, they have sworn an oath to uphold the IBEW Constitution. The officers especially make a pledge in front of members with their right hands raised and state… “all this I solemnly pledge with the full knowledge that to violate this pledge is to stamp me devoid of principle and destitute of honour.”

Those are serious words with serious consequences that one would think an officer would remember. At the last south unit meeting one senior local 353 officer chose to mislead members by only reading what is listed in the IBEW Constitution, he avoided the actual oath that he repeated in front of members and that I witnessed him repeat in front of members.

The local 353 officers have retained a legal firm to send a member (myself) a Notice of Libel claiming defamation and threatening a lawsuit. Members were asked to vote on a bill of $5000.00 in May 2015. Questions for information by members on the union floor related to that bill were avoided by the business manager. Motions to table the bill until comprehensive factual information about the actions was provided were ruled out of order by the unit chairmen.

In June omissions to the minutes offered by members and corrections to errors were refused by two of the unit recorders.

A new bill for the sum of $27,165.20  was presented in the bills and members were advised by the chair at the north meeting that there were to be no questions regarding that bill. This caused objections and debate, but debate only happened after the vote was forced without proper information being provided. The chairman was challenged to provide a constitutional provision to the floor that supported his decision and he refused to do so.

At the east unit meeting the business manager would not answer questions regarding the bill and the chairman ruled a motion to table the bill out of order. When challenged to state what constitutional provision or parliamentary rule that he was basing his decision on, he would not provide an explanation. An officer on the dais stated that it was a standing bill and therefore had been already been paid and therefore could not be tabled.

At the local 353 south unit meeting after the business manager’s report we addressed the bills. Questions to the bills were invited and several members rose to address the chair. One member asked for clarification about the  plaintiffs listed on the legal papers. The floor was told that the officers were named but because they were the officers they represented the local just like the directors of corporation do for a corporation.

When I attempted to make a point regarding statements made by the business manager in his report and relate them to my questions on the bill related to the action by local 353 officers affecting myself I was interrupted and the microphone was turned off. I asked to be allowed to finish but again the microphone was ordered to be turned off by the chairman forcing me speak in a louder voice.  He refused my motion to lay the bill on the table until members were provided information about the actions being undertaken by the local 353 officers. He took exception to my lead in to my question that identified misinformation to the members by the business manager related to the bill in his report.

Business Manager Steven Martin stated that the action was being taken to address a case of slander by a member of the local who has put into the public slanderous things about the local union in itself.

I believe that if the business manager is going to make such statements and expect members to approve a legal bill regarding the action he should provide members with information about it. He did not.

Now the chairman Robert White refused a motion to lay the bill on the table and as I tried to make that motion he insisted on my answering a question regarding whether I “taping the meeting”. I responded that it was unfair for him to ask such a question and I tried to relate my position to the IBEW Constitution by quoting Article 1 Section. He interupted and loudly demanded that I must answer his question. When I pointed out that his action was discriminatory and that he in my opinion was violating the harassment policy read out at the beginning of the meeting he decided to poll the floor and ask members if they were in favour of being recorded. I protested his improper actions and he stated that I was causing a disturbance and he ordered me to leave the meeting.

I left the meeting and was in the dispatch area outside the meeting doors when I was confronted by Steven Martin who began pushing me and saying that I must leave the building. I asked him to keep his hands off me and he continued by pushing with his body and as I tried to move to where my bag was he blocked me and forcefully pushed me again. As this was happening several members were close by watching including business rep Les Carbonnaro and Greg Cullen, and two or three other members including at least two members that work at the hall.

So in my opinion unfairness and improper procedures are being allowed to go on in local 353 and not being expeditiously addressed by the IBEW international office despite charges being filed on numerous occasions. Intimidation is being allowed in union meetings and practiced by officers at the local 353 union hall, this is not the first incident regarding a member being pushed and abused by a local 353 Representative and is a disturbing trend that I hope will be addressed by someone in authority. It is hypocritical to read out a harassment policy at the beginning of union meetings and then allow political opponents or critics to be discriminated against by double standards and physical abuse.


Yesterday, I spoke with Tom Reid outside of the IBEW First District office and told him about what happened at the local 353 union hall on June 11, 2015. I asked him if he could call Steven Martin and ask him to preserve and not erase the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area where the incident took place so that we could view them.

I also requested a copy of any IBEW policy addressing the use electronic recording devices in union meetings. I informed him that I would be documenting my requests to him email to create a record. I sent the email at mid day but have not received a reply as yet,

[/quote]

[PSperanza]

FYI information IBEW Brothers and Sisters, below is an email reply from Executive Assistant to the International Vice President, Representative Thomas Reid to an email I sent him that is also copied below for your information.

FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer?


FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer
Reid, Thomas  Edit contact    18/06/2015   
To: Perry Speranza

                                                               
Perry: As the Privacy Officer of Local 353, Business Manager Martin has decided not to release the security video from the evening of June 11, 2015.  Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that requires Brother Martin to allow you to view it.


In regard to a written policy on the members right to tape record meetings, as you know the IBEW Constitution is the supreme document that we all as IBEW members must adhere to. The IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3, under the main heading of Duties of Local Union Officers, and under the subheading of Recording Secretary states; The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U., answer all correspondence in accordance with instructions given him by the L.U. or the President, make out all orders on the treasurer for the payment of authorized bills, notify the I.S.T. of all changes in officers giving names and addresses, and perform such other duties as are directed by the president or required by this Constitution and the bylaws of the L.U.  Additionally, as we discussed in the parking lot outside the First District office there are a number of practical, common sense,  reasons why the IBEW cannot allow members to tape record meetings, the most obvious being to protect the integrity of the meeting and the record there of.  The meeting as I am sure you aware is open only to members in “Good Standing” for the same obvious common sense reasons. We would have no practical means of ensuring that the members were not sharing the tape recordings with whomever they saw fit, which could include competitor unions, nonunion, or contractors. Additionally there is no means of ensuring that the member taping the meeting has not manipulated the recording to their own advantage resulting in an inaccurate record. Finally, it is not permissible because potentially there could be ulterior and malicious motives involved that are not in the best interest of the membership or the IBEW.

As we also discussed in the parking lot Monday, there is no way for the IBEW to prevent meetings being tape recorded covertly, you did as you have numerous times, pointed out the fact that Ontario law, in your opinion allows this. You then cite IBEW Constitution Article I, Section 2, which states;  “ This organization, in the merging together of all electrical workers in the United States and in Canada, fully recognizes the sovereignty of each of our great nations and the advancement of industry compatible with the laws of each country and the objects of this Constitution.” and you then make the connection or leap to the law as justification for your actions.  I am sure you are also aware that the laws of our great nation have for years( in excess of one hundred), recognized our Constitution, and when tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals, have time and time again protected our rights to self-govern in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution.  This is not a leap, but documented fact, supported by copious amounts of jurisprudence, or case law if you prefer, which can be found online by anyone with the time and the desire to do so.

In closing, and in the interest of being perfectly clear, it is the policy of the IBEW First District office, that we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U.

 
From: Perry Speranza [mailto:perryspe@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:00 PM
To: Reid, Thomas
Subject: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer

 
Dear Brother Reid,

 
As we discussed this morning I want to document by this email my request to you to ask Steven Martin (the local 353 privacy officer) to not allow the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area from Thursday June 11 to be erased. I would like to request that someone from the IBEW First District view it and allow me to be there.

This request is in relation to to an incident that happened between myself and BM/FS Steven Martin after I was asked to leave the union meeting by chairman Robert White. Steve Martin attempted to push me out of the dispatch area first by using his hands and then by pushing against me with his body.

I hope you will address this immediately as I was told by Steven Martin on Friday June 12, 2015 that the security tape will erase itself or tape over itself in 7 days.

Also, can you please provide me with a copy of an IBEW policy or rule that states that IBEW members are forbidden to use electronic recording devices in union meetings. As I told you this morning Robert White chose to ask me if I was recording the union meeting on Thursday June 11, 2015. I claimed that by doing so he was discriminating against me and harassing me contrary to the policy read out at the beginning of the meeting. He demanded that I answer his question and would not allow me to speak without interruption until I did. When I refused he accused me of disturbing the meeting because of my attempt to state my position and relate it to the IBEW Constitution Article 1. Section 2.

Thank you   

[Conversationalist]

Well what's the point of the security cameras if they are not used if an offense  is allegedly committed. Are they hiding what they did because if you have nothing to hide you will have no problem releasing the video tapes. I bet if a member shoved and pushed an officer or rep they would be in kangaroo court or worse. Hmm  didn't Bob gullins get in trouble over some incident like this with Joe Fashion?

What's going on here. If this offense is under the criminal code then its not protected under the ibew constitution.  Perry you need to use other means to get the tape. Were there witnesses to this as well who will come forward?

Considering you are the defendant in the libel suit and not the plaintiff they are certainly not making for a very good lawsuit. It only furthers your case of calling corruption of which not releasing the tapes is corruption.  Can't deny that analysis.

[Conversationalist]

 I have a real hard time seeing how the members at thr union meetings  unanimously approved the lawsuit when there were errors and ommissions in the minutes--one of the things perry classifies as corruption and is a correct way to view corruption--i guess it is like the members who voted a president back in as he was going to jail for corruption.  Doesn't make sense so do we have members blinded  by corruption or afraid for their jobs or promised stuff in return? Good questions to ask. 

Based on reading this forum I would love to see where slander against perry is justified as he only reports just like the newspapers  would do and he only presents the case with respect to the jobs they perform as officers or reps not personally and if you are paid by members hard working dollars of which perry does  contribute to their salaries then he has the right to question stuff, he can question it on behalf of members and he can expose'thr kangaroo courts of which he was subjected to and he can expose dragging of feet

[Conversationalist]

Its quite interesting that little time is spent on discussing the assault allegation. No where does the IO ask if you want help in getting the tape to view but rather trying to intimidate you with how the ibew constitution has been tested  and has won hundreds of time. 

However the viewing of a tape with a criminal charge allegation is very different .

[Eric Klyne]

FYI information IBEW Brothers and Sisters, below is an email reply from Executive Assistant to the International Vice President, Representative Thomas Reid to an email I sent him that is also copied below for your information.

FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer?


FW: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer
Reid, Thomas  Edit contact    18/06/2015   
To: Perry Speranza

                                                               
Perry: As the Privacy Officer of Local 353, Business Manager Martin has decided not to release the security video from the evening of June 11, 2015.  Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that requires Brother Martin to allow you to view it.


In regard to a written policy on the members right to tape record meetings, as you know the IBEW Constitution is the supreme document that we all as IBEW members must adhere to. The IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3, under the main heading of Duties of Local Union Officers, and under the subheading of Recording Secretary states; The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U., answer all correspondence in accordance with instructions given him by the L.U. or the President, make out all orders on the treasurer for the payment of authorized bills, notify the I.S.T. of all changes in officers giving names and addresses, and perform such other duties as are directed by the president or required by this Constitution and the bylaws of the L.U.  Additionally, as we discussed in the parking lot outside the First District office there are a number of practical, common sense,  reasons why the IBEW cannot allow members to tape record meetings, the most obvious being to protect the integrity of the meeting and the record there of.  The meeting as I am sure you aware is open only to members in “Good Standing” for the same obvious common sense reasons. We would have no practical means of ensuring that the members were not sharing the tape recordings with whomever they saw fit, which could include competitor unions, nonunion, or contractors. Additionally there is no means of ensuring that the member taping the meeting has not manipulated the recording to their own advantage resulting in an inaccurate record. Finally, it is not permissible because potentially there could be ulterior and malicious motives involved that are not in the best interest of the membership or the IBEW.

As we also discussed in the parking lot Monday, there is no way for the IBEW to prevent meetings being tape recorded covertly, you did as you have numerous times, pointed out the fact that Ontario law, in your opinion allows this. You then cite IBEW Constitution Article I, Section 2, which states;  “ This organization, in the merging together of all electrical workers in the United States and in Canada, fully recognizes the sovereignty of each of our great nations and the advancement of industry compatible with the laws of each country and the objects of this Constitution.” and you then make the connection or leap to the law as justification for your actions.  I am sure you are also aware that the laws of our great nation have for years( in excess of one hundred), recognized our Constitution, and when tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals, have time and time again protected our rights to self-govern in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution.  This is not a leap, but documented fact, supported by copious amounts of jurisprudence, or case law if you prefer, which can be found online by anyone with the time and the desire to do so.

In closing, and in the interest of being perfectly clear, it is the policy of the IBEW First District office, that we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U.

 
From: Perry Speranza [mailto:perryspe@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:00 PM
To: Reid, Thomas
Subject: Re Request to Local 353 Privacy Officer

 
Dear Brother Reid,

 
As we discussed this morning I want to document by this email my request to you to ask Steven Martin (the local 353 privacy officer) to not allow the video from the security cameras in the dispatch area from Thursday June 11 to be erased. I would like to request that someone from the IBEW First District view it and allow me to be there.

This request is in relation to to an incident that happened between myself and BM/FS Steven Martin after I was asked to leave the union meeting by chairman Robert White. Steve Martin attempted to push me out of the dispatch area first by using his hands and then by pushing against me with his body.

I hope you will address this immediately as I was told by Steven Martin on Friday June 12, 2015 that the security tape will erase itself or tape over itself in 7 days.

Also, can you please provide me with a copy of an IBEW policy or rule that states that IBEW members are forbidden to use electronic recording devices in union meetings. As I told you this morning Robert White chose to ask me if I was recording the union meeting on Thursday June 11, 2015. I claimed that by doing so he was discriminating against me and harassing me contrary to the policy read out at the beginning of the meeting. He demanded that I answer his question and would not allow me to speak without interruption until I did. When I refused he accused me of disturbing the meeting because of my attempt to state my position and relate it to the IBEW Constitution Article 1. Section 2.

Thank you   

IBEW vs. Canadian Law

Dear Thomas Reid,

Excerpts from Legaltree.ca: http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908

The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.
.
Consent to interception of a conversation involving many people
If many people are involved in a single conversation, it can lawfully be recorded so long as any one of the parties to the conversation consents to it being recorded. That rule is set out in s. 183.1 of the Criminal Code:
 
Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.
.
Rights to privacy under other Canadian legislation
Apart from the Criminal Code, various statutes in Canada provide privacy protection. For example, the British Columbia Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 373 [Privacy Act] codifies the tort of violation of privacy. However, there is nothing in that statute which indicates that it is a violation of another person’s privacy to record a conversation with them. Further, s. 1(2) of the Privacy Act states that:
 
The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled … is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.
(Emphasis added).
 
Thus, the Privacy Act would not likely prevent a party to a private communication from recording it as permitted by s. 184(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.
................................................................................      
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
You are no longer ignorant of Canadian Law Mr. Thomas Reid.
Please inform the rest of the IBEW International and Local officers, AND also inform the members
that they have no right to expect that their conversations won't be recorded at union meetings.
IBEW 353 officers especially need to be aware that their actions/inaction at union meetings might be recorded,
so they should stop damaging the integrity of the IBEW by violating the Parliamentary Procedure of union meetings.
The IBEW Constitution does not state that members can or cannot audio record meetings. No IBEW policies or votes by IBEW members at meetings can violate Canadian Law.

Please refer to Canadian Law before jumping to conclusions and possibly embarrassing the IBEW.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html

Specifically:
Consent to interception
183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.
      1993, c. 40, s. 2.

[Eric Klyne]

Also Mr. Tom Reid, you said the following:

"In regard to a written policy on the members right to tape record meetings, as you know the IBEW Constitution is the supreme document that we all as IBEW members must adhere to." …

… "I am sure you are also aware that the laws of our great nation have for years( in excess of one hundred), recognized our Constitution, and when tested before courts, labour boards, and tribunals, have time and time again protected our rights to self-govern in accordance with the aforementioned Constitution.  This is not a leap, but documented fact, supported by copious amounts of jurisprudence, or case law if you prefer, which can be found online by anyone with the time and the desire to do so."

I challenge Mr. Tom Reid to forward any amount of Canadian jurisprudence, or Canadian case law if he prefers, that can be found online that would support the IBEW harassing any member for exercising their right to record union meetings.
Maybe he can get Gary Majesky to post it as his ourlocal353 alias Good TradeUnionist.

In closing, and in the interest of being perfectly clear, it is the policy of the IBEW First District office, that we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U.

IBEW vs. Canadian Law

So, in the interest of being perfectly clear, you, Mr. Tom Reid, are stating that the IBEW will violate Canadian Law?

IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
http://www.ibew769.com/library/constitution/article17.htm
vs.
Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 Consent to interception 183.1
http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/1831-consent-interception

Additionally there is not a Constitutional Article, Local 353 bylaw, or policy or procedure of the IBEW that allows, condones or gives permission to any IBEW officer or member to harass and/or stop any IBEW member from tape recording meetings of the L.U.

Does the IBEW 353 Harassment Policy not protect members
from being "singled out" with unwelcome requests of whether they are recording the meeting or not?

If the IBEW officers want to state that members should not record the meetings at the beginning of every meeting, they have a right to say that.
If they want to know whether anyone is recording the meeting, then they must ask the members as a whole.
Otherwise, it's harassment.

No one has any right to "order" someone to answer a question.
No IBEW officer has the right to "order" someone to answer a question, falsely accuse them of "causing a disturbance" for refusing to answer and then kick them out of a meeting.

[GoodTradeUnionist]

Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

The parking lot ambush, a favourite of the hurry-up justice crowd was tawdry.

When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

You couldn't get a more resounding reply, even if you posed the question "who wants get get  f u c k up the ass by the boss?"

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

Ypu're incessant piddly constitutional itches always have a way of blowing up spectacularly.
don't you think?

[Eric Klyne]

Gary Majesky, if you are a member of the "Law Society of Upper Canada",
why do you avoid discussing the LAW?

Erik,

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

The parking lot ambush, a favourite of the hurry-up justice crowd was tawdry.

When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

You couldn't get a more resounding reply, even if you posed the question "who wants get get  f u c k up the ass by the boss?"

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

Ypu're incessant piddly constitutional itches always have a way of blowing up spectacularly.
don't you think?

Bros. Reid was very clear and succinct in his words, which were carefully chosen.

Yes Gary Majesky,
and I see you failed to post any links that would support Mr. Reid's words that would support the IBEW harassing any member for exercising their right to record union meetings..

When members were polled whether they wanted Speranza secretly tape recording them and the 353 meeting, they voted overwhelming No.

So what.
Gary, are you stating that the members can overrule Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 Consent to interception 183.1?

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members.

Employer friendly members that would want to spy on members at meetings always had the open door to record meetings.
Rather silly to suggest that Perry would be the spark to encourage employers to do that.

Bright Nutz Speranza would screw everything up, just like his suicide grievance re Over-Age 50 clause, which the contractors won.  Why?  Because protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members.

If the Over-Age 50 clause protecting older workers is reverse discrimination against younger members, why did the contractors agree to it?
AND why did the IBEW 353 officers screw up and FAIL to win the grievance Gary?
.
.
.
But let's get back to the LAW
the LAW that clearly states that the members have no right to privacy, in regards to whether their conversations will or won't be recorded at union meetings.

[Eric Klyne]

Gary Majesky aka GoodTradeUnionist,

The IBEW International office is wrong to interpret the IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
as being a policy that allows them to harass, bully and interrogate individual members as to whether they are recording the meeting.

The IBEW International office is also wrong to interpret the IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3
as being a policy that allows them to harass, bully and prevent members from tape recording meetings of the L.U.

To be clear and succinct (when referring to IBEW Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3),

"The R.S. shall keep correct minutes of each meeting of the L.U."
does not translate to
"we cannot and will not knowingly allow members to tape record meetings of the L.U."

[kojack]

It is reverse discrimination to protect older workers.
Why then is on the agreement ?
And what is it when older workers collect fat pay check and take job from young workers ?

[kojack]

Glad Perry's crazy position has infected our labour relations, because he opens the door for further intrusive actions by employers who want to spy on members
I don't believe what I read !!!
The contractors have any information they want from the reps for the members,
BETTER STOP THIS JOKE !

[Conversationalist]

With respect to the  failed over 50 grievance since when does a member get blamed for the failure--is 353 so low that they blame members for their failed grievances and wsib claims.

The over 50 clause in construction is morally right  and the human rights board errred and even a child could figure out the right way to do things.

So was the failed grievance  because of lack of proper representation so it could be rubbed in an political adversaries face over and over again? Good question.

If it was that's corruption and the rubbing of the failed grievance against perry is corruption to be used by perry in court in the libel case.

[Conversationalist]

Since were talking about grievances here is an example of not wanting to step on the toes of contractors by the former bm--- I heard that a member years ago had a great grievance case but at the olrb the member was asked to drop the grievance as it would be a long process and they would reward them by putting them in a different classification which was more money. The member gave in because this pathetic display of lack of backbone  by this union was so disheartening to them.

So would you like to comment on that GTU? Or is this embarrassing. Are we embarrassing the court action?

[Conversationalist]

According to your post perry they served you a notice for threatening  a lawsuit--really well I guess  you can subpoena a former rep for threatening a lawsuit against a contractor trying to get the money he was owed under the stab/market recovery fund . That should be quite interesting.

Its ok for  them to threaten a lawsuit but you can't?  Thats a good one . I hope the judge finds it rather comical.