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

  • September 26, 2020, 09:46:02 AM

Login with username, password and session length

*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 26, 2020, 09:46:02 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: IBEW Members Prohibited BY I.O. From Using Unions Funds To Fund Legal Actions  (Read 1678 times)

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Let's use this forum to examine the issue of local union members using the local union funds to pay for legal actions approved by the floor of the local union.

It's interesting to quote posts made here on this forum to document issues that have been attempted on the local union floor and rulings by international officers that addressed them. We can examine issues and decide whether there is fairness for all members in rulings by the IBEW International Office or double standards when it comes to what rand and file members can do and what officer members can do.


You wonder why I am wasting my time dealing with Gary Majesky Alias GoodTradeUnionist?

I wonder why Gary Majesky spent so much time cheerleading against a member that was unfairly treated by a contractor and being represented first Local 353 and then by the whole IBEW Construction Council of Ontario against a contractor that violated the collective agreement?

We only need to go back and read your comments on this forum as GoodTradeUnionist Gary Majesky. Do you really have the interests of the entire membership at heart or are you simple concerned with vilifying and individual member for being involved in being represented by the union in defending a clause of the collective agreement. I wonder if a person such as Gary Majesky would agree with the ruling of the Ontario Labour Relations Board Vice chair?

Did you Gary Majesky take any time to attend any sessions of the hearings to be able to be such a self proclaimed expert on the case?

What about the action claiming contractor interference by a group of local 353 members after the last election Gary, who were you cheering for there Gary? Was it the contractors backed by Local 353 paid lawyers? Al Minsky challenged that the local 353 members did not have standing and that he representing the Local 353 administration and therefore it was he that spoke for local 353. ???

Vice Chair David A. McKee did not agree with Mr. Minsky's contention and agreed with the allowing the local 353 members standing at the OLRB in case that the local 353 administration did not support and paid Mr. Minsky to say that the local 353 members had no standing at the OLRB. :( 


IBEW International office sent their best lawyers to sit in and in my opinion they didn't appear to be there to support the members. >:(

IBEW IVP Phil Flemming ruled a motion made on the floor of the local 353 union meeting to fund the members action  at the O.L.R.B. out of order and made what in my opinion was another very questionable ruling when he said that the motion by the members for Local 353 to fund the action was in conflict with the IBEW Constitution because the IBEW Constitution did not allow the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. :-\

We pay lawyers to represent members by passing bills at every union meeting but Phil Flemming chose to go out on another constitutional limb and put in writing and send to me that decision. :-[

I could fight that and win Gary, in fair hearing if i wanted to. Actually we just need to be able to make that motion again so Phil Flemming would not be able to take such an interpretation of what was clearly a case where the local union needed to represent the membership and take a position against contractors interfering with local union elections by supporting and favouring the incumbent administration led by Joe Fashion the man that hired you Gary Majesky and was responsible for taking you and your wages out of the view of the local 353 membership by no longer showing it as a bill.

Perhaps Phil Flemming would find another way to rule the motion by the members to oppose contractor interference with local union money out of order... I wonder. ???

Which brings us back to the question of what does local 353 pay Gary Majesky W.S.I.B rep to write posts in the ourlocal353.ca forum at 9:00am on work day? Why is the wage of such a key member of the local union hall staff such a secret? Did Gary Majesky get some sort of raise or did he take pay cut?

You see Gary I am fighting an election campaign and I run it and fight it on many levels because it is important to me address the comments of man that spends his time misleading and misinforming the local 353 membership of this forum with his biased and unfair commentary.

It give me pleasure to do so, I feel it is my duty to oppose such propaganda. ;)             
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
A key question to consider is... Are the local union officers the local union?

Or is the Local union body (the membership) the local union?

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,

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

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Regarding the wages and benefits paid to 353 staff, this is determined by reference to the local union by-laws including Gary M.

However, you'll have more transparency and disclosure when your favourite piece of federal law (Bill C-377) takes effect January 1st 2015.

Regarding your involvement at the labour board trying to overturn a 353 election, my recollection is that was a flop.  A good try, but still a crib death.

Those were good dust- ups, but the momentum was unsustainable, and when Fashion retired, you reverted to a minor bit player.

Fashion stepping down actually neutralized you, because you needed Joe to mobilize your base, or more accurately, the anti-Fashion crowd.  With Joe gone you withered.

Not sure if McKee heard submissions on that, but history doesn't lie.

While I recognize your debating skills are not too shabby, you drone on like a broken record and don't realize you're a kill buzz at union meetings.

That aside, you're taking on a diverse group each with different skills and aptitudes.  The Les Carbonaro's exude intellectual and trade union heft.  Jeff Irons is formidable on many levels and when you work thru the Martin/White Team, each has a specialty that combined you can't emulate, but are left shadow boxing by making asinine comments on meeting procedure.

Want to kill a meeting, start yammering the nonsense you do.

It always comes down to you're smart, everyone else stupid.  But strangely enough, the so-called assholes you vilify are running the show. 

My reall concern is your absurd belief that your right to secretly record conversaltions trumps our collective right to privacy. 

That's an arrogant position, which is made worse because the floor doesn't support you.

Leave the late Brother Phil Flemming out of this debate, because he along with other solid I.O. Reps have a disdain for your antics. 

As for the alleged officer misconduct at 353 monthly union meetings, if what you say is correct, sadly you can't muster any support on the floor.
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Gary, I see you’re having trouble addressing the issues in the post allow me help by taking them one at a time for you.

What about the action claiming contractor interference by a group of local 353 members after the last election Gary, who were you cheering for there Gary? Was it the contractors backed by Local 353 paid lawyers? Al Minsky challenged that the local 353 members did not have standing and that he was representing the Local 353 administration and therefore it was he that spoke for local 353. ???

Vice Chair David A. McKee did not agree with Mr. Minsky's contention and agreed with allowing the local 353 members standing at the OLRB in a case that the local 353 administration did not support and paid Mr. Minsky to say that the local 353 members had no standing at the OLRB. :(

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

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
So Gary Majesky/Local 353 Executive Board member, we have the IBEW First District office ruling a motion by the local 353 members to challenge contractor interference in a local 353 election out of order, but where are they when a bunch of local union officers decide to spend local union money for lawyers to file libel and defamation actions against a member?

IBEW International office sent their best lawyers to sit in and in my opinion they didn't appear to be there to support the members. >:(

IBEW IVP Phil Flemming ruled a motion made on the floor of the local 353 union meeting to fund the members' action at the O.L.R.B. out of order and made what in my opinion was another very questionable ruling when he said that the motion by the members for Local 353 to fund the action was in conflict with the IBEW Constitution because the IBEW Constitution did not allow the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. :-\

We pay lawyers to represent members by passing bills at every union meeting but Phil Flemming chose to go out on another constitutional limb and put it in writing and send to me that decision. :-[
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
So Perry Speranza, 9 times political loser, failed reformer, self proclaimed graduate from the University of Google, and persistent gadfly who has more issues with his Local Union than anyone else in Canada.

If you are ever elected an officer (God forbid) you'll perhaps understand the distinction between a member versus Officer.

Since you cheapen the role of Officer to that of a toad, and fail to appreciate the enormous distinction, and responsibility that Officers have to protect the Good Ship IBEW.

I have long cherished the leaders whom we elect to lead and represent us, and understand their motivation in protecting the IBEW which they swore an oath...now where is that little piece of paper....ah, here it is.

It seems obvious to me that you are a modern day incarnation of Ernst Zundell, whose racist ravings while offensive garnered the support of the Civil Liberty crowd.

Not that you are a fascist, but your tendency to libel union officers in the public realm with a zeal usually associated with the anti-union right wing politicians has positioned you in the cross-hairs of a serious legal imbroglio.

Although I'm not intimately familiar of the details of your current libel dispute, as few details have tricked out, I will be a keen observer of these proceedings and support my fellow union brothers and sisters in bringing you before whatever court or body that can bring to an end your vulgar disdain for IBEW Local Union Officers.

Officers are important players within ourvlcal union, and when they exert their moral and legal prerogative, we'll see the limits of their authority.  This should be very educational.

Signed,
The Colition For Respondible Free Speech
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline serf

  • David Ammond
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
Well Majesky, the veracity of this libel threat is questionable because it comes from corrupt officers with a history of illegitimate attempts to muzzle dissent. By the way, your derisive epithets beg the question: is it not better to be a “political loser” or “failed reformer” than a complicit winner? 
“Unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself.”
      Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Dave, I couldn't agree more.

Was going over some old 424 papers and didn't realize you were charged by Barry Salmon.

That sure must have energized you.

As you knw, i was always a sucker for good looking people with a decent hairline, and can't fathom why that chain smoking lefty would charge you.

Man, it must have felt good to smoke that salmon.

Where we part ways is when defeated union politicians can't understand that time marched on and they were left behind.

The monthly union meetings are a plebasite on Perry's pet causes, and he should be concerned at the drubbing he regularly receives.

There is certainly a DSM-IV diagnosis for what ails this 353 bother psychologically, but that's another matter to be dealt with by mental health professionals.
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline serf

  • David Ammond
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 796
You express a facetious but characteristic sentiment, that dissent is madness and corruption is normal. Your lawfare vendetta is unbecoming an IBEW officer.
“Unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself.”
      Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
So Gary Majesky/Local 353 Executive Board member, we have the IBEW First District office ruling a motion by the local 353 members to challenge contractor interference in a local 353 election out of order, but where are they when a bunch of local union officers decide to spend local union money for lawyers to file libel and defamation actions against a member?

IBEW International office sent their best lawyers to sit in and in my opinion they didn't appear to be there to support the members. >:(

IBEW IVP Phil Flemming ruled a motion made on the floor of the local 353 union meeting to fund the members' action at the O.L.R.B. out of order and made what in my opinion was another very questionable ruling when he said that the motion by the members for Local 353 to fund the action was in conflict with the IBEW Constitution because the IBEW Constitution did not allow the funds of the local union to be divided severally amongst the members. :-\

We pay lawyers to represent members by passing bills at every union meeting but Phil Flemming chose to go out on another constitutional limb and put it in writing and send to me that decision. :-[


IBEW 353 officers violate Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution
- Will the IBEW 1st District IVP Bill Daniels stop this injustice?

The past IBEW 1st District IVP Phil Flemming was referring to Article 18 of the IBEW Constitution.
Quote
IBEW Constitution

Article XVIII   - Dues . Assessments .  Funds

Sec. 6.

The funds and property cannot be divided among the members individually,
except in the form of such benefits as maybe provided by the L.U. after approval of the I.P.

Currently,
IBEW 353 members have divided funds amongst themselves by encouraging members to pass a motion that pays for their "personal" lawsuit against another member.

These IBEW 353 members are IBEW 353 officers
that have encouraged 353 members
to unknowingly violate the IBEW Constitution.



Will be interesting to read the I.O.'s explanation as to why there is a double standard going on here.

Offline GoodTradeUnionist

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Since I am not involved in this matter, the important distinction is this.

As Brother Speranza often points out, the Elected Oficers swore an oath, which when layered onto the member obligation to not bring harm to the IBEW is pretty strong and compelling stuff.

Only a true Mason would understand the inner call of duty and confliction, but I digress.

The Flemming decision regarding Article 6 pertained to a member action to fund there lawsuit of an improper union election.

The matter which Speranza now argues is illegal under IBEW law is an Executive Board action, arises from the bowels of the Executive branch and wholly distinguishable from the matter Speranza attaches great importance.

This is certainly a complex and serious matter, and I have faith in the office of IVP Bill Daniels who is a sensible and hard working, to render an insightful sober analysis.

I'm sure he'll cut through the crap and figure out right from wrong.
Just retired, enjoying my pension.

Offline Eric Klyne

  • Soon to be Freeman
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886

The Flemming decision regarding Article 6 pertained to a member action to fund there lawsuit of an improper union election.

The matter which Speranza now argues is illegal under IBEW law is an Executive Board action, arises from the bowels of the Executive branch and wholly distinguishable from the matter Speranza attaches great importance.



No where does it say, "…except if the Local Union Executive Board members bring forth the motion to fund a members' lawsuits against another member(s)."

This action brought forward by Executive Board members to fund some members' personal lawsuit against another member seems to violate a few Articles of the IBEW Constitution.

Quote
IBEW Constitution

Article 10
Legal Defense
Sec. 1.
Requests for assistance involving legal defense may be made to the International President. No disbursements for legal defense shall be made from the General Fund except for the legal defense of Local Unions (on behalf of their members) or for the defense of the I.B.E.W. or an International Officer or Representative whose activity in the interest of the I.B.E.W. and in conformity with its laws results in legal involvement. All requests for legal assistance will be investigated by the I.P. and shall be subject to his approval and review by the I.E.C.

Article 15,
Rules for Local Unions
Sec. 24.
No L.U., or its officers, employees or representatives, is authorized to act on behalf of the I.B.E.W., or shall be deemed an agent of the I.B.E.W., except upon specific authorization granted by the I.P.

Article 18
Dues . Assessments .  Funds
Sec. 6.

The funds and property cannot be divided among the members individually, except in the form of such benefits as maybe provided by the L.U. after approval of the I.P.


This is certainly a complex and serious matter, and I have faith in the office of IVP Bill Daniels who is a sensible and hard working, to render an insightful sober analysis.

I'm sure he'll cut through the crap and figure out right from wrong.


A serious matter but hardly complex.
I.P.approval, whether it comes directly from the I.P. or is delegated through an IVP,
is supposed to come before disbursing funds NOT after.
None of the Articles allows disbursements of funds for personal lawsuits.

Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Since I am not involved in this matter, the important distinction is this.

As Brother Speranza often points out, the Elected Oficers swore an oath, which when layered onto the member obligation to not bring harm to the IBEW is pretty strong and compelling stuff.

Only a true Mason would understand the inner call of duty and confliction, but I digress.

The Flemming decision regarding Article 6 pertained to a member action to fund there lawsuit of an improper union election.

The matter which Speranza now argues is illegal under IBEW law is an Executive Board action, arises from














































the bowels of the Executive branch and wholly distinguishable from the matter Speranza attaches great importance.

This is certainly a complex and serious matter, and I have faith in the office of IVP Bill Daniels who is a sensible and hard working, to render an insightful sober analysis.

I'm sure he'll cut through the crap and figure out right from wrong.

So who is the Free Mason--that secret society of people with power and money. Is it you GTU and that's why you post with no threat of accountability? Would you care to answer.





Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: IBEW Members Prohibited BY I.O. From Using Unions Funds To Fund Legal Actions
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2015, 11:01:15 PM »
I believe the IO is getting caught in their web of deceit---they refuse members to fund a lawsuit through union funds but bring in their own lawyers for this same action at the OLRB


I challenge the government of Ontario or their entities reading this  forum to step up to the plate and provide  union members with a clause forcing unions to balance the scales of justice by providing paid legal representation for members taking issue with their unions and the government of Alberta to do the same.

Plain and simple


Offline Conversationalist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
Re: IBEW Members Prohibited BY I.O. From Using Unions Funds To Fund Legal Actions
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2015, 11:17:50 PM »
That is why the libel suit against Perry .Speranza should be thrown out---because such a clause is missing in the ibew constitution and therefore the union is failing the union member !!!!!!