*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 06, 2021, 10:25:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020  (Read 2156 times)

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« on: February 13, 2021, 08:12:13 PM »
6796 Trial Board Chris Inch Sept 15, 2020

James Dodman: At this time, I’ll call the trial to order.  It’s now 6:06 p.m. Tuesday, September 15th.  I’ll read out the charges.  Dear Brother Chris Inch and Karl Lovett, card number D964903, a member of Local 773 IBEW hereby confer charges against Brother Chris Inch, card number D822386, a member of local union 773 IBEW. Last known mailing address is 201 Dalhousie Street, (00:44) Ontario.  The violations are as follows: Article 25, Section 1(a), Article 25, Section 1(e), Article 25, Section 1(g), Article 25, Section 1(i), Article 25, Section 1(j).  The violations occurred on or about June 19th, 2020.  It continues. The violations occurred as follows: charged member knowingly and willfully shared the business of local union with other unions, the charged member has continued to harass the business manager, the charged member circulated a letter of employment (01:41) and gave directions at the BA. The charged member applied threats to the business manager.  At this time, I’ll do roll calls, we’ll go around the room.  Please say your name.  My name’s James Dodman, President, Local 773. 
Speaker 1:    Jaret Wills, member of the IBEW 773.
Speaker 2:    Brian Fields, executive board 773.
Speaker 3:    Matt Bradfield, executive board 773.
Speaker 4:    Dave Mifflin, executive board 773.
Speaker 5:    David Colasanti, executive board 773.
Speaker 6:    Shaun Fleming, member of 773.
Karl Lovett:   Karl Lovett, the business manager, Local 773.
Speaker 7:    Perry Speranza, counsel for the accused, Local 353.
Speaker 8:    Chris Inch Local 773.
James Dodman: At this time, I’m going to ask the charging party to present their case.
Time- 3:00
Perry Speranza: Thanks Mr. Chairman, can I deal with some preliminary issues before we get to the case.
James Dodman: Okay.
Perry Speranza: Just a couple of things I want to mention to get them on the record.  So, we have the – I presume because you didn’t mention it, the recording is on?
James Dodman:Yes.
Perry Speranza:So, we want to address the production of transcripts in case there’s an appeal needed.  Does the local produce the transcripts free of charge? I assume there will be copies made. 
James Dodman: We supply that to IO, yes.  We assume the cost for that. 
Karl Lovett:     By order of the Constitution says that, if the accused party wants to appeal, it’s their burden to pay for the appeal.
Perry Speranza: I understand, but that’s why we ask for it to be specified because I believe in previous trial boards, it was stated that the local union would be …
Karl Lovett:     Point of order, we can’t use anything that we used in a previous case in this case.
Perry Speranza: Well, that’s why I’m asking because he addressed in the previous cases.
James Dodman: We supply the transcripts to the IO, so if you want a copy, you’d probably have to go to IO to get that copy.
Perry Speranza: The accused needs the – if the accused is found guilty, the accused would need the transcripts to work on his appeal, so that’s why generally why transcripts are produced.  So, I submit that because the policy here in Local 773 and the past two trial boards I’ve been a party to, has been that they would
 
Time- 5:09
produce the transcripts at no cost to the defendant, that we follow through with the policy.
James Dodman: Well, we produce the transcripts and they get sent to the IO at our cost.
Perry Speranza: That wasn’t specified. Technically, transcripts are produced for the benefit of the appellant.
James Dodman: Like I say, that’s an issue you’d have to take up with IO.
Perry Speranza: Oh, I’m stating it here Brother Chair for the record. 
James Dodman:Okay. Noted.
Perry Speranza:The other issue I’d like to address is the delivery of the decision to the charged party, the time on it?
James Dodman: So, according to the Constitution, we have 30 days, correct?
Perry Speranza: I was not aware of that.
James Dodman: Yeah, when you read the Constitution it says, they have to supply the verdict within 30 days.
Perry Speranza: Can you show me Brother that because that’s new to me (06:30).
Karl Lovett: While you look, I’m just going to step out and get my glasses.
James Dodman: So, it’s Article 25, Section 6.
Perry Speranza:Section 6.
Matt Bradfield: Page 82.
James Dodman: Starts on 81 and then leads into 82.  Do you want me to read the whole thing?
Perry Speranza: Yeah, no, no, not the whole thing, just the part that …
James Dodman: So, on 82 at the top of the page it says, time within 30 days from the day the decision was recorded.
Time- 8:20
Perry Speranza: Yeah, so if go a little bit further back, do you mind if I read it?
James Dodman: Yeah.
Perry Speranza: The action of the trial board shall ensue the action of the LU and a report of the board shall conclude the case, or cases, except for the accused having the right to appeal to the IBP, then to the IP, then to the IBC and then to the IC.  However, the board may re-open and consider any case or cases when it feels the facts or circumstances justify doing so within 30 days of the date of the decision; the date the decision was rendered.  So, I believe this is in reference to the board re-opening a case, but I’m asking when – I believe it’s in the how to conduct a trial booklet. Do you have one?  I believe it says that the trial board should deliver the verdict to the defendant ASAP (09:30).
Matt Bradfield:   ?So, this is your question, when – how long is this one going to take?
Perry Speranza: Yeah, I just want to get it straight.
Matt Bradfield:  All right, well when we come up with a decision, then we render our decision, correct?
Perry Speranza:  Yeah, the how to conduct a trial board booklet says that the trial board shall deliberate and deliver a decision immediately after the trial, which means today.  So …
Karl Lovett:              Point of Order, it’s all speculative information right now.  As soon as possible could mean as soon as possible, that’s an opinion.  It does not state in there that they have to make a decision tonight.  This was called on to the – to the international office, International Mike Leblanc said you have 30 days to render a verdict.  The accused has 45 days to appeal that verdict if he so does not agree with it.
Time- 10:25
Perry Speranza: I believe that I clarified this with Bruce MacNamara and he agreed with me that the decision shall be rendered immediately after the trial board, which means that same day.  And so, I’m asking you to get it clear, when shall we expect a decision? Which I believe should be a few days.  I brought this issue up in the previous trial board and we were told a couple of days and then it took 24 days, so if...
Karl Lovett:  Point of order, he’s talking about another case again.  A verdict hasn’t been rendered, so once the accused is done …
Perry Speranza: I don’t believe the Brother has a right to interrupt me while I’m speaking.  I think it’s up to you to decide who speaks and when.
James Dodman: It doesn’t actually say how quickly they have to render a decision.
Perry Speranza: Oh.
James Dodman: So, I refer back to the Constitution that says we have 30 days to finalize it.
Perry Speranza: Yeah, I don’t recognize that as a – that addressing the issue.  That’s related to re-opening the case should other evidence be brought.  I don’t believe it’s proper to wait 24 days.  I’d like to ask …
James Dodman: Well, what does 24 days have to do with this trial though?
Perry Speranza: I’m trying to get it straight because I did – I did get it straight and I was told that it would be done within a few days and then it took 24 days, so that’s why I’m bringing it up.
James Dodman: So, obviously with that other case you’re speaking of, something must have come up that they had to re-open case, right.  Like you really can’t discuss that case here tonight.
Time- 12:12
Perry Speranza: Yeah, but the decision needs to be rendered ASAP, but if it needs to be re-opened, that’s another matter.
Matt Bradfield: Okay, well this decision will be rendered as soon as we can come to an agreement.  Does that answer your question?
Perry Speranza: You’ll have to come to an agreement tonight.  I believe that’s...
Matt Bradfield: No, it doesn’t say anything about the same day.
Perry Speranza: Oh, I believe it does.  I believe it does.
Matt Bradfield: Can you show us that please because I’m not going to argue this all night, because we’re going to be here forever.
Perry Speranza: Chairman, other, I’m sorry that you’ve got somewhere else to go.
Matt Bradfield: I have nowhere else to go, this is where I want to be.
Perry Speranza: We’re here – we’re here to conduct a trial board.
Matt Bradfield: That’s fine.
Perry Speranza: If you’re going to have that kind of attitude, I don’t understand at all.
Matt Bradfield: No, Chairman, if I could have a minute, a moment.
James Dodman: Sure.
Karl Lovett: Nobody says this trial is going to be done okay. I made a call to the international office today.  I have as much time to have my trial right now, but you’re cutting into my time.  And my trial can go multiple days and then the verdict will be rendered after that.  I asked Mr. Mike Leblanc how long they have to render a verdict, because I would like the verdict to come very quickly.  He says, there’s case law that says they have 30 days to render a verdict from when they come to a verdict.  And that reason being is because they have to have proper time to
Time- 13:23
analyze all the evidence put before them and not rushed to judgement.
Perry Speranza: Well, this is news to me.
James Dodman: So, instead, it will be as soon as possible. That’s the best answer you’re going to get.
Perry Speranza: This is news to me, and I believe everyone here has a duty to conduct a trial board according to the rules.
James Dodman: Do you have another issue?
Perry Speranza: Let’s see. Yes, I’d like to inquire about the selection of the trial board.  I believe some people weren’t placed.
James Dodman: Normally, I choose officers of the local, but when they get excluded, I have to go outside that.
Perry Speranza: Did someone recuse themself?
James Dodman: No.
Perry Speranza: So, who made the decision to replace.
James Dodman:Certain members.  Well, they weren’t chosen for the trial board.
Perry Speranza: Oh, you did?
James Dodman: I chose members because certain officers weren’t available for this trial.
Perry Speranza: So, that’s the reason?  Because as an executive board member that – I think his name is Nick Garofalo.
James Dodman: Yes.
Perry Speranza: Is that correct? He wasn’t available?
James Dodman: He was excluded, sorry.  He was excluded, yes.
Perry Speranza: But what’s the reason?
Time- 14:46
James Dodman: Because of his involvement in the case.
Perry Speranza: So, he was biased?
James Dodman: I felt he was, yes.
Perry Speranza: Because normally the, either the charging party or the defendant makes those kinds of claims.
James Dodman: Yeah.
Perry Speranza: So, that’s the reason?
James Dodman: Yes.
Perry Speranza: All right. Thanks. We would like to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias Brother related to the trial board jurors being placed by – related to an executive board member being replaced by the president and replacing that Brother with, let’s see if I can get the name straight here, Brother Jaret Wills.  We have a reasonable apprehension of bias because of Brother Willis’ relationship with the charging party. So, I’d like to put that on the record?
James Dodman: Noted.
Perry Speranza: Thank you. Thank you very much. I think that’s my…
James Dodman: Okay, you can continue with your case.
Karl Lovett: Thank you. First let me thank the Chairman, trial board members for taking the time to deal with this most serious matter.  My evidence today will be fact based and any accusatory comments will be based on the evidence I present to you. 
So, I start my case with the work history to claim a financial hardship that was reported to the international office by the accused.  Mr. Inch reported to them that he’s worked approximately 36 days in nearly 16 months.  “I’ve witnessed
Time- 17:54
several members placed in work ahead of me, thus causing me financial harm and violating local 773 bylaws or constitution in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, not being permitted to access any list – to any list, documentation or being able to photograph or list a suspicion again in bad faith”. That was created on June 19, 2020.  I turn to the next page which is a travel work request form for local 115.  I see Mr. Inch took this call.  The next page is a page that I sent off to local 115, giving authorization to use Mr. Inch.  The next page is the work referral.
Perry Speranza: Excuse me Brother Chair, can I make a point of order, would it be too much to ask if the Brother could relate evidence as he presents it, to what clause he’s associating it with?
Karl Lovett: I’ll do that the other way, my case.
Perry Speranza: Pardon me.
Karl Lovett: I’ll produce that through evidence.  They’ll have to decipher through the case if it met, if it me the criteria for that charge.
Perry Speranza: What I’m asking …
Karl Lovett: Please I’m asking not to interject while I’m giving evidence.
Perry Speranza: Point of order Brother. What I’m asking the chair is if you could for the sake of our ability to comprehend the case.  As you present your evidence, state what you are associating this evidence to which clause that you charging your Brother with violating. Otherwise, you’re going to state a whole bunch of issues and then everyone is going to have to try to sort it out.  Does that …?
Karl Lovett: That’s why we call this a trial Mr. Speranza.
Perry Speranza: Do you find that reasonable?
Time- 19:55
Karl Lovett: That’s why we call this a trial Mr. Speranza.  I’d ask that you don’t interject in my – in my production of evidence.
Perry Speranza: Well, I just asked the Chair.
Karl Lovett: Unless there’s some flaw in my evidence or the way I produce it, I’d ask that you don’t interject.
James Dodman: Some of this evidence may pertain to all of it, I don’t know. It’s up to us to decide once it’s presented to us, right?
Perry Speranza: Well, I don’t agree, but if that’s your answer, fine.
James Dodman: Continue.
Karl Lovett: Next I show you work history report of all the projects Mr. Inch has worked on.
Perry Speranza: Brother Chair, one more, sorry to interrupt one more time a point of order. Are we going to display these sheets as exhibits one, two for reference purposes as we go through?
James Dodman: Well, it’s in a package, it’s exhibit one, we’ll call it.  Continue.
Karl Lovett: So, I can show you that the history since 2007 of Mr. Inch going to work, right up to August of 2020.  If you flip to the next page, you’ll see that Mr. inch created this page in June 19th, 2020, because remember he said he worked approximately 36 days in nearly 16 months, claiming financial hardship.  The next page shows a clear trend.  If went back 16 months, it’s approximately February 2019.  On January 19, 2019, Mr. Inch extends his vacation until January 25th.  March 12th F.M. Sylvan Windsor Casino, he refused a call. March 15th, he took a call to Mid-South. November 29th worked at B&M, worked one week, asked for the layoff.  Other members were just laid off from that job August 14th, 2020, that was Jim Masters.  February 19th call for Tucker.  The call lasted two weeks short of five months.  Nathan Plahcinski took that call.  He just signed the
Time- 22:27
book on July 10th.  Mr. Inch never returned a call to the hall. March 11th, call for Mid-South, he refused it. March 18th took a call for KTS, he said he was going on vacation to protect himself from the virus.  March 20th, a call for Tucker, he wanted more time off. March 28th again, call for FM Sylvan. He went on vacation for two weeks starting March 16th and May 15th, KTS he took a call there to Bonduelle. Clearly showing the financial hardship was brought on by himself, not as if he accused in this letter that he sent to international office accusing me of financial hardship against him.
Perry Speranza: So, this was all exhibit one?
James Dodman: Yes.
Perry Speranza: All of that Brother, is all in here.
Karl Lovett: Yes, we can call this exhibit two. And Mr. Chairman if I can, all this information, according to the international office, stays within the union hall because we’re in the union hall. I point to an email that was sent out by Mr. Inch, circulated around the province to John Gibson, business manager of 120, Brian Jacobs, organizer at the time, local 804, Bruce Palmer, the business manager at the time, 1687, Frank Harris the business manager of 530, Steve Martin, the business manager of local 353 Toronto, John Bourke the business manager of 586 Ottawa, Mark Churney, the business manager of 303, Steve Fox who was the dispatcher at the time, now a business manager at local 105.  Also sent to senior executive assistant to IBEW, an IO senior executive, the senior executive assistant to the IBEW.  At no time was this sent to me, it was sent to everybody else.  I had this sent to me by business manager of Sarnia.  If you turn to the second page, back side of the first page, it says, “Although the bylaws mention the
Time- 25:13
dispatching jobs is at the discretion of the business manager, it clearly states that he shall devise a means that is practical and fair.  This statement is reinforced by the Labour Relations Act, Section 75, which it requires that the referral will not be arbitrary, discriminatory and/or in bad faith.  The only reason we have our members been permitted to take pictures of the auto work list, when it was intermittently being posted without being charged for doing so.  This is not good faith or trustworthy behaviour.  As a member of local 773, I have no way of knowing what jobs are available or how they are dispatched.  I also have no indication of how the members receive their 50/50 call, 50/50 hiring, calls, or the 50/50 hiring is being abused. Arbitrary means a random choice or personal whim and not a proper system. Currently, the method of dispatching members to work in 773 as archaic system proven to be unfair”, remember that, “proven to be unfair”, “impractical and easily manipulated.  Every other IBEW local in Canada has adopted a fair and transparent job line system that proves honesty and good faith”.  Now, that’s a lie also. 
I’ll move on the next page; I believe yours might be highlighted as mine is.  “Fairness is not in the business manager’s discretion.  Sol Furer also claimed that everything at local 773 was honest and fair.  Now, it seems his protégé is continuing in his footsteps with our dispatch system.  You’ll pardon me for not taking any 773, business manager or a Sister at their word.   What is fair in good faith must be proven as such.  The fact that every other IBEW Local in Canada has a job line of transparent referral system as their current practice proves, that the IBEW Brothers and Sisters in Canada deem it’s a method to be honest, fair and in good faith.  The current mystery list system has caused myself and many other
Time- 27:02
Members financial harm.  The only reason for this dated, easy corrupted system is to intimidate and impress the members of Local 773.  Coincidently, the previous executive board members often managed to obtain positions at most long term and over time jobs available.  The members of 773 should no longer be suppressed and intimidated by the business manager for fear of unemployment or related reprisal”.  This again is a fallacy. No business – no executive board member in this local has ever been treated more fair than any other member of this local.  The calls go out as the calls come in. 
Turn to the back side of that.  “The excuses that Sol Furer, now Karl Lovett used to explain their reason for not having a job line are weak and not justifiable.  The first excuse is that members can sit on the list, not work and just collect benefits.  One of the already existing 773 Out of Work list rules states that members in the top ten on the out of work list must make themselves available for work.  Thus, negating – any – that excuse.  The next excuse is that we would get any out of town work as easily as if it took three days to dispatch calls”.  Well, we’re not getting out of town easily if it took three days to dispatch calls.  “The out of town list is not under serious suspicion since it runs sequentially and with no 50/50 hire. The excuse that calls take three days and that suffices as a reason to not have a transparent dispatch system is ridiculous.  Unfortunately, this is believable to those who blindly trust without question or haven’t learned from the actions of the previous business managers; actions prove righteousness and not words”.  I can tell you these same accusations that are unfounded have no proof, were done, were made before. 
April 9th, 2009 a letter to the IBEW executive board Local 773, Windsor, Ontario; “I, Chris Inch, card number D822386 am
Time- 29:17
filing a formal complaint against business manager Sol Furer, any company such as Black and McDonald, Vollmer, Mid South and any members in similar violation of the following: principle agreement, where are the working hours, the Constitution, Article 15, Section 11, Roberts Rules of Orders, Article 25, Section 1(b).  I turn to the second page of that.  He states, “if our out of work list cannot be opened or proven to be fair, it’s likely because it’s not.  Every dollar spent and every move made in our local jurisdiction, in our local, is every member’s business.  It is the business manager’s job to run an out of work list fairly and he works for the members and not the other way around. If we have secrets or corrupt lists at our hall, then how can we call this a Brotherhood?”  Another accusation, there’s a corrupt list, this has been done before.  I’m going to show you some more evidence.  “I request that Local 773, executive board help enforce our Constitution of bylaws and instruct the business manager of his Brotherly obligations”. This was an accusation made before. 
“Then charges were brought up against Mr. Inch. I, Sol Furer card number D412380, member of local union 773 hereby confer charges against Brother Chris Inch, care number D822386, a member of local union 773 whose last known mailing address is 32 McBride Road, Amherstburg, Ontario for violation of the following: Article 27, looks like Section 13 and Article 25, Section 1(e).  “Brother Inch has accused the business manger of running in a letter sent to the local union, the first district IDP and his lawyer dated April 9th, 2011 of inclusion and various IBEW – with various IBEW companies to have certain persons take time off while other persons are laid off.  Brother Inch also accused the business manager of not accepting a fair out of work list and says that the out of work

Time- 31:18
list is corrupt.  And by doing so, he is interring with the performance of local union 773.  Brother Inch did not follow local union bylaws and inform the union hall when he was on vacation”.  So, a trial takes place and at that trial several witnesses are called up.  I’ll skip through a few pages. I think it might be highlighted for you Scott Volland. So, Mr. Volland is asked to spell his name, which he does spell and it says, “in your position as a product manager, did you have the projects that your boss has given you to oversee? He said, that’s correct. And you’re in charge of the operation of those jobs? Yes, I am. Do you do the hiring for those jobs? Yes, he did. 
I’ll skip down a bit to the highlighted area.  No, sorry, just before that it says, “have I ever, since I’ve been the business manager here, called you and told you to put certain people on short time and other certain people and to lay certain people off and keep other certain people”. The answer is never. Do you have the right to do that? No. That I know – no, not that I know of.  Sol Furer states for the record, “I just want to state for the record, of course Brother Volland is correct, because in our contract, the business manager does not manage the day to day operations of the company”.  I’ve been accused of allowing companies to maintain employees; they want to keep the employees – they want to keep the employees – and they keep those that want on an out of work list.  Have I ever asked you to do that? Scott says no. 
Move down that page to Mike Hope.  Mike Hope states in the page after, he’s the superintendent at rorison.  And he says, “Mike I’m going to ask you a couple questions.  I’ve been accused of – well, let me just ask the question this way first.  Have I ever – how long have you had your job there and what do you do there? He says, eleven and a half years. And he says,
Time- 33:32
“is it fair to say that you’re the one on the job that does the hiring?”  He says, yes, I am.  “And you’re in charge of lay-offs when lay-offs occur?”  Yep.  On every job Rorison has? Yes, I am.  “Have I ever called you to ask you to tell you to put people on shorter time?” He says, never.  “Never have I called you and ordered you to ask to lay certain people off or send other people home?”  Never.  “Do you think I have a right to do that?” He says, no, well can you ask the question again.  “Do you think I have the right to tell you that?” He says no.  The reason why I paused is because if you would do the hiring, you’ve called me sometimes.  “Oh, so let me clear that up.  I’ve called you on occasion to have you send a man to the union hall to pay their dues when they’re three months behind?” Mike Hope: That would be correct.  “I asked a question, have you ever had Chris Inch work for you and do you have any ill will towards Chris Inch”.  He says Chris is actually a good worker.  “That’s fine, thanks”. 
Next, they call Mr. Bob Donaldson. Sol ask Bob, “have I ever called you to ask you to lay off certain individuals and put other individuals on short time?” No, not at all.  So, would you say this statement is, “I’ve been accused of the business manager of allowing companies to work certain employees less than 36 hours a week and companies are permitted to keep Brothers at home with no hours.  Is that something that is in my control?” Bob says, no not at all.  “Do you think being superintendent at home or have the power to do that?” Bob Donaldson says, no, I don’t believe so.  I believe the company does have the right to manage their manpower.  “Again, Bob has stated the company has the right to manage and I don’t have the right to manage”.  Bob Donaldson: That’s correct. I asked, do you any ill will against Chris Inch, he says, no not at
Time- 35:21
all. 
Move on to the next page, Mr. Mike Valcanoff.  How many years have you worked at Moncur? Forty-five.  Are you in charge of the manpower or the hiring and layoffs on every available job? Yes, I am.  So, you do the hiring and the layoffs. Have I ever, in my term here, called you and asked you to put a guy on short term? No, no. Have I ever called you to ask you to lay a guy off and put the other guy on short term so they could stay at your shop? No. Do you think I have the right to do that? No, I don’t.
I’ll move on to the next page, Mr. Paul Robinson, he was at Black and McDonald at the time for four years.  Prior to that, he was at Single Source and Miar Electric.  So, I’m going to ask you a question about the three shops that you’ve been in control of.  On all those three shops, especially the two you own, on all three, are you the person in charge of the hiring and the firing or lay offs of your employees? Yes, I am.  No one else at any of those three shops? No.  And since the time I’ve been business manager, for ten years, have I called you up while you were at Single Source, while you were at Meyer or now, when you’re at Black and McDonald, had you or told you to lay certain people off and send other people home on short a term? No, you would never do that.  Do you think I have the right to do that? No, you don’t.
And then I flip to the next page.  It’s says, let’s talk about the out of work lists that I was going to leave Brother Inch to prove.  He’s made accusations the out of work list is unfair in his letter and I’m letting Brother Inch prove it to me why I’m abused or not – I’ve abused or not fair on a work list.  That’s his charge against me.  Okay, in this letter I wrote an unfair
Time- 37:12
corrupt out of work list.  We have every out of work list here going back to when I was here and from when Sam was here.  And everyone that goes out could be justified with a 50/50 hiring and matches up.  As you may or may not know, there is also hiring sheets that we keep for many, many, many years that would back up how the names go off the out of work list.  Those sheets are never destroyed.  They’re here.  I could go back last year and tell you and you tell me when you went to work and I can tell you – could see who went with you, whether there was a 50/50, whether he was name hired and you can see that in red ink on the out of work list. 
About two pages forward, “Dear Brother Chris Inch stated June 24, 2011 charges allege you violated the local union bylaws. The Constitution.  Here’s the decision of the trial board, local union bylaws.  Found guilty and a fine of $250.00.  The Constitution found guilty – he may not be a candidate for or hold any position of the local union or attend any meetings or functions of the local union for a period of three years”.  That was the decision rendered by the trial board. 
Go the next page, since I took office, I posted the out of work list inside the union hall.  Not intermittently, it did come down and we had to adjust the list and then go back up.  This is the interior waiting area.  This is the other interior waiting area by the dispatcher. You see the picture, it says, please feel free to take pictures of the list. Please let us know if there are any discrepancies so we can address them. 
March 11, 2020 front lobby of the union hall, front lobby of the union hall, March 11th, note underneath says, please feel free to take pictures of the list. Please let us know if there are any discrepancies so we can address them, that’s the out of work
Time- 39:18
list. March 11th.  Mr. Inch knew this, but still thought he had to make accusations and send them around the province knowing that the list was posted in the lobby for everybody to see, not locked up, not hidden in a drawer, in the lobby.  Because of the sheer magnitude of this, I’ve only got two copies? One I can distribute, and you guys can run through page to page if you need to. These are the out of work lists from August 2018.
Perry Speranza:   May I ask Mr. Chairman; are these exhibits also not being taken out of the union hall?
Karl Lovett: None of this will be taken out of the union hall.  If you want to production in evidence later on because you’re appealing something, then they’ll be made available to you if you pay for them.
Perry Speranza:    This is something new.?
Karl Lovett: This is something I’ve talked to the international office about and they concur.
Perry Speranza:     Who did you speak with?
Karl Lovett:             Mike Leblanc.
Perry Speranza:      Mike Leblanc?
Karl Lovett:            Yes.
Perry Speranza:   So, the exhibits you produce here, we have to pay for         photocopy?
Karl Lovett: Well, it would have to be – it would have to come, I guess, in an appeal if – I mean we’re saying in an appeal.  You might like the verdict of the trial board, so I can’t be accusatory there or jump to assumptions.  Some of the stuff has private information of public members involved.  So, I may recluse if I
 
Time- 41:20
just sent that out to the general public.  Because you’re going to see in my testimony today, there’s been a habit and a ritual of people posting unfact, biased information on the internet and I’d hate for any of this stuff to get on the internet.  We don’t want to assume any liability issues.
So, in this, I’ll leave that with you guys there, you guys can go through it as you will as I produce more evidence here.  We’re moving along fairly well, I think. 
These are the out of work lists, which I can provide back to the date of Sam Riddick in the ‘90’s.  And in these, I’m going to challenge anybody in here to show me discrepancy or anybody who has jumped on the auto work list or anybody got an unfair shake on this out of work list.  This is dated 8/11/2020.  It’s right there in front of you sir.  Red side up.  I could track the record of Mr. Inch through these documents.  8/11/2020 Mr. Inch has himself as sick on the out of work list. 8/7 Chris Inch is sick.  I can see if people return to work or return to the list who worked short term calls, they would fall ahead of him if they were ahead of him when they went out.  This is documented here. 
I’ll go to the next page, 8/6/2020, cross Chris Inch’s name out, Mid-South took a call.  That’s what we do.  Then I flip to the next page, it’s a work request form and that’s how we do this.  Chris Inch said yes to the call, but on the day of the call, he called into the hall, apparently unfortunately he was sick.  So, called in sick before showing up on time on Monday, August 10th, replaced based on left on spot, that call was for Meteor.  I requested a doctor’s note, it’s written on the list.  The call before that, Ken Swass went out to work.  He was one ahead of Chris Inch.  Turn to the next page dated 7/30/2020, Chris
Time- 44:06
Inch is on the list.  He put himself down as an R1, refused the call.  The next page, it’s a call for August 6th, Vollmer, they want five journeyman, five apprentices, so you’ll see Chris Inch refused that. He hasn’t opened the calls, an ICI call or a Lari call.  I told him unfortunately I don’t know that because the contractor called the union hall and they asked for guys and I said where are they going to be going.  And they said, we’d like to tell you that, but unfortunately, we got calls at schools, we got some calls at Ford and if you send me a guy, they can’t do the work at Ford, we’re going to have to send him to another job, so that’s fair. The next page, 7/29 you’ll see Chris Inch is number 9 on the list, he’s worked 19 days, that’s what the small numbers refer to beside.  Sorry guys if you don’t have this, but it will be passed around for you guys to view. 
Perry Speranza: Brother Chair, Brother Lovett is referring to 7/29, what does that refer to?
Karl Lovett:           July 29th, 2020.
Perry Speranza:    Where’s that?
Karl Lovett:            Top right.
Perry Speranza: Okay, so the date right. Okay, thank you. I see 7/30, where’s 7/29? I might not have it.
Karl Lovett:            Yeah, it’s two pages away. 
Perry Speranza:    Two pages ahead, okay, like...
Karl Lovett: So, we’re beyond that.  Now, we’re at 7/28.  You see the calls that came in. We go another page, 7/24 Chris Inch is still there, number 8 on the list.  We had a member who transferred his card back from Regina who was an original member here.  A call to the international office said we could not refuse of the transfer back.  Signed the list at 74.  Not that we wanted to, we
Time- 46:15
just wanted to make sure we played by the rules. I’m at 7/24 here.  The reason you don’t see Mr. Inch’s name is because he’s on a call that he took before.  Same goes with 22 and 21. Chris Inch comes back to the list; ten days worked.  We can move some pages ahead, the names on the list all the time, following sequentially.  Even up to 7/13 the names are still all in order, nobody jumped.  So, the reason you don’t see Chris Inch’s name on the pages before that is because on – Chris Inch went to KLA.  So, you see Chris Inch at number three on the list at 7/6/2020.  The page before that, 7/2/2020, Mr. Inch is number two on the list.  He’s got a R1 beside his name for refusing a call.  The page before that, Chris was three on the list, that’s June 29th, R1 beside his name.  The page after that, July 2nd, 2020 start date of July 3rd from Vollmer, the duration of the call was two to eight weeks, four journeymen, four apprentices.  When asking Vollmer where the guys are going, they said, have the guys report to the shop.  So, four journeymen, four apprentices, Mr. Gillespie said yes, Mr. Inch said no, Brian Cowell said no, Stefan Steiner said yes, Kevin Poulin said yes, Lorenzo Grosso, Brian Robinson, Ken Swass and Lonny Redfern said no. Mr. Redfern refused – did not return the call actually on this one and there was a little confusion, we talked about the previous case if I may since it’s been happening where Mr. Redfern said that he was taking a shower, missed the call and subsequently got a refusal for it.  I produced audio evidence of a full recording with Mr. Redfern that said, indeed he was cutting the grass and by the time he looked at his phone and noticed he’d missed a call and said he decided not to call the union hall back.  That was reported in audio evidence in a previous trail that I submitted.  So, although it was posted in social media that I’m jumping people who are in
Time- 49:39
the shower, Mr. Redfern admitted on audio recording that indeed that wasn’t the facts.  The fact was that he had missed the call because he was cutting the grass and did not call back to the union hall because he didn’t think he had to. 
I go to the next page. Mr. Inch is number three at 6/23/2020.  The page after that, you’ll see some writing on it, Scott McFarlane team needs work, June 19th layoff, putting him back on the list where he’s supposed to go. That’s how we do it, fair system here.  6/22 Alex Pavlovic goes to Tucker. We scratch him off, put Tucker beside his name.  Steve Peto, 50/50, he went to Tucker.  The page before that 6/17 Mr. Chris Inch is at number four on the list.  You can see when we do stuff wrong what we do is we write June 19th, 2020 Glen Marshall we had an error. That’s because when we find errors, we write down that we had an error, we want to correct it.  Shane Brazeau June 23rd took a call at Detroit Local 58 travel call.  Alex Pavlovic who didn’t his days returned back to number one on the list.  That was a bone of contention and some controversy how that happened because you know if you don’t work past the ten days, you go back to your spot on the list.  He was number one, didn’t work ten days, returned to his spot at number one on the list.  You can see at the bottom we wrote in Steve Moir and Corey Day and Ed Miller, because that’s what we do as they do it.  We sign and put it on this list and then we update the other list, so we know who’s getting it. 
June 1st, 2020 Chris Inch remains at number three on the list.  May 26th, Chris Inch is number three on the list. May 20th, Chris Inch is number three on the list.  The writing beside Chris Inch’s name on May 15th, worked at KTS Electric, I suppose it has the amount of days beside his name. Oh, it was a one day Time- 51:51
call I believe Bonduelle, I think. So, right beside Chris Inch’s name on May 11th, and it says May 4th beside Chris’s name, must have meant Chris Inch went to work.  The call before that you see Chris Inch, number three on the list.  The call before that, April 28th, Chris Inch is number three on the list.  April 24th, Chris Inch is still number three on the list.  You see Glenn Marshall returned to the list April 28th, he was laid off.  He gets slotted in where he’s supposed to go.  Evan McCann and Tyler Kimball twenty plus days, they go to the bottom of the list.  April 22nd Chris Inch is number three on the list.  Frank Pizutto and Jaret Wills signed the bottom of the list, they were laid off, from that point. Barry Heeney confirmed the slot of March 20th lay off date, Eptcon, Shawn Robertson, Brian Robinson, and Dan Dejonghe who didn’t work their total days, so they got slotted back to their proper position on the list.  
Remember, these are Covid times, guys didn’t know if they were going back or not. April 7th, Chris Inch is still number three on the list, a bunch of guys got laid off from down at ABM, Ryan Johnson, Trevor Besse, John Benson, Brian Caron, Dom Ferrarelli signed at the bottom.  April 2nd, 2020 Mr. Inch is number three on the list.  April 1st Mr. Inch is still number three on the list.  Chris Line must have worked a few days, got slotted in behind Chris Inch at number four. Same situation for March 26th.  March 18th, Chris Inch is still number three on the list.  May 15th the call came into the hall, starting May 18th, Bonduelle Lacasse Street main entrance, we had a 50/50 call attached; 50/50 call bid in the 50/50 book.  Chris Inch said yes to that call, so did Stephan Steiner.  They wanted three journeymen, three apprentices, one was a 50/50, two came off the list.  March 25th Chris Inch is at number three on the list.  March 20th, Chris Inch is number three on the list.  So, we’ve got March 24th,
Time- 54:54
starting at March 30th Tucker Electric, number of employees required, one, one apprentice, starting time of 8:00 a.m. J.A. McWilliams school re-lighting.  Kevin Denis Poulin, Glen Marshall, Glen Marshall took the call. Chris Inch was on vacation protecting himself from the virus.  March 16th Chris Inch is still number three on the list.  You’ll see the call came in March 18th for March 20th, underground at Windsor salt mines.  So, when we get the information, we do put the information out there if we have it. Virus protection, Chris refused the call. March 19th 2020 Chris Inch is number three on the list, call came in March 20th to start again on March 23rd, number of employees required, four journeyman, three apprentices, sorry four people, three journeyman, one apprentice, report to John Pickle’s shop for safety training.  Dave Gillespie couldn’t go, he doesn’t have working on nights, Chris Inch said he was on vacation for two weeks starting March 16th.  The people who took the call were Caleb Chartrand and Mike Khoury.  The apprentice that went was Brent Wills, he’s a fifth-year apprentice, it has the address there, 35 Prospect Drive.  A few days before that, March 12th, 2020 Chris Inch is number three on the list, he refused a call.  You see that on the page before.  So, March 11th was the call-in date, March 16th was the start date.  The name of the contractor is Mid-South, four people total, sorry four journeyman, two apprentices, so it’s four people total, two journeymen.  Alex Pavlovic and Dave Gillespie were the ones who took the call, but Dave Gillespie had no working at heights, I don’t think I’m trained on what they did.  The page before that, March 11th, Chris Inch number three on the list.  March 6th, the page before that and this is all 2020.  Chris Inch is number five on the list.  March 4th, Chris was number six on the list.  February 28th, Chris was number six on the list.  
Time- 57:34
February 25th, Chris was sixth on the list.  February 20th, he was number five on the list, but went down to six for people short calls.  If you go on further, the 19th, Chris was five on the list.  Call for Tucker Electric, guys I was talking about earlier, February 19th, start at 24, call was for two to three months, work Belle River.  It was the old arena, journeyman required.  Dave Gillespie R1, Dylan Major R2, Marin Samardzic couldn’t get a hold of him, he got an R1, Chris Inch never returned the call, and Nathan Plahcinski said yes to the call.  This is the call I’m referring to and Nathan Plahcinski was just laid off, made the call.  But there’s accusations that he was treated unfairly and he wasn’t getting the calls.  February 13th, Chris Inch is number seven on the list.
So, what I’m showing is a progression here of how he started on the list and how we grew up the list and how he was never jumped on the list.  February 5th, Chris is seven on the lists.  January 24th, Chris is eight on the list.  January 21st, Chris is eight on the list.  January 20th, Chris is eight on the list.  January 17th, he’s eight on the list.  January 16th, he’s eight on the list.  January 15th, he’s eight on the list. January 14th, he’s eight on the list.  January 13th, he’s eight on the list.  Because of guys returning, January – sorry, that’s still January 8th, and on January 7th, Irwin returns back from Mid-South, makes Chris eight on the list. That’s on the 7th. Next page is another work request form from Mr. Irwin Shields. The page before that, January 2nd, 2020, Chris is seven on the list.
I go to 2019. December 31st, Chris is seven on the list. The 23rd, seven on the list. 20th, he’s seven on the list. 18th, he’s seven on the list. 13th, he’s eight on the list. There’s a call for work December 13th, starting December 18th for Jeff Phelan Controls. Number of employees required, one. Elring Klinger, Leamington and robot cell rebuild, must have robot experience. Mr. Richard Schram took that. December 12th, Chris is sixth on the list. 10th, Time- 1:01:06
6th on the list. 6th, Chris Inch returned to the list, that’s when he got put back on the list at, number nine, at that time. That’s why he was the previous page. So, then you don't see Mr. Inch on the list here, 12/6/2019. Everything in order going forward. Mr. Inch had a call, the reason he’s not on the list is because he had a call to Black and McDonald. His next – you see him on the list at November 26th, 2019, ten on the list, B and M, 11/29. So, the call came before that November 28th for a start date of November 29th Black and McDonald. Number employees required, two journeymen, Romney lay down 50/50 was also made, see the attached paperwork. Mr. Inch took that call and may I report, the guys that took that call, some of the guys just signed the list. I believe it was in July from that call. November 22nd, 2019, Mr. Inch is at 13, he’s got a refusal beside his name. Same on the 15th. On the 15th of the next page, you’ll see Ken Hompoth, Tim Johnson, Justin Wolf, Dave Stansfield, Mike Plahcinski signed that list. November 8th, 2019, Chris Inch is on there at number 11 with a refusal. The time before that, 11/7, he was 14 on the list with that same refusal. On the 4th, 14th still on the list, same refusal. On October 30th Chris Inch was on the list at 14 with the same refusal. October 25th, you see lots of jockeying on the list, refusals, guys returning from work, how many days they worked, so we put that beside their name to know where to slot them back into the list. This is how we do this here. You see lots of guys went out, came back Stefan Steiner, Florin Belciug and Cornel Belciug went to Trademark. Aaron Pinard, Tucker, Alex Pavlovic, he was returning to the list. All of the guys before got the R1 because we had to run through a lot of names to get guys to would work. Dave Janick went to Tucker also. Eric Shaw, Sean Abela, Brian Fields, John Fry, Dave Mifflin, John Possamai, Alex Pavlovic return to sign the list. So, you could see this here was a call that came out. I believe this call was for the lighting job for Bright Lights
Time- 1:04:14
Festival, I guess to spark my memory back that far. You see an attached work call there for Trademark, Steve Pletcsh, 390 Colborne Street, Chatham, I believe this was Barry Callebut chocolate that they went to. 10/24/2019, Chris Inch is at 13 on the list. 1/22/2019, Chris Inch is 13 on the list. 10/18. 10/15, he says, on vacation till – he had vacation till the 14th, that’s why his name would reappear right here. The page before that, you’ll see it says, vacation till 10/14 beside that. 10/10, paper says vacation till 10/14. October 8th, says vacation till 10/14. On October 5th, Chris said he was on vacation till the 14th, October 14th, that’s how I knew this would put everything on the list to be open and transparent so we can keep accurate data of where people go and how they return. October 3rd, 2019, Mr. Inch is 13 on the list. On October 2nd, he was 15 on the list. On August 30th, he was 16 on the list. August 27th, he was 16 on the list. August 25th, he was 20th on the list. A couple guys returned ahead of him. August 19th, he went to 22 on the list because there were two guys, I had that came back to work. That came back from not working 21 days, sorry. August 17th, Mr. Inch 22nd on the list. August 13th, Mr. Inch is 25 on the list. Next page is August 13th, 2019, Mr. Inch is 26th on the list. August 12th, he was 27th on the list. You can see a progression of climbing up the list as the calls go out.
Perry Speranza: I’m missing all these pages.
James Dodman: I think you're just not far enough into it, but I think we kind of all know how the list works.
Perry Speranza: It’s the same. I do know how this list works, but I’m saying, these pages…
Karl Lovett: You don’t have 9/10/2019? What page you at right now?
Perry Speranza: Eight. August 9th and the next one is August 26th, so there’s a bunch missing in my folder. I’m just saying. I mean…
Time- 1:06:55
Karl Lovett: August 26th, you would have to keep going. You're going back, keep flipping the pages the other way.
James Dodman: The other way.
Karl Lovett: The other way. We’re counting down.
Perry Speranza: From August 26th, I go all the way to August 9th. So, I’m missing a bunch of pages.
Karl Lovett: This is September. 9/12/2019. 9/10/2019.
Perry Speranza: It goes – the first number is the month, right?
Karl Lovett: So, what, what number do you have right now?
Perry Speranza: You're talking about August, right? I can see August 26th, but you mentioned a whole bunch…
Karl Lovett: Sorry, I’m saying September. I said August, I meant September. 9/10.
Perry Speranza: Okay, that explains it then because I gotta go back up now. So, where you at?
Karl Lovett: 9/10/2019.
Perry Speranza: 9/10. Okay. I’m with you now.
Karl Lovett: Okay. So, he’s at 26th there. Then I go to 9/6, he’s at 29. 9/5, he’s at 29. 9/4, he’s at 32. 8/30/2019, he’s at 32. 8/29, he’s at 33. 8/26, he’s at 35. The guy ahead of him is Steve Schentag went to the school board, that’s what moved him on the spot on the page just before that. 8/26, he was 32. Guys came back from in front of him. 8/9, Chris was at 41. You could see a whack of guys working in front of him all over the place. Frito Lay maintenance, Supreme Electric. That’s what really jumped him up the list.
Perry Speranza: Do you have two, 8/26 this year?
Time- 1:09:04
Karl Lovett: Because there might have been two things that happened on that day.
Perry Speranza: One, 8/26, he was at 35 and the other one he’s at 32, how does that work?
Karl Lovett: Because he’s at 35, then well, he’s at 35, then the next page he’s at 32 because guys went out to work ahead of him.
Perry Speranza: Same day.
Karl Lovett: So, three guys went out to work ahead of him, it moved him up the list three spots.
Perry Speranza: Same day.
Karl Lovett: 8/9/2019, you see a whack of people went to work. You can see, it says off sick beside Brian Caron, when I see stuff like that, I say, he needs a return to work date. Maybe he needs a doctor’s note, but I need to know when he’s returning from work – returning from being sick. You see beside Richard Limanek, should have something beside his name because he refused a call. We should get something written beside the name for refusal. 8/8/2019, Chris Inch is at 43. 8/6, Chris Inch is at 43 again. Two guys were hired as foremen, supervisory role for a substation job for Ridge National, that was the call the day before. 8/2/2019, Chris Inch is at 43. 8/1, Chris Inch is at 43. July 31st, 2019, Chris was at 44. The time before he was at 43, you can see somebody returned that hadn’t worked their 21 days or their 10 days, back to the lop of the list, that was Mark Leixner putting Chris back at 43. July 23rd, 2019, Chris Inch was at 43, the 22nd, he was 46, the 19th, he was at 47.
So, you can see a steady transition or progression of moving up the list as people went out ahead. Everybody was recorded. July 18th, 45. July 15th, he was 46. July 10th, he was 43. July 9th,
Time- 1:11:37
59. Call for work attached here June 24th to start June 28th, Vollmer, 7, 8’s for two weeks, three to four hours of orientation. Five guys Windsor. I don’t know what plant that is and twelve guys for Essex Engine. As to the duration of the call for two weeks, report to Vollmer’s shop. That’s how we receive our calls here, that would be the writing of the dispatch. So, you can see the people that took the call. Josh Janzen, Ryan Pelladeau, Aaron Megdall, Aldo Ciampaglia, and Mike Dempster. Two for afternoons, the rest for days. July 5th, 2019, Chris was 60 on the list. July 3rd, 2019, Chris was 63 on the list. 28th, he was 67 on the list. 27th, 68 on the list. June 26th, he was 69. June 21st, he was 70. June 20th, he was 74. June 14th, he was 76. June 13th, he was 77. June 12th, he was 78. June 7th, he was 80. June 6th, he was 80. June 6th, he was 82, two people went out to work ahead of him, that’s why the list before has him at 80. May 31st, 2019, he was 85 on the list. May 28th, he was 87 on the list. May 23rd, he was 87 on the list. May 14th, he was 88 on the list. May 10th, he was 91 on the list. There’s two lists there, that’s why they're stapled together because the list had more people than the two pages held. May 7th again, 92 on the list, two pages stapled together because there were too many people on the list. May 2nd, stapled together again, he was 95 on the list. April 26th, 2019, he’s 97 on the list. April 25th, 2019, Chris Inch at 4:26 took a call. That’s why Chris doesn’t appear on the list before that. We go all the way to March 13th, 2019, he was number one on the list. That’s when he went to work at Mid South. That’s why you see the void in his name, staying on the list because he went to work on March 15th to Mid South.
James Dodman: I think we all get the gist of this. I don’t know if we have to continue to go through it, do we?
 
 
Time- 1:15:45
Karl Lovett: It all depends if you want to or not. There’s accusations that I wrote an improper list. I could go back – I could then go back to the year 2000, if you want.
James Dodman: Well, I don’t think you need to. I think as far as I’m concerned, we kind of get the gist of what’s going on here, right.
Karl Lovett: Well, I don’t know if the accused party also agrees with you, that his name has been fairly tracked on the list. If they don’t see any need to go any further and agree that his name has been tracked for, going on two years, then I can skip, but if not, I’m going to keep going.
Perry Speranza: May I Mr. Chairman. I believe I agree with the Chair and that we kind of get what you're implying. What I would question is what part of the constitution are you relating this to, that you're charging with.
Karl Lovett: Okay, we’re not going to get into that again. So, so you agree with where I’m at so far, that what I’ve produced is fairly accurate. I could move on to my next subject if that’s what you want.
Perry Speranza: Well, I’ve seen your evidence, whether I agree or not.
Karl Lovett: Okay.
Perry Speranza: I don’t know if that’s…
Karl Lovett: Because it was spread to the province that I run a corrupt out of work list. So, what I’m doing is showing a pattern here that I don’t. So, this is the evidence for my – to back up these accusations that were put against me.
Perry Speranza: I see what you're saying. You’ve shown a list that…
Karl Lovett: I’m showing a pattern of names on the list, how we keep them and we don’t throw these out so we can use these if anybody accuses us of manipulating a list.
Time- 1:17:29
Perry Speranza: Yes, but…
Karl Lovett: If you're fine with where I’ve gone to so far…
Perry Speranza: My question would be, how is it relevant to…
Karl Lovett: That’s going to be up to them to decide later on. It’s a Trial Board.
Perry Speranza: …any of these charges…
Karl Lovett: They’ll have to determine if the charges – if the foot fits the shoe, I guess. They're going to have to determine that. I didn’t make the accusations.
James Dodman: Do we need to continue to go through the list?
Perry Speranza: I don't think so. I would agree with you.
Karl Lovett: Okay, so I’ve included this as evidence and if the accused agrees that I don’t need to continue going through it to show my path. Okay.
Perry Speranza: Right, I’d agree that we don’t need to continue with Chairman for the reasons you stated for – not what he just said.
Karl Lovett: Well, and what would those be so I can have them in the record.
James Dodman: We understand how the list works…
Karl Lovett: No, it’s not about understanding how it works.
James Dodman: No, but the evidence shows that it works the way it’s supposed to work.
Karl Lovett: Yeah, I’m fine with that. So, you made this exhibit three. We’ve been going an hour and a half now, maybe I – we could take a fifteen-minute rest period. And at the same time, I could make this available to the rest of the people that want to view it.
 
James Dodman: Do you have a comment Dave?
Dave Mifflin: I just want to make sure that we want be done reading this to the point whether there’s a fresh, to just view it to what have to this point. Chris wasn’t even in the room at the moment when you guys were speaking back and forth, just so that he didn’t hit ears on whatever you guys were speaking of, that’s all. I know you’ll let him know.
Perry Speranza: Yeah, I agree with the Chairman that we understand what the brother is trying to say.
Dave Mifflin: Okay, I’m fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that you wanted to stop before Chris even got back in the room. He wasn’t hearing anything of what was going on. I know you're the counsel for him, but he also wasn’t – I wanted to give him the ability to hear what was going on in the conversation.
Karl Lovett: The counsel gets to make the decision though.
Perry Speranza: Okay.
Karl Lovett: So, will 7:45 be too long.
James Dodman: No, we’ll take a fifteen-minute recess.
Crosstalk 1:19:42
Karl Lovett: There’s a lot of people that have to use the restroom.
Perry Speranza: That was the fastest hour and a half of my life.
James Dodman: Come back at 7:45.
Karl Lovett: I believe …….. before?
James Dodman: Yes.
Karl Lovett: That’s our quorum? So, I tell this as a pattern of accusations and a legal decision. September 23rd, 2009, Mr. Inch brought local 773 to the Labour Board. In this, if you go to the third page in, paragraph 3 says, “Inch asserts that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 773, violated Time- 1:21:31
section 75, the act”. The crux of this complaint is the placement on the out of work list.  When he returned from a seven-month absence working in Timmins outside jurisdiction of the 773, he was placed in the bottom of the list and he was forced to take work outside of the geographical locale – local 773’s jurisdiction causing him to suffer damages. He claims that John McInnis, Local 773’s assistant business manager, failed to follow through on a promise he made to him on, or about, September 15th to treat him as an exception. Treat him as an exception. So, the normal rules that requires members to sign the out of work list prior to leaving to work outside the local 773’s jurisdiction. So, he asked for an exception. You wanted to deviate from the rules of the local, but he wanted an exception to the rules.
Paragraph four says, “there is no dispute that he failed to go to the union hall in accordance with the normal rules requiring his signature on the list before leaving town to work outside Local 773’s jurisdiction. If the promise of exceptional treatment occurred, Inch asserts that he would’ve been placed on the list as of September 15th, the day that allegedly began his made his prominence of exceptional treatment during a telephone call Inch made on his way to Timmins’ job September 15th.
So, this is Mr. Inch asking for a deviation of the rules. The rules that he says should be upheld in earnest. The rules that should never be broken, transparency. He’s asking right here in his own words to break the rules for him. Go to page three of that decision. “We’re in violation of section 75, the act can be established based upon the McInnis’ those promised to treat into an exemption on a one-time only basis, although his complaint said about being treated unfairly, this is not the standard set by section 75, similarly, although assertions are
Time- 1:23:30
made that he has been discriminated against, there are no factual assertions that establish any characteristic personal to Inch, race, gender, marital status, creed, disability or any other grounds specified in the human rights code”. Sorry, the human rights code, so 1990, H17, was it motivation for McInnis’ conduct. Does Inch, based for his claim is that the actions of Mr. McInnis were arbitrary. Arbitrary. So, asked for an exception to break the rules and then claimed that what Mr. McInnis did was arbitrary because he didn’t break the rules for him. He should have broke the rules for him. He should’ve broke the rules for him.
The decision local 773 central submission is that Inch has not challenged any referrals either to any job that he claims should have been offered to him, that Mr. McInnis had not broken his promise to treat him as an exception from the rules requiring sign in at the hall and circumstances where he had resigned from his job within local 773’s jurisdiction to take a job out of his geographic location. Reliance is placed on the board’s decision and Walter Sladich, 85, OLRB June 11th, 67 where the board stated that the proceeding under Section 75, then 69 of the act, was not a spring board to enable challenges or referrals in which a complaint has no legal interest.
I’ll tell you right here. This here was when created the law of local 7C, the policy and procedure that you cannot quit an in-town call to take an out of town call. That’s where this came from. Paragraph 14. This is good ground for the dismissal of the application prima facie basis. Inch has had an unusual number of opportunities to build the theory of his wrongful treatment and to particularize how his opportunity for referral was tangibly affected by his placement on the out of work list in April of 2008, instead of September of 2007 as promised. In March 27, 2009, in submission, he withdrew his prior
Time- 1:25:40
indication to the effect that he was claiming damages based on the amount that he would’ve earned on Akon job in Windsor. He specifically denied asserting any legal interest in any other job referral. Finally, he failed to make any other assertions that would allow the board to revision how his placement on the list on September 2007 would have materially affected his referrals when it became available for them in April 2008. Thus, the statement of his lost opportunities is entirely missing from his complaint.
Turn to the page behind that. Paragraph 17. The facts that entirely ignore any contradiction contentions of local 773 merely establish a failure by McInnis to follow through on his promise of exemption. To the extent that the complaint alleges local 773’s failure to publish the nature of exemptions granted under the rules that would allow members such as Inch to know that the administration of the list is being done in a proper fashion. No hearing should take place in this matter because no legal interest specific to Inch is asserted. This conclusion makes it irrelevant whether a promise in fact was made my McInnis, as alleged, whether McInnis ever spoke to him subsequently about his failure to sign the hall and the need for him to do so. Whether the business manager of local 773 responded to Inch’s accusations of repeated unfairness by telling him to shut up and/or suggesting that if did not like the treatment, he would work elsewhere or whether the response of the vice president of the International Union to Inch’s letter of complaint was adequate.
As an exercise, the board’s discretion to control its proceedings of 96 and 99, this complaint will not continue in hearing because this application could not be successful even if all facts asserted by Inch are proved in evidence.
 
Time- 1:27:25
So, with that said, even if he asserted all his facts and proved all his facts, the Vice Chair said, we’re not going to go with this case because it has no merit, it has no value. You asked to break the rules and because you said he said he’d break the rules for you, he didn’t. Now, you want to take him to the labour board. This is not going to happen.
See International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsman 1997. I’ll repeat the decision 1492, February 19th of 1999. International Brotherhood of Bricklayers. March 25th 2003, in cases cited here, as well as (1:28:00) Limited in 1985 where it’s acknowledged that once the board finds that allegations have no reasonable likelihood of success, it is incumbent upon the board to dismiss the application therefore conserving the limited resources of the board for matters that do require a hearing.
Moving on. Monday, January 25th, 2010, this was what was drafted by our legal counsel. In accordance with the statement of the Board dated October 23, 2009, we herewith reply to the response to the request for reconsideration filed on behalf of the applicant.
I’ll move to the next page. Page two it is. The basis for the board decision. The board reached its’ decision at paragraph 14 and 15 determining that the applicant failed or refused to assert any work referral that he had a legal interest in. In and according with dismiss the application on paragraph 15 referring to a number of issues which the applicant again seeks to re-raise and reconsideration of the board. None of these whatsoever undermined or distributed in the principle and if damages are to be granted, there must be some violation of the act that forms the basis for them. In other words, a violation of section 75 that has no consequences upon a complainant’s income from referrals not to proceed in hearing. As the board made plain and Walter Sladich’s (1:29:28), a
Time- 1:29:29
complaint should not proceed if the complaint cannot identify a particular job that he missed out on due to alleged violations.
We had that exact same situation right now. Exact same. I was charged with it. It can’t be proved because it didn’t happen. It did not happen. The out of work lists don’t lie and neither do the job referrals. This is an accusation made against me, spread around the province, not by social media, by way of internet to business managers and to the international office.
We’ll move ahead a few pages. I’ll give you time to get there. Its Ontario labour relations board again. 2181 OAQ. Chris Inch. Applicant for the first international brother electrical workers responding party. This is called an application for reconsideration. So, you put an application for reconsideration to the board if you think they failed in their duty to hear your case.
Perry Speranza: What page are you on Karl?
Karl Lovett: It’s 4, maybe 5 pages. Ontario Labour Relations Board. It’s the application for reconsideration. You got it there? It’s on Board letterhead. After the Koskie Minsky evidence that we to had submit for the reconsideration application.
Perry Speranza: Is there a number of the page I could reference.
Karl Lovett: Well, it’s after the submission of Koskie Minsky. There will be no more Koskie Minsky pages, then it will Ontario Labour Relations Board. Okay, so this paragraph one, it says this decision deals with the applicant’s request for reconsideration of the board. The decision of September 18, 2009 dismissing the application for section 75 of the act. I’ll flip to the next page, paragraph 10. I don’t have to bore you with all the information. It says, this request for reconsideration is large part a re-argument of the applications, applicant’s position was some modifications. In particular, the applicant seems to read the boards
Time- 1:32:03
consideration for the motion to dismiss diverted the board from applying the correct test of whether local 773 had acted in bad state or arbitrarily toward him. As is evident from paragraph 12, do you guys have that, you can go back to paragraph 12 in the original decision if you’d like of the board’s decision assertion of the applicant was that he was treated unfairly and no factual assertions were made that would lead to a finding of bad faith. With respect to the issue of arbitrariness, this contention was fully dealt with on a prima facie basis in paragraph 17 and 18 of the board decisions. So, in an application of reconsideration what they said was, we did do the proper test of deliverable. You have no case. You didn’t bring any evidence forward that showed you were treated unfairly because you didn’t lose out on anything. So, lost in the original case, bringing an application of reconsideration once again, they said, we know what we’re talking about. You have no case.
I switch to the next page. Paragraph 12. For all these reasons, the submissions of the applicant in support of the reconsideration do not offer to disturb the finality of the decision of September 18th, 2009. The applicant had optimal opportunity to place before the board all of the allegations he believed should lead to a finding in his favour. As it turned out, the motion of local 773 was found to have merit based upon these allegations even if the applicant were able to prove all of these assertions under oath, the outcome would have not been any different. The application of reconsideration is dismissed.
I just add it into this again, not that you need to read it. I already read it out once. It’s just in there for my - following my own self here. This is the charges by - for Brother Chris Inch is found guilty of the assertions he made against the business
Time- 1:34:05
manager. In it, you see another copy of the trial transcripts that were in there. I’m not asking you to read them again.
So, in the charges against Sol Furer of local 773, Chris Inch stated that he get special exemption from the rules. As you follow this case, and you follow some of the paperwork I give to you tonight, Mr. Inch always alleges everything should be transparent and fair, but he asked for a special exemption to break the rules. So, it’s fine if one person breaks the rules for their own benefit, but not find any broken rules for somebody else would restate emphatically, we don’t do. This was untrue, but shows Chris is fine with breaking the rules if they benefit himself. Chris alleges and asserts an unfair and corrupt system, but he asked for the system to be altered and corrupt for him.
Perry Speranza: Is this top-secret news?
Karl Lovett: They're all top secret.
Perry Speranza: This?
Karl Lovett: Yeah, they're all top secret.
Perry Speranza: It’s an OLB case.
Karl Lovett: Well, then if you write the OLB number, you can go on Canli and print it out yourself.
Perry Speranza: Well, then it’s not top secret.
Karl Lovett: Well then there you go. No, you can print it out yourself though.
Perry Speranza: You’ve already done it. It’s going to have…I’ve made notes on it. Can I photograph it?
Karl Lovett: That’s fine. The rules say you can make notes, but you can’t photograph a copy and take it with you. You’ve been through a lot of these, right.
Time- 1:36:31
Perry Speranza: Usually, when somebody submits an exhibit, it’s for the trial board.
Karl Lovett: So, this is, I guess it would be exhibit five. False statement and work refusal. I just have a copy of 8/6/2020 here. There was allegations that I’m not putting Mr. Inch to work. Just following up on that right here. It shows the out of work list. Chris was at number 7 at the time, scratched his name out because he’s going to Mid South. He had a par 1, take the number off and send him to Mid South.
This is the same work request form I showed you earlier. It’s elaborating a little bit more. August 7th, with the call on August 10th as a start date. One jury member that called, holy named high school, 1440 Northwood on afternoons. Mr. Inch took that call, was subsequently - he gave us a message in the morning that says, Karl, I left Barry and Lorie a message at 9:52 am. At 11:16 consecutively, regarding my inability to attend work due to medical reasons. I’ve been directed to be off sick until further notice. Chris Inch. I said, please provide medical assessment stating that you have an indefinite leave of absence due to your illness. I will forward it to the medical trustees so that it will remain on your file. Thank you, kindly advise your medical trustees and assistant, I hope not to be discriminated against for temporary medical issues. Your request for personal medical information it noted and documented. Have a nice day. Chris Inch. That was on August 10th. So, Chris was advised prior to going to work that he shouldn’t attend work. Not my words. His words. I left Barry and Lorie messages at 9:52 and 11:16 consecutively, regarding my inability to attend work due to medical reasons. I’ve been directed to be off sick until further notice. And when you flip that page, dated August 11th, the day after, so I don’t even know that he was directed by a medical physician to be off
Time- 1:38:51
indefinitely because the note came from the doctor the day after he refused the work call. Again, not my writing. His writing.
I go to the next page. This comes via Glenn Drewes business manager of local 402 Thunder Bay. It says, Dear Brother Lovett, back in 2016, our local was proud to finally get onto the line in our area which have predominantly been billed non-union. The new bold mine was to be constructed west of Fort Francis and we were able to put together a project labour agreement that satisfied both sides. That project provided 200 IBEW members with much needed work. A little over half those members were travellers from other locals, one of which was Mr. Chris Inch, a member of your local. Mr. Inch’s conduct on the job site was an embarrassment and quite frankly, conduct unbecoming of and IBEW member responsibility towards our contractors and our clients. The customer. I have included a fax sheet of the evidence including emails surrounding the time your member Mr. Inch was employed by ES Fox on that job site. Should we require for travelling members in the future, it’s unlikely your member would be welcomed back. Local 402, the business manager let me know he’s unhappy with one of our members.
There’s a synopsis of what happened. Chris Inch IBEW local 773. Chris Inch worked as a travelling member for ES Fox, the new gold Rainy River Project of November 28th, 2016 to March 10th, 2017.  A new gold mine being constructed west of Fort Francis, Ontario in 402 jurisdiction. The job requested, tab 1, clearly identified the job location, hours of work being 14 consecutive days on, followed by 7 days off - 7 days off, 10 hours a day. 7 am to 6 pm. Mr. Inch accepted the job, called through his local 773 and was then dispatched by local 402 to the job site and was issued a job referral slip at tab 2. On February 13th, 2017, Mr. Inch sent me an email informing of his
Time- 1:41:00
contact with the ministry of Labour - the Ministry of labour, about his work refusal. Mr. Inch felt that working ten hours on his last day of 14 days was too much. Mr. Inch referred to this – to his fly day, tab 3. I spoke to Mr. Inch on the phone and he said to me that working a ten-hour shift and then driving back to Windsor in one shot would have put him over the legal hours of the MTO standards was fifteen hours at a time. I explained to him that his actual travel time paid per shift was based on Thunder Bay, not Windsor, and this was an unrealistic approach he took. Mr. Inch did not report to work on Friday, February 10th, rather he filed his work refusal with the Ministry of Labour. Mr. Inch was contacted by ES Fox to come in the next day for a meeting with safety office of ES Fox and the foreman to discuss the work refusal of Tab 5. Mr. Inch then left site for his time off. Mr. Inch then attended a walk-in clinic Amherstburg, south of Windsor and was issued two different notes which he supplied in Tab 4. I received an email from Chris Inch on February 21st where he claims he was still physically ill and not able to return to work. I asked him for a note from his physician when she supplied in tab 6 which was date February 22, 2017, that day after. He returned to work site on February 24, 2017, worked a two-week shift, then asked for a layoff which he was granted.
The next tab is work request form which you can see as from camp. The work in rotation of fourteen days on, seven days off, from 7:30 am to 6 pm. Nowhere in there does it say, we’ll let you leave on your last day early because you live far away. All it says, you must have a valid C of Q or they're not be able to hire on. Bring any additional training certificates that they may have, working a high slip tickets, WHMIS fall risk, first aid etcetera.
 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 01:09:38 AM by ForumRanger »

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Re: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2021, 01:47:37 AM »
Time- 1:43:00
Tab 2. Job referral skip which he accepted. This is transmission from Glen Drewes  to me, keep in mind when I was corresponding with your member Chris Inch, I thought he was being truthful as here is a thread of emails back and forth. So, if you want to read it from the back. Chris, thanks for the photo, keep me up to date, if possible, on the E S Fox’s of actions. I did want to ask that when you informed ES Fox on the work refusal, what if any actions, did they take. Did other members stay on the day and work the full ten hours, was the Ministry of Labour called in to investigate the incident that you know of, if so, was there a local inspector that was notified and investigating, also keep a journal from this point on as we may need it in the future.
This is from Chris to Glen. I was also advised that the ministry of labour upon the standards meeting of the mind, health and safety today regarding numerous complaints about the excessive hours on the fly day.
So, creating a problem that wasn’t there. Excessive hours on fly date, you signed on to the agreement that said you would be there fourteen days working 10 hours a day. Your day off was not a day to get to Windsor, it was a day to leave the mine. Nobody stated you had to drive home that far. At no other camp, have I ever seen home day shift longer than five hours. I wonder if enough employees made the same work refusal, would they had enough rooms available. I recognize the business aspect of this as well. So, he understands it, but still does it anyway.
Two pages forward. The tab indicated show the doctor’s notes. Tab 5, he talked about, hello Brother Drewes, as you have already been aware, I’m still really ill and I called in this morning to ES Fox at 7 am their time. I left a message informing them of my inability to attend work at 9:08. I
Time- 1:45:19
received a call from the secretary, she inquired as to when I’d be returning to camp as to be able book my room. Please review attached physician’s note. I was under assumption that my room was prebooked before my travel to camp. Prior to the meeting, on Saturday, February 11th, were Trevor Breeson, Fox Safety and Don Paxton. At no time was official representation made available. I’m not sure if you are informed before this meeting occurred either at no time during this meeting did, I officially agree to anything, neither verbally, nor in writing. I’m suspicious of Fox’s motives and strongly believe that they were attempting reprisal due to my work refusal.
So, once again, work refusal based on that agreement he entered into. He entered into fourteen days at ten hours a day, but decided he was going to rewrite the agreement while he was there and make if five hours in the last day. This would be considered harassment and discriminatory on the part of ES Fox. I’m the only one to be asked if I requested a vacation or leave of absence day by upper management after calling in sick. I’m also sure they wished to make an example of me and the situation, with all due respect to you as my union official for the job, I request a fair and proper representation. What representation did you want? You agreed to fourteen days at ten hours a day and then you got there and called the ministry of labour because you didn’t like the work schedule and tried to change it yourself. That’s not brotherly. That’s not abiding by the IBEW agreement. It’s not abiding by the work site agreement they made to get this work back after being out of work for so long. This is the complete opposite. This is trying to change the rules in the job, break the agreement that they have, that they signed a contractual obligation with that contractor.
Time- 1:47:09
See the other note he refers to here. Unfit for work February 20, 21, 22, due to – I couldn’t tell you what it says. This here, Mr. Inch likes to assert that he’s treated unfairly all the time, further in the document you’ll see the point I’m making.
Perry Speranza: Is this six?
Karl Lovett: This will be six, I believe, yeah. My talented union steward, January 12, 2015, attention Mr. John Salvatore, to whom it may concern, please be advised that effective January 12th, 2015, Chris inch will be my steward for afternoons on the Windsor Chrysler shut down job. The next page, the title is June 2, 2015 that the contractor John Salvatore. To whom this may concern, please be advised that effective June 3rd, 2015, in replacement of (1:49:11), Chris Inch will be my steward for days on the Windsor Chrysler shut down job. So, he was steward on nights, steward on days left and they made him steward on days June 3rd, 2015.
In another instance, replied Macdonald. To whom it may concern, please be advised that effective March 13, 2017, Chris Inch will be my steward at the Bell River wind farm. For the transmission collector portion of the project.
Once again, he got treated pretty fairly. Some guys hold him in high regard made a union steward by the business manager of the local. He thinks you have his best interests in mind. You're gonna act in good faith.
The next page, stewards. Such stewards shall be allowed sufficient time to see the provisions of this agreement or observe. Sufficient time to make sure the provisions of this agreement are observed. The steward shall not have his or her employment terminated until as near as possible to the completion of the job unless with just cause and unless prior
 
Time- 1:50:11
notification has been given to the business manager. It’s right out of the principle agreement local appendix.
I return to the next page dated July 15th, from Frank Harris. And I’ll tell you the second page of that. Mr. Inch shared this business around the province with business managers other than me. He also sent this off to the international office. It says, in April 2015 in the Chrysler Windsor shutdown, Brother Karl Lovett allowed local contractors Mid South transfer several 7773 members to another job. At that time, Mid South had many travellers working on the same shift and location. Once the locals were transferred, they were laid off. Karl Lovett permitted Mid South to violate rule 704 of the principle which states in all cases of layoffs, locals should have priority. This is something I would have expected Sol Furer to do. At no time, I’ll swear under oath, did Mr. Inch as a steward of that job ever report to me that guys were transferred off to the job to another job and that travellers remained on the job. Mr. Inch was as steward on the job. I didn’t hear this until this summer. But Mr. Inch decided to share that with the province.
I’ll turn you to article 4 of the next page. Stewards. Stewards shall be appointed where needed by the business manager. They show work under the direction of the business manager and to subject to his or her authority. The business manager my remove any steward as such at any time. Duties of the steward shall be to have a copy of the IBEW constitution, these bylaws and the work agreement with them at all times. To see that union membership is encouraged and all workers at their respective shop or jobs, have paid up due’s receipts or valid working cards of the local. To report any encroachment upon the union’s jurisdiction of the local union. To report to the business manager any violations of the bylaws or agreements.
 
Time- 1:52:14
Mr. Inch, in his role as the steward of the job, violated the local bylaws because he asserts, he asserts that I allowed something to happen on the job. It was a violation of the agreement, but at no time did Mr. Inch ever call me to tell me there was a violation that took place. That’s a violation of the local bylaws right there and that he was a steward just on afternoons, he was steward on days and for the duration of the project, one of the last employees on the job. He’s to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the business manager, section 3, steward showed no case cause of work stoppage and case of any trouble on a job or at a shop. Steward shall immediately notify the business manager, immediately notify the business manager. Not five years later, because I’ll tell you, it never happened. This is just a wild goose chase again. This is a fishing expedition to bring about trouble against IBEW local 773 and in particular, the business manager. False accusations.  I would like Mr. Inch to provide for me a copy of where he sent me these allegations and where this happened because I’ll tell you, it never happened.
Perry Speranza: Tab 7, you said?
Karl Lovett: Mr. Inch once again alleges that he’s been treated unfair in this local and unjust.
I want to show you, while I’ve been the business manager October 10th, 2013, we put on a course confirmation of registration, sector specific instruction. This here, you can see it’s dated October 10th, 2013, sent to Mr. Chris Inch. Not everybody got selected to take this course, only selected people. Mr. Inch was one of them.
I flip to the next page. Simulated hazard analysis construction. Once again, October 10th, 2013, I was the business manager. Not everybody got sent to this course, Mr. Inch did.
Time- 1:55:30
I’ll turn to the next page. Welders qualification. He did this course in June of 2015, ticket expired June 7, 2018. Does a business manager treat somebody unfair, set him up with a welding course here, allow him the recertification?
I turn to the next page, mad training, certificate of training. Only ten people in the local were selected to take this training. Ten people. And where did this come from? We had a shut down at Chrysler where there was a ball conveyor and different types of conveyors, linear, sinkers, motor conveyors and there was a type of training there for precision driven maintenance. Benchmark PDM. We sent a select group. I believe it was ten people. The executive board, Chris Inch, this course, I believe cost us ten thousand dollars to take. Does it look like I treated this member unfairly? Unjust? Does it look like I had a vendetta for him?
The next page, a plethora of certificates. CPR, heart saver, taken at ‘16, expires in ’19, not every member took that course, but a select group did. Chris Inch was one of them. I look around the room, I don’t know too many people who have this certificate. Construction steward training, August 10th to 11th, 2016. In this course they taught you your duties as a steward and how to report to the business manager any wrong doings, any violations of principle or collective agreement of the constitution. Took place on that day. You got the training. You passed the course. You go the information.
The next page, cable splicing and termination of high voltage. Just look around the room. I don’t know too many people who have that certificate. Chris Inch does. Successfully completed that in 2017. Hand picked a select group of guys, he’s one of them. Doesn’t look like I treated him unfairly that day either. Just a duplication of the two as I said before, and the third one.
Karl Lovett: This is 7 or 8?
Time- 2:00:36
James Dodman: 8.
Karl Lovett: So, it’s titled Shared with, Sharing with Local 773 information, potentially falsifying facts for which I have some audio evidence. The sharing of information, once again it’s all these business managers all around the province and the international office. Mr. Inch alleges here on the Hiram Walker ICI job, Mid South was paying their employees the ICI rate but paying Market Recovery Lari rate to the members of the out of work list. When confronted with this information, Brother Lovett said prove it. Nothing was done to remedy the situation. We turn to the next page. Minutes of the general meeting on July 11, 2019. Taken from, taken from the book, hard bound book copy, Mid South paying incorrect Lari rate, reimbursement will happen soon to those affected. That was July 11, 2019.  The next page you see July 11, Mr. Inch signed the out of work list, signed the apprentice section and then he circled, put JW above it and then he circled his name. I included that in here to show you as evidence Mr. Inch was there on that day when I talked about the situation. So, then I sent a message out to John Salvatore and Dan Atherton, “Last year as you will recall we had a grievance that was resolved regarding the Larry increase that was supposed to take place every May 1. Allegations from a member to the First District International Office claimed that I was negligent in my duties and failed to address the issue. In particular, the member refers to a job at Hiram Walkers and says that the problem wasn’t rectified. Can you please confirm that we worked through this matter and all affected employees were compensated accordingly?” The response, “You had the mistakes. Yes, the mistake was, first we thought the existing lari jobs were to be paid under the old lari agreement. As we got clarification, we retro-paid everybody related in those jobs. Hope this helps.” From John Salvatore. The next one’s response from not Dan Atherton but
Time- 2:02:46
Rod Munro, I guess his superior, “Karl yes, you notified Vollmer and we worked promptly with IBEW and the members who were employed with Vollmer and rectified the situations. All members were reimbursed.” Rod Munro. Now where I have an issue with this is,
Recording: [2:03:14] jobs for the ICI/lari agreement problem.
Sorry, say it again? The guys, what happened at Mid South?  
Well, they were working at Hiram Walkers, they were [2:03:38] going to get paid retro and then the guy decided they got paid larry rate but not ICI when they were supposed to be an ICI jobs.
No, that’s, it wasn’t that, it was the raise for the lari agreement is what they were getting paid, not retro. Pretty simple.
Okay.
It wasn’t retro, the job wasn’t supposed to be an ICI job, the job was a lari job that May 1st came around and they thought they could pay the whole lari rates on, so they got paid retro money for the lari rates from May 1st on. And we got the damages back at the hall.
Okay. So, it was the lari rate job?
It was a lari job (2:04:17) and when the raise started May 1st, (2:04:21) paid the guys the old rate instead of giving them the May 1st rates.
Okay. We went (2:04:27) got all the money for all the guys when they didn’t have it without the grievance and they paid them in a cheque the same week.
(2:04:40)
Ah, he did ask me something about it. I was at a contractor’s meeting last week [2:04:48] but he did ask me something about
Time- 1:04:50
it and, honesty I’ve just got a million things I’m doing right now with the federal election.  
Okay. Alright. Thanks.
Okay, bye.
Karl Lovett: So, where I have an issue, on the surface that would sound like nothing. That call took place September 30, 2019. Now, now you’ll probably understand why I have to tape record some of the calls. Because September 30, 2019, Chris had the proper answer. The proper answer. He knew what it was, it was an error on his part. And I showed you he was at the union meeting when we talked about it. And he signed the book to say he was at the union meeting. And it’s recorded in the minutes that we would refer to the lari agreement. But in his desire to crush the business manager in local 773, he falsified information again. Shared this information with the province, and with the international office. Stated right here that I did nothing about the job, and in his own words said he made a mistake. That’s brotherly. You knew what it was, you talked to me on the phone. But you intentionally falsified the facts, sent them around the province, to make me look like I don’t do my job. Again, with falsifying facts, I've got a message that was sent to me here. “The last election, Karl walked into the accounting room”, this is from Chris Inch, IBEW Chris Inch, “Last election Karl walked into the accounting room with his own mail envelope with a return to sender sticker on it. Not sure how he got in or why he was allowed to be counted. My point is I don’t trust him or Barry and lots of members don’t. He and Barry should have nothing to do with the election since it seems they have already tampered with it regarding - regarding both campaign letters and nameless bogus campaign letters sent by spineless cowards. Have a great day.” Well, this is another falsification of facts. I wasn’t in the last election, I was acclaimed. Nor was I at the office the day of the counting. I wasn’t here. So, where Mr. Inch got this information that he liked to share with other people, once again a falsification of information. Falsification. Blatant. I wasn’t in the election.
This is nine I believe.
James Dodman: Yes, it is.  
Karl Lovett: So, I call this Right to Manage into audio evidence. You can see the front page, clause 400, principal agreement, the right to manage. This is when you enter into a contractual obligation between the union and the contractors. Every three years of provincial bargaining, this is written in the book. It is written there for a purpose. Because if our contractor doesn’t have the right to manage, it would be very hard for them to find work and to allocate the proper man to the proper job. That’s why it’s called Right to Manage. That’s why we are locked out of position in a lot of other locals when it comes to out of work. Because we have a lot of work, believe it or not, in all different sectors.
Right to manage. Section 400. Subject to the terms of this agreement the union acknowledges the right of the individual contractor to manage the busines in which he or she is engaged and to direct the work forces to discharge or discipline employees for just cause.
The next page is a letter from Mr. Inch on education for all, I don’t know whose site that is. This was shared on the world wide web and social media. It says “How is it that our business manager has no - has so many excuses not to give us every detail of every job. Not only that, 353 and other IBEW halls have the ability to choose specific jobs and not get multi call or shop calls. How is it Windsor - how is Windsor the only hall still using the old non-transparent dispatch system. The reason is obvious. Total control and manipulation.” I’ve proved to you earlier, I’ve proved to you so well that counsel for the other side said, I’ve Time- 2:09:54
heard enough, let’s move on. No control, no manipulation. The list is the list. Calls go as the calls come in. Nobody gets jumped.
Recording: Calling Chris Inch.
Hello.
Chris.
Yeah, hey.
I’ve got a couple of work for Vollmer tomorrow morning at 8 am. They said the call is from 2-8 weeks and at multiple sites, work at Ford, work at some schools. What are your decisions?
Multiple sites?
Yeah, work at Ford then work at Prince Edward School then Victoria School.
So, it’s not specific to one call.
No.  
Okay, no thanks.
Okay, thank you.
Why can’t they [2:11:17] or not [2:11:21].
Because Clause 400 in the book says they have the right to manage so they call in and see who they get first before they determine where they’re going.
Okay. Thanks, but no thanks.
Okay.
Okay, bye.

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Re: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2021, 01:54:14 AM »
Witness #1

Karl Lovett: I’d like to call my first witness. Ask him to step in?
 
[2:13:05]
Perry Speranza: Do you guys have t-shirts with that on there?
James Dodman: Okay, we will ask the witness to state his name for the record.
Witness: Sean Abela.
James Dodman: Go ahead.
Karl Lovett: So, just a couple questions for you there, Sean. How long have you known the business manager?
Witness: 25 years.
Karl Lovett: So, in your, in your role as a member, officer and friend to the business manager, have you ever been treated better or given an unfair advantage over the other members of the IBEW?
Witness: No.  
Karl Lovett: Could you speak up a little louder?
Witness: No, I haven’t.  
Karl Lovett: Are you currently working right now?
Witness: No.
Karl Lovett: How long have you been off?
Witness: Two months.
Karl Lovett: And prior to that, were you working?
Witness: Yes.
Karl Lovett: Where were you working at?
Witness: Eptcon
Karl Lovett: And prior to that?
Witness: I was off.
Karl Lovett: And do you remember how long you were off?
Time- 2:14:21
Witness: I was off two and a half months probably, almost three months.
Karl Lovett: And where were you working just before that, do you remember?
Witness: If I remember, it was Jackson Park.
Karl Lovett: And what were you doing at Jackson Park?
Witness: The Christmas lights.
Karl Lovett: Okay. And that was an ICI rate of pay?
Witness: No.
Karl Lovett: It was a reduced rate.
Witness: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: I believe I showed that earlier when all the guys went out to bright lights. In your career with the IBEW have you ever worked for a residential rate of pay?
Witness: Yes, many times.
Karl Lovett: How long would you figure?
Witness: Over the span, I would say maybe two years worth.
Karl Lovett: Okay.
Witness: On and off.
Karl Lovett: Were you forced to work there?
Witness: No, never.
Karl Lovett: So, so was there ever times that you went and worked there that other members wouldn’t take those calls?
Witness: Definitely. I came to the hall, for one situation I remember, to pay dues or for a meeting, I can’t remember what it was, and I just went to Barry’s office for that 3:30 rule we got, anything
Time- 2:15:23
after 3:30, and he told me there was an open call for Resi so I took it.
Karl Lovett: Okay. And after you take those calls, are you returned to your appropriate spot on the out of work list?
Witness Yes.
Karl Lovett: And finally, on the, on this topic, did you wait for another call to go to work in the same fashion and manner as every other member does in the union hall?
Witness: Yes.
Karl Lovett: So, you didn’t get to skip the list or jump anybody.
Witness: No, unless it was 50/50 or I never, besides that, I never got skipped over.
Karl Lovett: Do you recall calling the business manager in the summer of 2020 to tell him about certain behaviour and comments they made on the internet about the officers and business manager of the local?
Witness: Can you repeat that?
Karl Lovett: So, in the summer of 2020, do you remember calling the business manager, me, to tell me about certain behaviour or comments being made by people on the internet about the business manager and the officers of the local.
Witness: Yes.
Karl Lovett: Can you elaborate on that?
Witness: It was in the summer, I’m sure it was around, it was sometime in June and I was, yeah, it was sometime in June and I gave you a call because of all the stuff going on, on Facebook and I sent you a screenshot of a couple of things.
 
Time- 2:16:47
Karl Lovett: Do you remember, do you remember the outcome of that call? Do you remember everything that transpired during that call?
Witness: Yeah. You basically yelled at me, you never yelled at me in 33 years of my, our friendship and said you don’t want to listen to the child - I mean the childish internet games they were playing around that, something like that, you said and you, and you’re done with all the bullshit.  
Karl Lovett: Do you remember any of the stuff that was said?
Witness: Yeah, there was just a lot of nonsense about you scam, like, not running the hall properly, a bunch of different things in that term, you know, you’re not running the hall fair. A lot of different things.
Karl Lovett: Do, do you remember who said that stuff?
Witness: It was Ian, Lonny and Chris. Those were the…
Karl Lovett: Chris who?
Witness: Chris Inch.
Karl Lovett: Do you have any evidence you’ve brought?
Witness: I’ve got some stuff here. I’ve got, well I’ve got some stuff here saying the election was manipulated, there’s more, the list not being transparent and, oh, the people who benefit from the list are, I guess, people that are close to you, basically in short terms. This is just a recent post about me that was posted on Facebook, about…
Karl Lovett: What more, what more, forget, you aside, stuff about me?
Witness: How you - controlling the ballot count.
Karl Lovett: Sorry, what was that about controlling the ballot count?
Witness: It says, including controlling the ballot count, ballot count room at elections he’s running in.
Time- 2:19:01
Karl Lovett: Who, who posted that?
Witness: This is Chris Inch.
Karl Lovett: Can we get this, is that ten 10 now?
James Dodman: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: We’ll have to get copies of that made.
James Dodman: We’ll just add it to the file for now. Like, you just got the one copy. Right?
Witness: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: Well, we’ll have to make copies and make an exhibit.
James Dodman: Right.  
Witness: And basically saying, for all the guys that are supposedly cool with you, as long as they are working, that’s all that they care about, you know.
Karl Lovett: I need it verbatim, I would like, if you have it please.
Witness: There's a great deal of election stuff. I got my points, Disappointing and disgraceful that the members who benefit from the non-transparent archaic mystery dispatch system are the ones that [2:19:55] looking out for your best interest and not being…
Karl Lovett: Speak up please.
Witness: Looking out for your best interest and not being a union brother fair, [2:20:03] transparency in the union way. Get educated. I’ve got another one saying, get educated and speak childish millennial, the bullshit is uneducated attitude among other things, saying the picture is worth a thousand words, I should [2:20:22]. Karl, basically, the premise of them all saying…  
Karl Lovett: Just read, I need verbatim. I need you to read what it says.
Time- 2:20:31
Witness: Oh my God, really Jeff, okay because there are two peas in the pod, Karl basically apprenticed under Karl – under Saul. So, same tactics, same bullshit, same mystery dispatch system and same under arrogant, tyrannical, manipulative approach to everything including controlling the ballot count and ruining the election was running.
Karl Lovett: Okay. Next question would be, when you say I yelled at you when you called and I told you I didn’t want to hear about any of the bullshit that was going on, on the internet, in your opinion, your opinion, do you think it affected me mentally or emotionally negatively what was taking place over the internet and all of the adverse comments that were being made? I mean, you just said you’ve known me for 30 plus years. Did you see my physical state change during that time?
Witness: Yeah, definitely, because me and my wife, we actually talked about it because I held a birthday party for her and I called you and your wife to come over to my, her birthday party and she even said to me that night, Karl seemed funny, like you weren’t your normal self. And I told her, yeah, I had a chat with him about it and he said, because I asked you where your wife was and you said she didn’t come because we were arguing because I’m always bringing my work home and all the goings on and all the stress you’ve been with so she didn’t come because of the argument you had so you came to my birthday party alone, and you weren’t yourself that day. So, she even noticed that.
Karl Lovett: Okay. Those are my questions.
James Dodman: I’ll let the defence have a cross examine of this witness.
Perry Speranza: Thanks Mr. Chairman. Brother Shawn, how do you know that Brother Lovett’s condition was directly related to things he read on Facebook?
Witness: Because we talked about it.
Time- 2:22:35
Perry Speranza: And?
Witness: And he told, we talked about it at my wife’s birthday party, I said that.
Perry Speranza: So, so he told you what?
Witness: How it was affecting him, how his wife didn’t come because he goes home and argues with her and she had a, she argues back with him about what was going on, he told me, and all the stress it was putting him through so she didn’t come to my party. And I’ve known his wife probably longer than him.
Perry Speranza: But…
Witness: I actually spoke to his son, too, on one occasion and he told me himself his dad was stressed.
Perry Speranza: So, his son told you that he was arguing with his dad because of things he read on Facebook?
Witness: I never said that.
Karl Lovett: Point of order, the witness didn’t say that.
Witness: I never said he was arguing with his son. He told me, his son told me he was stressed out, he sees him stressed out, he’s not himself.
Perry Speranza: Pardon me, Karl’s wife told you that he was arguing with her because of things that he read on Facebook?
Witness: Yeah, my wife spoke to her and then my wife told me about that.
Karl Lovett: Objection. The witness never said, he’s directing the witness now. The witness never said that I told him I read stuff on the internet and that it was affecting me. That’s not what the witness said to him.
 
Time- 2:24:09
Perry Speranza: I believe the brother was attributing your behaviour to things you read on Facebook.
Karl Lovett: No.
Perry Speranza: And that caused the argument with your wife.
Karl Lovett: That, that’s not what the witness, that’s not what the witness said. Because I never read anything on Facebook.
Witness: He yelled at me the day I called him and his exact words were, I don’t want to hear no more f#@&ing bullshit about this, I’m hearing it every day from everybody so I don’t even go online and read it, everybody’s telling me about it, and hung up on me.
Perry Speranza: So, he didn’t read the stuff that was online?
Witness: No, because he said everybody sends him everything to him but he doesn’t read it and he hung up, he went off on me then hung up.
Perry Speranza: How could he be stressed by it if he didn’t read it?
Witness: Because everything people are telling him. I told him on occasion about what was being said.
Perry Speranza: So, you stressed him out.
Witness: What was that?
Perry Speranza: You stressed him out. By calling.
Witness: I didn’t stress him out by calling. He was stressed before I called him. Obviously, he was stressed before I called because…
Perry Speranza: But if he didn’t read what was on Facebook, how does that stress him out?
Witness: Same reason the post was about me on there that stressed me out. Somebody who doesn’t even know me goes on my
 
Time- 2:25:25
Facebook, has that much time in their life and wanders Facebook, creep my Facebook, take a picture of me.
Karl Lovett: Point of order. The questions are supposed to pertain to me, not to the witness.
Perry Speranza: Yeah …
Karl Lovett: Pertain to his testimony. Now you’re veering off.
Perry Speranza: I’m questioning his testimony.
Karl Lovett: No, that’s not part of his testimony. You, you’re on a fishing expedition now.
Perry Speranza: Brother Chair.
James Dodman: Please ask the question.
Perry Speranza: Yeah, I believe the brother made reference to issues related to Facebook causing arguments between Brother Lovett’s wife and himself, that’s why I asked him that. How he knew about that. He said it was his wife that told him. And then, apparently Brother Lovett doesn’t read what’s on Facebook so I’m saying how can that stress him out? And, and then, then the witness said, well it was me calling him that stressed him out. Am I wrong?
Witness: I never did say I stressed him out by calling him, that never came out of my mouth.
Perry Speranza: No, but you were saying that it was because you called that he got stressed out.
Karl Lovett: Objection. Witness never said that.
Witness: I never said…
Karl Lovett: The accused said that.
Witness: I said I called him…
Time- 2:26:37
Karl Lovett: I have an objection. The witness never said that. If you go back to the testimony, the, the person representing the accused said that. And he’s trying to get him to repeat it. The person, so, in proper testimony, reconsideration and in you badgering the witness, you cannot redirect a question. He said you can’t give him the answer and ask him to agree with it.
Perry Speranza: I don’t believe I did that.
Karl Lovett: You did that, it’s, it’s recorded.
Perry Speranza: Okay. The record will show.
James Dodman: Do you have a question?
Perry Speranza: No, I think I asked the question [2:27:15]. I believe the witness said that the arguments were caused because Karl always brings his work home, did you not say that Brother?
Witness: Yeah, he brings his work home, plus…
Perry Speranza: So, it wasn’t Facebook.
Witness: Whatever goes on at work…
Perry Speranza: But he doesn’t read Facebook.
Witness: I don’t know what he reads in his life, but whatever goes on in this building here, got brought home. And his wife spoke to my wife, like I said, if you want to go listen to that on the tape, his wife spoke to my wife, and told my wife everything.
Perry Speranza: I’m only addressing that what I get from your testimony, somehow what was written on Facebook had caused the Brother stress. That’s all I wanted to and but, at the same time, the Brother is saying that he doesn’t read Facebook, so I’m saying how does that cause the stress if he doesn’t read it? You know what I’m saying?
Witness: You don’t gotta read Facebook if everything’s being sent to you.  
Time- 2:28:43
Perry Speranza: Well, you have to read what’s being sent to you.
Witness: That’s not Facebook though. If I send him something in a text or if I tell him what was said.
Perry Speranza: Okay, that’s fine.
Witness: Just like that I told him right here, that he manipulated the, the election, you know, so I told him he manipulated the election, so {2:29:06} manipulated something.
Perry Speranza: So, it was you that caused him the stress.
Witness: I’m not saying that. I don’t know what else caused him stress, whatever goes on in here too.
James Dodman: Have you got a question?
Perry Speranza: Well, I asked, I asked it.
James Dodman: Okay.
Karl Lovett: Redirect?
James Dodman: Okay.
Karl Lovett: So, just so I can be clear. Did my wife tell you or your wife, in a different form, that I was unusually stressed out because of the remarks that people were sending me based on comments that were made on Facebook?
Witness: Yes.
Karl Lovett: Thank you. I have no further questions.
James Dodman: Is that it for the witness?
Perry Speranza: Yes.
James Dodman: Okay. I will ask the witness to leave the room.
Witness: You can wait here Brian if you want. [2:30:07 inaudible]
Karl Lovett: At this time, I would like to call my, my next witness.

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Re: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2021, 02:05:17 AM »
Witness #2

James Dodman: Okay.
James Dodman: I’ll ask the witness to state your name.
Witness 2: Sorry?
James Dodman: Witness to state your name please.
Witness 2: Barry Heeney.  
James Dodman: Thank you. You may proceed.  
Karl Lovett: Barry, you’re a member of IBEW 773?
Barry Heeney: Sorry, go ahead?
Karl Lovett: You’re a member of IBEW Local 773?
Barry Heeney: I am, yes. 41 years.
Karl Lovett: How many years have you been a member there?
Barry Heeney: 41 years.
Karl Lovett: 41 years. And how many know, how many years have you known the business manager, myself, Karl Lovett?
Barry Heeney: About 23 years.
Karl Lovett: Okay. 23 years. And in the 23 years, how many years have you been worked in the office here at the dispatcher?
Barry Heeney: I’ve been working as assistant business manager in dispatch for 8 years.
Karl Lovett: 8 years. And in those 8 years would you like to think you’ve got to know me fairly well?
Barry Heeney: Of course. I sure have.
Karl Lovett: In your years as dispatcher, have you had any interactions with the accused Mr. Chris Inch?
Time- 1:32:04
Barry Heeney: Yes, I have.
Karl Lovett: Can you explain those interactions, how they were, and if Chris displayed himself in any way that was different from your normal interactions with other members?
Barry Heeney: I would say that probably most times it was either on the phone or Chris came to the hall in person. The way it was different than my dealings with anybody else, I always worked along with all the members, realizing that I am here in the capacity of working for all the members not the other way around. But on Chris’ visits, it was usually something controversial, so the accusation of some mis-management or some betrayal, or something like that, several times, and as I said, I always conduct myself and speak to the members with respect and that’s not the way Chris spoke to me. Many times, as well as on the phone, and many of his accusations, practically all of them were all false and in, in his mind actually not true.
Karl Lovett: So, has, has Chris ever accused the business manager or you, as the assistant business manager dispatcher, of manipulating the out of work list to disadvantage him?
Barry Heeney: Yes, absolutely.
Karl Lovett: Okay. Have you ever been asked by the business manager to treat members differently or to bypass members who were in position of work on the list to go out for work, work referral?
Barry Heeney: Never. As a matter of fact, I’d like to say that there have been times where I questioned the business manager about something about, what about this guy because he lives in Chatham, maybe he’ll want this call, and Karl reminded me many times of the sanctity of the list and how it’s supposed to be right by the order and even though my intentions were not, you know, any kind of disruption or anything, it was just to do things a little more that might work out better. And as I said,
Time- 2:33:59
Karl always reminded me of the importance of making the members understand the list was the rule.
Karl Lovett: So, in saying that, you, you led into a little bit of what I was going to say, so. There’s been times where that’s happened, where the, the job was in Chatham, or a job the same day in Windsor. Would it be fair to say that I told you, let’s let the guy decide if he wants to come to Windsor from Chatham and let the guy from Windsor decide if he wants to go to Chatham. Let’s call the guy from Chatham, give him that job in Windsor, and if he says no then he’ll be available for the call in Chatham.
Barry Heeney: That’s right. Sure.
Karl Lovett: If the microphone ever picked it up, I’m just going repeat, that’s right, yes.
Barry Heeney: Sure.
Karl Lovett: And you brought some evidence with you today?
Barry Heeney: I did, yes.
Karl Lovett: And what does the evidence consist of?
Barry Heeney: It consists of a phone call I had from Brother Inch on July 3rd, 2020, the day after a call that he received to go to work.
Karl Lovett: Okay, and did you bring audio evidence, paper evidence?
Barry Heeney: The audio evidence, honestly the portion of it that is Mr. Inch speaking was not picked up very well but I, I went through a great amount of time to listen as closely as I could and transcribe so I have what I printed out as the transcript of most of the call.
Karl Lovett: And, and was that audio evidence be available in the event we need to send it to a professional to have them decipher what was said on it?
Time- 2:35:38
Barry Heeney: Yes, it would, yes.
Karl Lovett: Okay. At this time, do you want to produce any evidence?
Barry Heeney: Well, I’ve, I’ve made a number of copies of it and, as I said, I would, I would like to pass it out and perhaps I could read it so that…
Voice 10?
Voice Sure.
Barry Heeney: Follow along.
Barry Heeney: Got enough of these.
Karl Lovett: Because this is your evidence, I’ll let you walk us through it. So, you can describe what it says…
Barry Heeney: Yes.
Karl Lovett: The nature of the evidence and how it came about.
Barry Heeney: Yeah, so what it is, is me catching a call from Chris, actually I think what happened was, I was on another call and I just hung up and tried to catch, Chris called me and I missed it but then he called me back. So, this is, as I say, July 3rd. The call was for a call the day previous, was for Vollmer and Associates for, for 8 people, actually 7 originally and then they added another person, but the call was for 7 people where they would have three 50/50 name picks. But the, the basis of the call was that Chris wanted to call back and talk to somebody because he refused the call and he was trying to get a hold of Karl, but I guess he couldn’t, so me answering, Hello Barry speaking, and then Chris said something that was very hard to understand. I said, yeah, Chris, I missed you. I just tried to grab it in time, the previous phone call that I was referring to. He said, okay, cool, I tried to talk to Karl but guess I’ll talk to you then, I guess. I gave you a call yesterday. And then I couldn’t understand what he
Time- 2:37:53
said after, but he said, you know this right to manage crap that Karl is pulling on, you know we have the right to know what the job we are getting, we have the job call, it’s a call for a job, not a call for a shop. You know we have the right to know what job we are getting paid, whether it’s afternoons, what we’re doing, what the work is, everything, like that’s kind of our right and for Karl to say it’s their right to manage is, you know what, that’s not going to fly. But if that’s the crap he wants to pull, I mean think he’s got enough, whatever he said, on his plate right now and to be honest, and I don’t know if he wants to frigging kind of f#@& me like that or play that game with people but if that’s what he wants to do, that’s cool. He ain’t gonna get away with it. He’s gonna have a lot to deal with in the near future so I really don’t think he wants to do that. That’s okay Barry, but if you want to play that game, you can play that game, you know? Don’t tell me the company has the right to do this when it’s really Karl doing this and you know deciding whatever else. So yeah, you do what you wanna do, but file a grievance and it’s probably not a good idea along with everything else that’s gonna happen soon. That’s all I got to say. Hey, Chris, all I know is there was a call for 7 guys yesterday, I’m not sure what you guys discussed about that. I just know that it was for Vollmer and I believe for 7 guys. We have the right to, you know, these are our jobs. You guys work for us, Karl, Sol, somebody else, tend to forget that. We’re paying their salaries, you know, we have the right to know these are our jobs, our hall, right? I said, I certainly understand that. I don’t think anybody thinks any differently. And then he said, fricking attitude. Don’t give me this right to manage, that’s scabby, scabby f#@&. Much more ranting, but I said unintelligible. Anyway, tell him good luck with that, Chris said. I said, okay Chris, nice talking to you. And that was the end of the call. So, I, I just want to say that you’ll notice most of the talking on the phone was Chris and it was pretty
Time- 2:39:57
much pretty common that a number of the calls I received [2:40:02] that were ranting about something which was not the case, although I understand when Vollmer called, they said they need this many guys but they didn’t specify where the guys were going because they wanted to get a group of guys and then send some to Ford and some elsewhere, based on who already had the Ford training. So, this wasn’t a master plan between myself and Karl and Vollmer to try to do something to Chris. It was just the way the call came in, and it was kind of like a last-minute thing, trying to get guys to go to the call. And always, my intention is to just put guys to work. I try to get as much information to pass on when I’m giving the call because I know guys want to know what it’s all about. Like, this is not the way we conduct a call or call into the hall. Thank you.
Karl Lovett: Switching to another topic. In around June this year, you approached me with some issues that were being directed to you by other members about negative comments being made over the internet, about the way Windsor Hall is being run and that we had a corrupt out of work list that wasn’t transparent. Do you remember any of these conversations?
Barry Heeney: I do, yes.
Karl Lovett: Okay. And, and in those conversations, do you remember, do you remember me telling you, I’m getting enough screenshots from people that I open up that contain lots of negativity, lots of falsified information, stuff that isn’t true. I don’t want to hear about it or see any of them anymore.
Barry Heeney: Yeah, I do remember many conversations like that about all sorts of stuff that was being said that was not true.
Karl Lovett: In your opinion, did the negativity and lies that were being spread, spread by Mr. Chris Inch, have an impact on my day to
 
Time- 2:41:43
day business and the way I performed my daily duties since you worked with me day in and day out for the last 8 years?
Barry Heeney: Absolutely. Absolutely I do. It was a huge distraction. There’s a lot of work that goes on here about putting all the members to work and trying to pursue that work and Karl’s pretty active in trying to do whatever he can ahead of a job being bid or let, and that, like I say, I think it was a huge distraction and it was very obvious it was having an affect on Karl.
Karl Lovett: In, in your personal opinion, working with me for, we’ll say seven and a half years, seven and three quarter, years, before any of this took place, about this internet badgering, harassment, intimidation. Would you feel I have a fairly calm demeanor, handled problems and issues here fairly well?
Barry Heeney: Previous to this, yes. Absolutely.
Karl Lovett: And, in conversations with you, do you remember me telling you, I don’t want to hear anymore of this rhetoric coming off the internet because it’s affecting my day to day business and I don’t want the outcome of those lies to affect what I do here daily?
Barry Heeney: Absolutely, and I also recall that it had a very big impact on how you were looking and, and, like, very distracted, very upset, totally, it was definitely a problem here.
Karl Lovett: Those are, those are my questions.
James Dodman: I’ll allow the defence to cross examine.
Perry Speranza: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You referenced screenshots, lots of them, Karl said he doesn’t read them though.
Karl Lovett: No, no. Point of order again. I said I don’t want to read anymore. I don’t want to see anymore.
 
Time- 2:43:54
Perry Speranza: Brother Heeney, how many screenshots did you give Karl before he told you, I don’t want to read anymore? Lots?
Barry Heeney: Lots. Yeah, there were a number of them. That’s part of the problem was there was all sorts of false things going on there, [2:44:17].
Perry Speranza: So, did you say that Brother Lovett was relying on you to provide him news about what was happening on Facebook or did you just do that voluntarily?
Barry Heeney: No, I think there were probably a couple of people who knew of that, not just myself.
Perry Speranza: How many screenshots did you provide Brother Lovett with?
Barry Heeney: Probably, I would say four or five.
Perry Speranza: Just four or five?
Barry Heeney: Oh, there was a lot more of them but the ones that I was privy to was four or five.
Perry Speranza: Over, over what time period?
Barry Heeney: Probably the months of the election process here at the local.
Perry Speranza: Over how long, a couple months?
Barry Heeney: Approximately.
Perry Speranza: And you were saying that those four screen shots changed Brother Lovett’s behaviour?
Barry Heeney: I would say that the bulk of the number of them, not just ones that I was aware of, there were many more that he was seeing, that had a very big impact on his demeanor, yes.  
Perry Speranza: So, you know that because he discussed the specifics about those particular screen shots and what they said with you?
Barry Heeney: Yeah. Yeah, for sure.
Time- 2:45:38
Perry Speranza: And what happened?
Barry Heeney: They were a very big distraction for him.
Perry Speranza: I mean, like, what happened to Brother Karl’s demeanor, that you noticed related to that?
Barry Heeney: Well, I would say it was probably, I’m not a clinical psychologist, but I’m sure it was a lot of depression and distraction from the, his work.
Perry Speranza: You noticed depression?
Barry Heeney: I did, absolutely a difference in his demeanor.
Perry Speranza: You noticed depression in Brother Lovett?
Barry Heeney: Yeah.
Perry Speranza: How, how do you determine that Brother Lovett’s depressed?
Barry Heeney: By his actions, by his, his ability to function. I would say that, because I have been here for a number of years now.
Perry Speranza: Did you advise him on what to do when you saw him physically affected?
Barry Heeney: I, I don’t know that it was my, my personal position to advise him what to do, but I did notice his condition.
Perry Speranza: So, you were concerned.
Barry Heeney: Absolutely. He’s a family man, he has family and children, and I’m sure it was very detrimental to his family as well.  
Perry Speranza: So, you stopped providing him with…
Barry Heeney: As I said, from what I had and shared with him I, I showed him a number of, but there were many more I’m sure he had through other people.
 
Time- 2:47:02
Perry Speranza: So, did Facebook only come into play at election time or wasn’t it around for, before that?
Barry Heeney: I, I would say that there was an increased with different pages that people set up related to the election and there was a lot of, I would say, false information put on those pages.
Perry Speranza: But elections are competitive, wouldn’t you say, in the past, campaigning, debating?
Barry Heeney: They’re competitive? Of course, they are.
Perry Speranza: So, isn’t it natural to expect that differences of opinion might cause some people stress?
Barry Heeney: Well it depends on what your definition of difference of opinion is. I mean are you saying that you would think that a difference of opinion is negative and false comments and derogatory terms and profanity, is that what you’re saying the difference of opinion?
Perry Speranza: Because that’s what I see. Would you not say…
Barry Heeney: It’s not, it’s not, just talking about the way the local was run where something intelligent. It was, it was derogatory, false things with profanity and, and some pretty nasty comments.
Perry Speranza: Would you not say that anything someone says about someone else that isn’t factual is an opinion?
Barry Heeney: Not always.
Perry Speranza: What would it be then?
Barry Heeney: I would say that it does have to do with the content of that.
Perry Speranza: But it’s an opinion, isn’t it?
Barry Heeney: Well, sometimes. Sometimes.
 
Time- 2:48:41
Perry Speranza: What I mean is, if it’s not factual and someone is saying it, what is it?
Barry Heeney: It’s varied. If you're trying to ask me if anytime somebody says something about somebody is just an opinion, I disagree. I don’t think there should be free reign for somebody to just slew all kinds of false accusations and things about a person when they are detrimental to the person’s character and their work and they way they conduct themselves.
Perry Speranza: I appreciate your opinion, Brother, you know, just like I think you can appreciate, I hope you can appreciate, the kind of point I’m trying to make. Any comment on Facebook is an opinion. Even if it’s wrong. Wouldn’t you say?  
Karl Lovett: Objection. The witness already answered what he thought an opinion was. It is now being directed again. The witness already answered the question on what he figured an opinion was and what an opinion wasn’t.
James Dodman: Have you got another question for the witness?
Perry Speranza: No, I asked the question just then. You know, I’m trying to say everything on Facebook is an opinion.
James Dodman: But that’s the same question as before.
Perry Speranza: I’m phrasing it a different way because he didn’t answer it before either. You know, I mean. What, what would you call comments on Facebook?
Barry Heeney: I wouldn’t say defamation of character is, is an opinion.  
Perry Speranza: Well, it could be an opinion, but in civil court someone could make a case that it’s – that it’s still an opinion. It could be an unfounded opinion, but it’s still an opinion, wouldn’t you say?
Barry Heeney: No, I disagree. An opinion is probably perhaps a logical point which this isn’t, I think, what we’re talking about here.
Time- 2:50:51
Perry Speranza: People can have differences of opinion.
Barry Heeney: Free reign of saying anything, they can just say anything you want because people might be trying to push the freedom of speech. But I think there is a fine line [2:51:06].
Perry Speranza: Granted, but we’re talking about the definition of opinion. People have…
James Dodman: Asked and answered.
Perry Speranza: People have different, it’s important, Mr. Chairman. People have difference of opinions. Now, you cannot say that because my opinion is different, radically different from yours, that I am, guilty of what? Opinion. Guilty of having a different opinion than you. That’s all I’m saying. Thank you.
Karl Lovett: Can I redirect?
James Dodman: Do you have another question?
Perry Speranza: Yeah. Did you see Brother Lovett physically disabled by his stress?
Barry Heeney: Physically? I wouldn’t say physically. I would say more mentally.  
Perry Speranza: I don’t know how you document that other than, okay, well that’s fine.
Barry Heeney: It is a noticeable situation.  
Perry Speranza: But not physically.
Barry Heeney: Well…
Karl Lovett: Objection. The witness already answered the question.
Perry Speranza: Okay, that’s fine. He answered it. I will accept it. He said not physical.
James Dodman: Do you have another question?
Time- 2:52:28
Perry Speranza: No.
James Dodman: Go ahead Karl.
Karl Lovett: Thanks. During this whole ordeal, the internet badgering, harassment, intimidation, did I not tell you that I didn’t want to see any of the screen shots and was it only after, some time in the summer time, when I said I’ve had enough, can you get me copies of those screenshots?
Barry Heeney: Absolutely. Part of the problem was, there was, I would say that might have led to where it was, is because I know that through the election at the beginning you had nothing to do with it, you had, you didn’t want to see any of the information if it’s being put out there, but then it got so rampant and I guess more and more people were sending you stuff including the stuff that I saw. And that's when you decided that you should, I guess, respond to some of it.  
Karl Lovett: And, and in an intimate conversation, and I’d like you to answer the question, did I also tell you not to continue telling me about all the bullshit that’s on the internet because it was bothering me?
Barry Heeney: Absolutely.
Karl Lovett: Those are my questions.
James Dodman: Do you have a follow up question?
Perry Speranza: Just one. Brother Lovett has never run in an election before, is that not correct?
Karl Lovett: Are you asking me the question?
Perry Speranza: The witness.
Barry Heeney: He’s never run in an election.
Perry Speranza: Is that true, yes?
Time- 2:54:18
Barry Heeney: Thank you.
Perry Speranza: Or, or has he been acclaimed?
Barry Heeney: Well, I guess I could find the results from the previous election, but yeah, that’s true, yeah.
Perry Speranza: Has he ever said that he acknowledges running in an election is stressful?
Barry Heeney: If you are referring to his last run for business manager, that wasn’t the only time he’s ever run in an election. So, he has run and held other positions.
Perry Speranza: He knows that it’s stressful.
Barry Heeney: I guess. I ran in an election and I was stressed.
Perry Speranza: I was asking about him.
Barry Heeney: That’s what I’m asking you, do you think it should be?
Perry Speranza: It is. You’ve talked about it on other trial boards, being in an election is stressful and different people deal with it in different ways.
James Dodman: Any other questions?
Perry Speranza: No thanks.
Karl Lovett: Redirect. That was a good question I never had a chance to respond to. Mr. Heeney, isn’t it true that I’ve ran for the executive board twice, I ran for the SUB committee, and I also ran to be president of local 773?
Barry Heeney: That’s correct.
Karl Lovett: And if I can add to that testimony, my first time running for E-Board I lost by one vote, very stressful. My second time running for E-Board I won by a good number and in my third time running for president of the local, I won by phenomenal
Time- 2:55:59
number. And at no times was there any internet stress or any, anything on social media that could affect or that did affect my personal behaviour or my mental state. That’s what I have. Just based on the question, the last question you asked.
James Dodman: Do you have any additional questions? Okay, we will release the witness.
Karl Lovett: It’s, it’s now going on 9:30, I wonder if maybe we could have 10 more minutes for a rest break.
James Dodman: Okay.
Karl Lovett: And then I think I’ll be able to conclude my, my portion of my testimony within the next 45 minutes.
James Dodman: Okay. We will take 10 minutes.
[2:57:00, papers shuffling, voices muffled]
Karl Lovett: Rapid tabs? 11, 12?
Brian Fields: 12.
Karl Lovett: 12?
Brian Fields: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: 13 maybe.
Brian Fields: 11 was Karl, Barry’s.
Karl Lovett: What was Shawn’s?
Brian Fields: 10.
Speaker: Okay.
Brian Fields: 10.
Karl Lovett: Okay, so we’re at 12. James

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Re: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2021, 02:15:18 AM »
Clarifying Questions to the Charging Party

Dodman: At this time, I will allow the defendant to show their evidence, rebut testimony or call any witnesses.
Perry Speranza: Thank you, Brother Chair. I would like to ask some clarifying questions from the charging party, if I may. Thank you. That was a lot to keep notes about. My eyes are a little blurry now. I going to attempt to go through it without a break.
Brother Lovett, I’m going to reference Exhibit 1, False accusations. The letter, work history. Can you tell us what IBEW
Time- 3:17:59
clause that Brother Inch violated related to the evidence you brought in in Exhibit 1? I mean, please be specific to . You charged him under the Constitution, Article 25, Section 1, Subsection A; Article 25, Section 1, Subsection E; Article 25, Section 1, Subsection G; Article 25, Section 1, Subsection L; Article 25, Section 1, Subsection J. Can you tell us please, can you relate your evidence in Exhibit 1 that you call false accusations to one of those clauses, if you would?
Karl Lovett: I believe you referenced “L”. That’s I. It comes before “J”.
Perry Speranza: Okay, so it’s “I”, sorry.
Karl Lovett: And once again, like I said in previous cases, I’m going to leave the decision-making up to the Trial Board.
Perry Speranza: So, you can’t reference? You’ve charged the Brother. You’ve been specific about charges and you’re bringing evidence, I believe, you should be able to reference your evidence to a specific charge, otherwise you’re just throwing a bunch of information out there.
Karl Lovett: So, once again, you said you believe. You know yourself, it’s not my obligation to break down every charge and every position of every charge and what category I think it fits in. That’s up to the Trial Board.
Perry Speranza: I believe you should.
Karl Lovett: You believe I should but should, shall, make, can, will…
Perry Speranza: I’m experienced at IBEW Trial Boards and in every Trial Board I’ve ever been to, where the charging party brings evidence, he relates it directly to a specific clause. So, you want to change the way IBEW Trial Boards are conducted and just throw a bunch of information and bring reaves of evidence and then, not direct it to any clause?
Time- 3:20:08
Karl Lovett: Historically at Local 773, we put out the charges that are affected by the evidence that is brought. We leave that in the hands of the Trial Board to decipher if I’ve met the test.
Perry Speranza: I haven’t seen any violation of Article 25, Section 1A, Exhibit 1. I haven’t seen any violation of Article 25, Section 1, Subsection E. I don’t see a violation of Article 25, Section 1, Subsection G and I don’t see a violation of Article 25, Section 1, Subsection I. I don’t see a violation of Article 25, Section 1, Subsection J, so how are we supposed to – how is the Trial Board supposed to decide that you’re throwing an exhibit out there and not defining what you believe is violating those clauses? I mean, that’s irrational.
Karl Lovett: Is that a question?
Perry Speranza: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: Okay, so I’ve answered this and I’ll answer again. I provide the evidence today. I provide the infraction – the places where the infractions took place in the Constitution, as well, I referenced the Bylaws. And if you read Article A, violation of any provision of this Constitution and the rules herein, or the Bylaws, Working Agreements or rules of the local union. So, once again, I’ll leave this in the hands of my friends in the front here, the Trial Board, that they will make the decision if I’ve met the test.
Perry Speranza: There is no provision in the IBEW Constitution that allows you to charge a member related to expression of use of opinions. So, how can you charge Brother Inch with “G”, knowing that?
Karl Lovett: I think I provided medical evidence that shows you. You like to read only certain parts of the paragraph, but you have to read the entirety of the paragraph.
Perry Speranza: I’m referring to section - in Exhibit 1, Brother.
Karl Lovett: So, once again…
Time- 3:22:24
Perry Speranza: False accusations.
Karl Lovett: So, once again, I’ll tell you that I produced the evidence that…
Perry Speranza: You brought a work history.
Karl Lovett: Do you want me to finish?
Perry Speranza: Yeah, yeah but I’m asking the questions now, Brother.
Karl Lovett: You just asked. Do you want my answer?
Perry Speranza: Please. What is your…
Karl Lovett: So, I provided the evidence today. It’s before the Chairman and the Trial members here, the Trial Board members. They’ll be the ones to decipher if I’ve met the test of everything that’s in here. I don’t decide that because then I would be the judge and the jury, I guess. So, what happens is I bring the evidence, which happens in a trial and in a normal trial – if it was a criminal trial, they don’t say “Please provide the evidence and then show me where you read the law to say that he broke the evidence”. That becomes a jury or the judge’s decision. So, once again, I’ll state that. I provided the evidence. It’s going to be up to the members in the room to decipher if I’ve met the test or not.
Perry Speranza: Absolutely, they do that in some part. You’re charged with a crime. The prosecution gives evidence directly related to the crime. They don’t just list a bunch of crimes and say, “Look, that evidence covers it all”. So, how can you expect us to be logically satisfied with your answers when a Brother’s reputation is on trial? Are you not taking this seriously, Brother Lovett?
Karl Lovett: I don’t expect you to be satisfied with it. I provided the evidence to which the Trial Board makes the decision if I’ve met the criteria for the charges I brought.
Perry Speranza: Let’s move on to Exhibit 2, False accusations, letter to IO. The list proven to be unfair. Brother accuses Brother Inch of accusing
Time- 3:24:06
him of being a protégé of Sol Furer. I mean, that’s opinion. The IBEW doesn’t provide a clause whereby a member can charge another member for his opinions. And that’s why I’m asking you to specify any IBEW Constitution clause you attribute to the evidence that you presented in exhibit 2.
Karl Lovett: Well, once the Trial Board deciphers through the evidence and the evidence that I produced to them, there’s lots of it and I’m sure they’ll have to take some time to deliberate and go through all these forms. They’ll find, in reading through the charges, the amount of evidence I produced, there’s lots of stuff in there. For example, making known the business of a local union directly or indirectly to an employer, employer supported organization or other, or the representative of any of the foregoing. There’s lots of representatives he sent the information to.
Perry Speranza: That was in Exhibit 2?
Karl Lovett: You just read it out.
Perry Speranza: Well, I’m asking you.
Karl Lovett: Well, I just – I just – I just said that. Do you want me to repeat it?
Perry Speranza: It’s a letter to the IO and you brought evidence related to the list. You were trying to demonstrate that the list was fair. And then, you have a Brother making comments about how is the Business Manager comparing to you, talking about this mystery list. And, you interpret that as oppressive and intimidating. Okay, intimidating. Those are the opinions that the Brother stated. How is that related to the IBEW Constitution? The IBEW Constitution specific? That’s why theses clauses are written down. If a Brother charges another Brother, it’s expected that you should bring evidence and demonstrate how a certain clause was violated.
Karl Lovett: Are you asking the same question again?
Time- 3:26:04
Perry Speranza: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: Okay, so I answered the question, but I’ll tell you again.
James Dodman: Hold on. We’ve already heard the same answer over and over again to the same question. Do you have additional questions to ask?
Perry Speranza: Oh Brother, I’m going to go through the evidence as it was presented and each one of my questions is going to be related to how the Brother relates his evidence in that – what he brought in that evidence to a specific clause because he has not done that. And I believe he needs to do that. So, you know. Brother, why did he need to bring all those wraths of evidence? It’s all the same thing. It’s all him taking issue with something a Brother said. The IBEW Constitution doesn’t have a clause to address that. That’s what I’m trying to say here. And we sat and we listened patiently. Now, are you saying that now, in defence of a Brother, I’m not supposed to go through each one of those exhibits and challenge them?
James Dodman: I do. I believe you should have the defence and we’re here until you get through every single one of those points but it can’t be the same question over and over again…
Perry Speranza: Well, why can’t it be? Because he hasn’t answered the question. I mean, each one of those exhibits should address…
James Dodman: He answered the question three times already.
Perry Speranza: It’s illogical.
Karl Lovett: If I may?
Perry Speranza: It’s illogical. I mean, are we intelligent Brothers here that are going to conduct a Tribunal according to some kind of logic? I mean, having a Brother say, “I’m not providing, I’m not defining,
 
Time- 3:27:49
I’m not directing” when he’s the one who is bringing the charges. How can he do that and still be credible?
James Dodman: So, he’s brought his evidence. He’s made his case. Now, it’s up to the people here to decide whether it’s legitimate or not.
Perry Speranza: All right, so you believe the same thing as him then.
James Dodman: I’m just trying to carry this on.
Perry Speranza: Okay, I just want to get it straight because we’re putting it on the record.
James Dodman: Yes, yes.
Perry Speranza: Is it possible for me to get another bottle of water?
James Dodman: Yes.
Perry Speranza: Thanks. I hope you appreciate I need go through with this in a sequence methodically in order to address it. You can’t expect that I’m going to pick out four hours of testimony and condense it into a case?
James Dodman: Well, I would think you’d have a series of questions you wanted to ask.
Perry Speranza: Well, that’s what I’m doing. I mean I gotta do it. I don’t really like doing this.
Karl Lovett: Would it be possible to take another 10-minute break? I need to use the restroom again. It’s now, I guess, been over an hour since our last break.
James Dodman: You need a break?
Karl Lovett: I’m asking for a break.
Perry Speranza: It’s up to you, Brother.
James Dodman: We will take a quick break and get back at it.
Time- 3:29:34
Perry Speranza: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I believe I left off at Exhibit 2, asking clarifying questions related to what clauses that the Brother was relating his evidence. But he’s maintained that the Trial Board will be able to figure that out. I’m going to have to go through each one of these exhibits, if you can bare with me, I’ll be quick.
Exhibit 3. Track record of Brother Inch calling in sick. What would this be, relevance, reference – I mean, I gotta ask what part of the IBEW Constitution did you relate Exhibit 3 to?
Karl Lovett: I’m going to leave these decisions up to the Trial Board. Once again, I produced my evidence. It’s the decision of the Trial Board and the Chairman to render a verdict.
Perry Speranza: Thank you, Brother Lovett. Exhibit 4, Pattern of accusations and illegal decisions, (3:30:45) case.  You’re asking for an exemption (3:30:49) issue  – what clause is this relating to? I don’t see factual information.
Karl Lovett: Once again, I provided my evidence to the Trial Board and Chairman today. I will leave the decision-making ability up to the Trial Board and Chairman.
Perry Speranza: You brought evidence related to assertions against Local 353 Business Manager in the past. How does that relate to your charges?
Karl Lovett: Can you repeat that question? And tell me where you got that from?
Perry Speranza: Well, I’m talking about Exhibit 4.
Time- 3:31:33
Karl Lovett: That’s Book 4. I don’t think I’ve ever referenced the 353 Business Manager…
Perry Speranza: Did I say 353?
Karl Lovett: Yeah.
Perry Speranza: Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to say 353. My mistake. I meant to say 773.
Karl Lovett: Okay, can you repeat your question?
Perry Speranza: I believe you were talking about the past Business Manager and issues related to charges that were back and forth between Brother Inch and Brother Furer, I believe it was. How does that relate your charges here?
Karl Lovett: So, once again, I brought a plethora of information showing Mr. Inch’s dealings in the past, showing that he continued the same accusations in the future. Once again, I leave that information in front of the Trial Board Chairman to render a verdict, if they so see fit.
Perry Speranza: You also submitted a doctor’s note from 2017. These are some issues that are very, very, very old. You’re building a case related to something today, I can see it, but how does that affect all or relate to any of those clauses?
Karl Lovett: Once again, I brought forth the information and as you know Perry, in a trial, if something new is brought up and something that happened in the past, it will show the historical practice of an individual, which I did and once again, I’ll leave that information in front of the Trial Board so they can decide whether he was guilty or innocent.
Perry Speranza: Looking at Exhibit 6, Meeting with Steward and you brought evidence about how you appointed the brother so you must have confidence in him. Brother accusing violation of 703. I believe at some point, you accused Brother of violating Bylaws. Did you have a charge of the violated Bylaws? So, what part of the IBEW Constitution was in Exhibit 6?
Karl Lovett: So, I’m glad that you agreed to that because clause A of Article 25 of the Misconduct, Defences and Boundaries says, “Violations of any provision of the Constitution and the rules herein or the
Time- 3:34:03
Bylaws, work agreements or rules of a local union”. So, thank you for pointing that out and I did get the right paragraph there.
Perry Speranza: But you didn’t charge him with violating the Bylaws. If you would have charged him with violating a Bylaws, you state the Bylaw.
Karl Lovett: Point of order. The Constitution, Article 25, Section 1, Subsection A he was charged with an in that, it states, “Violations of any of the provisions of the Constitution, rules herein or the Bylaws”.
Perry Speranza: So, you don’t want to specify what Bylaw you’re accusing him of violating?
Karl Lovett: It’s in my evidence. You should read the last page. And I’m going to leave that up to the Chairman of the Trial Board to decide whether he did that or not.
Perry Speranza: I’m trying to go through this exhibit by exhibit. That was Exhibit 6. Exhibit 8, Sharing of Local 773 information, intentionally falsifying facts and you gave audio evidence. Minutes of the General meeting, allegations about Brother Inch alleging negligence, desire to crush the BM, using the falsified facts relating to election, Facebook posting. Can you relate any of that in the exhibit to any Article you’re charging Brother Inch with?
Karl Lovett: You lumped a lot of stuff in there, but I think I did give audio evidence. And in that audio evidence, I proved that Mr. Inch knew that he was falsifying facts because he, in his own words, agreed that he was wrong with what he said and if you read through the Constitution, I’m sure the Trial Board and the Chairman can decipher in there, there is provisions in there and you know what they are.
Perry Speranza: I don’t. That’s why I’m asking you. I don’t know any provision…
Time- 3:36:14
Karl Lovett: Maybe they – maybe they might think it has something to do with J. I don’t know. If could possibly making known the business of IBEW – of the Local union, directly or indirectly to an employer, employer supported organization or other union or the representatives of any of the foregoing.
Perry Speranza: I’ll state it and you can see clearly…
Karl Lovett: I think you’re asking a question.
Perry Speranza: No fault…
Karl Lovett: I think you’re asking…
Perry Speranza: …evidence relating to…
Karl Lovett: Pardon me, did you ask me a question? Did you ask me the question? Because if you asked me the question, I got the right to answer it.
Perry Speranza: I did but…
Karl Lovett: Okay, then I won’t answer that question because he’s stopping me from answering it. So, once again, I will revert back to – it will be your decision, the Trial Board and the Chairman to decipher if the evidence I proved was right or wrong because I tried to answer the question but Mr. Speranza stopped me.
Perry Speranza: I’m saying, and you referenced it, I wanted to…
Karl Lovett: So, are you asking another question?
Perry Speranza: I wanted to respond to it that I’m asking you, what part in the Constitution references the charge related to the falsifying facts? Is there something in the IBEW Constitution, that you believe allows you to charge a Brother for what you believe is falsifying facts? That’s why the Constitution is written this way. You need to be specific. You can’t define why you’re charging him with – you’re just throwing a bunch of stuff out there.
Time- 3:37:32
Anyway, I’ll leave that for the defence. I’m asking you clarifying questions here.
Karl Lovett: I don’t think you’re…
Perry Speranza: Let’s go…
Karl Lovett: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if he’s asking a question or asking a question and giving the answer. But maybe the answer he wants but generally, when you ask a question, you wait for a response. Mr. Speranza continually asked the question and gets the response he would like.
Perry Speranza: I said, you’ve referenced falsifying evidence and I’m saying there’s no part of the IBEW Constitution that relates to a charge that you can charge somebody with or anything related to speech. Now, I’m wondering why you would charge him and allege, bring this evidence and not be able to relate it to a clause in the IBEW Constitution? It’s all I’m asking. If you can’t do it, then that’s fine.
Let’s look at exhibit 9. Right to Manage Clause, contractors as needed. Letter from Facebook, “we are not sharing info?” Claims counsel from the other side said, “Let’s move on” and that I agree that share with the Chair is not necessary. I did. I didn’t…
James Dodman: What section are you talking about there? Where are we at?
Karl Lovett: He’s referring to the Ottawa Facebook Group?
Perry Speranza: I’m talking about…
Brian Fields: Right to manage, number 9.
Speaker: Nine? Okay, thank you.
Perry Speranza: Now, the Brother claims – he says that the counsel from the other side said, “Let’s move on”. I didn’t say that. I said, “I agree with the Chair”. You know, I mean that’s just inaccurate. Phone
Time- 3:39:26
call recording to Chris Inch refusing the call, that is not site specific. A Brother has that right, I believe. Do you think that any of this relates to a violation of the constitution?
Karl Lovett: Was that a question?
Perry Speranza: Yeah.
Karl Lovett: Once again, I will refer that all of the evidence I produced in front of the Trial Board and the Chairman, they’ll decipher if it has anything to do with the Constitution of the Local Bylaws because I reflected the Local Bylaws in Charge A of the Constitution, Article 25, Section 1, Subsection A.
Perry Speranza: I believe – I don’t have to do this with the Brother Lovett’s testimony. I think I addressed it my questions to the Brother. Actually, I cross-examined him so we don’t need to do that. I see a lot of issues with – related to the Brother’s opinion.
Exhibit number 12, intimidation, harassment of audio files, medical assessment, police reports, all related to the Brother’s phone calls, opinions. I don’t see any part of the IBEW constitution that allows another Brother to charge a Brother – I mean, do you see any? Is there a harassment clause in the IBEW Constitution?
Karl Lovett: Is that a question?
Perry Speranza: I should be asking you, what part of the IBEW Constitution…
Karl Lovett: It was like a run-on question so I didn’t know whether you were just going to start and stop. So, once again, the evidence is before the Trial Board and the Chairman. I’m going to let them decipher whether I’ve produced enough evidence to meet the test of harassment.
Perry Speranza: You won’t do it?
Time- 3:41:47
Karl Lovett: Well, if you want, I can make a decision on the case right now, if that’s what you’re asking me to do.
Perry Speranza: No, no I am asking you to specify…
Karl Lovett: Well, no you’re just asking me to come up with a decision. I can’t do that.
Perry Speranza: What part of the exhibit…
Karl Lovett: It’s before the Trial Board and the Chairman.
Perry Speranza: All of the evidence you gave, what do you relate it – how do you relate it to any of those clauses that you’ve charged the Brother with? Can’t do it? That’s fine.
Karl Lovett: If that’s a question, once again, Mr. Chairman, it’s not my job to do. My job is to produce you the evidence. It’s your job, as a Trial Board, to decipher that evidence, if it’s factual or not or if there’s any merit to the evidence and – in the evident of a tie, Mr. Chairman, you would break that tie. So, once again, my evidence is before the Trial Board. I’ll leave it in your hands.
Perry Speranza: Mr. Chairman, I’m asking clarifying questions. Brother won’t answer them and you know, what can I do. You produced a doctor’s note Brother. And the medical note that was dated August 26th, 2020. You filed these charges on July 13th, 2020. Can you explain to us why you didn’t go to the doctor until August 26th, which is more than a month later? A month and a half to get a note?
Karl Lovett: So, as most men know, most men try to bury the burden of their stress on their shoulders. Most men don’t like to admit anxiety, depression. It’s just a typical thing that men do. They like to keep it balled up inside. At some point in time, you have to seek medical professional help because of that. So, nobody can determine when somebody’s breaking point is nor can your
Time- 3:43:53
timeline. So, I went and sought medical professional help when it was required.
Perry Speranza: I noticed that you interpreted the Brother’s swearing to you on the phone as swearing at the Union Hall. Is that correct?
Karl Lovett: I believe that’s pretty loose inside the Constitution and inside the Constitution, one of the sections, I believe it’s I, Disturbing the Peace or Harmony of a Local Union Meeting or Meeting of its Executive Board or Using Abusive Language, Creating or Participating in a Disturbance, Drinking Intoxicants or Being Intoxicated in or around the Union Hall. Sorry, yeah that’s the abusive language one right there. In or around the Office or Headquarters of a Local Union. In or around. So, the message was left on the answering machine at the Union Hall. I would consider that abusive language at the Union Hall. Whether you said it on loud speaker or you said it on the phone or you said it in person, it was at the Union Hall.
Perry Speranza: If a Brother uses profane language on Facebook, if you read it at the Union Hall, would that be swearing at the Union Hall, in your opinion?
Karl Lovett: He didn’t direct it to the Union Hall. This here, he directed to the Union Hall. That’s why I videotaped the phone with his name on it, the time and date when he did it. So, if you put something on Facebook, it’s directed to the public. This, he didn’t put on Facebook. He put it on the Union Hall’s phone. That’s why I videotaped it and put it on the overhead. That’s my opinion.
Perry Speranza: You audio recorded it, just…
Karl Lovett: No, I video recorded it. If you watched the screen, it was on video, to show that he called the Union Hall on the Union Hall’s phone. It was on video overhead so you could see it. I videoed the phone with the incoming call.
Time- 3:45:54
Perry Speranza: Do you record all of your interactions with union members?
Karl Lovett: The majority, as a formal organizer, you yourself know that it’s completely legitimate to do it, as long as the person recording knows that they’re in the conversation, as long as they don’t third-party record.
Perry Speranza: Maybe you gotta come witness for me sometime at Trial Boards.
Karl Lovett: Well, I’ve done it lots of times.
Perry Speranza: I thought you would say that. Okay, do you believe that the IBEW Constitution has a clause addressing threatening or harassment?
Karl Lovett: I believe there’s multiple – multiple things in the constitution that address it. Once again, I’m going to leave that up to the Trial Board and the Chairman in their decision-making abilities. I think I met the test and I’ll leave it in their very capable hands to decipher whether I did or not.
Perry Speranza: So, your interpretations are what you’re going to rely on.
Karl Lovett: No, my evidence that I produced it what I’m going to rely on. And not all the evidence was me talking. A lot of the evidence was the person you’re counselling for.
Perry Speranza: You kind of interpreted some things as being a threat. A telephone call, laughing and saying you’re f#@&ed. That’s a threat. Maybe the Brother was really referring to issues that you have disagreements on. Would you say that’s not a possibility?
Karl Lovett: I’m not here to decipher possibilities but I could tell you, if I call you and tell you you’re f#@&ed, it would probably mean you’re f#@&ed.
Perry Speranza: Well, I don’t know if I’d take that as a threat. If we were having an argument…
Karl Lovett: But we weren’t having an argument.
Time- 3:47:36
Perry Speranza: No, if…
Karl Lovett: But we weren’t having an argument.
Perry Speranza: Well, it sounds like you were.
Karl Lovett: No. An argument is between two people. I never directed any information towards Chris Inch.
Perry Speranza: Do you believe that a Brother calling you and telling you to campaign on your time is a threat?
Karl Lovett: Once again, the information is before the Trial Board and the Chairman. And they’ll decipher whether the evidence was proven in this matter, if it has any viability or if it meets the test.
Perry Speranza: Can we have a few minutes?
James Dodman: Yes, we’ll adjourn for a couple of minutes. Crosstalk 3:48:40

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Re: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2021, 02:24:41 AM »
Witness For the Defense Dan McGovern Boswell

Perry Speranza: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, at this point in time, I’d like to present our defence and I’d like to start by dealing with issues that I believe relate to this trial, related to the IBEW Constitution and whether you know or not, I’m sure you do, I’m just saying that, the IBEW Constitution has evolved over the years. There was a time when Article 25 was called Article 26 and there was various clauses that were deemed to be illegal by a landmark case that took place in circa 1981-82 involving Brother Dan Boswell. Dan Boswell was an Executive Board member in Local when his Business Manager charged him with various things, one of which being slander. There was a clause in the IBEW Constitution, trust me, it’s here. As a result of that case, the Federal Court ordered that the IBEW Constitution be changed. Brother Boswell was allowed to sit with the IBEW General Counsel at the IBEW Office in Washington and review that clause and change it to his satisfaction. One of the most
Time- 3:50:33
important clauses that he changed was the clause that relates to speech and its Article 25, Section 1G. Wronging a member of the IBEW by any act or acts other than the expression of views or opinions causing him physical or economic harm. Brother Boswell sat in the office of the IBEW with the IBEW lawyer and they came to an agreement about what the language should say. And they chose this language because it’s clear. It’s clear in that no issue related to speech, comments written or spoken is chargeable under the IBEW Constitution. Because it’s contrary to the rights of the member in the U.S. We have the same constitution. The Constitution was changed, the Constitution that the U.S. members live by, is the same Constitution as we live by. What I’d like to do is I have an audio recording I’d like to play. It’s an interview I did with Dan Boswell, where he defines what I’m talking about, in his own language. So, if I may, I’d like to play it for trial.
James Dodman: Okay.
Karl Lovett: Let me just first specify that I’ll object because we can’t qualify who is on the tape nor is the person here and any witness had to be present or send a letter in writing. We can’t confirm whether he’s a member or if he’s not but this is actually him and he’s not present to do this. So, I’ll object to it. If you are going to let him play it, if it sways the decision-making, I’ll resort to an appeal if I need to.
Perry Speranza: May I approach the Bench?
James Dodman: Yes.
Perry Speranza: Brother Boswell, I anticipated this type of questions so I asked him to send me his member – his retiree’s member’s card. I have his card number. I’ll read it for the record.
Karl Lovett: Mr. Chairman? So, is this evidence being produced as a witness?
Time- 3:53:21
Perry Speranza: Audio evidence, audio evidence you submitted. Brother Dan Boswell, retired. Card number D217771, 55-year member from Jersey City, New Jersey. Former officer of Local 164, sworn in September 1963 and I have shown Brother – the Chair his membership card. I want to play an audio that I made in an interview I had with him where I asked him some questions. And I believe it is self-explanatory. So, please listen.
“Hi, so I have Dan Boswell from Local 164 in New Jersey and he was part of a big case in the early eighties related to some of the clauses that Brother Inch is being charged with today. What I’ve done is I’ve asked Brother Boswell to make a little recording with me, to act as an expert witness related to the issues that we will discuss, related to the charges. Brother Inch is charged with A, E, G, J, and I. A lot of those clauses were changed as a result of Brother Boswell’s case. So, Brother Boswell, can you tell us a little bit of background on the case and why you wound up in Federal Court and the results, please?”
Dan Boswell: “Yes. Good evening everybody. I was originally, as an officer in my own local, Local 164 in Jersey City, New Jersey and had been charged by the Business Manager for remarks made during a campaign. I was charged with slander. I was subsequently convicted and removed from office. And as a result of that, I filed the lawsuit in Federal Court. The Federal Court in North Jersey.”
Perry Speranza: “Okay, can you give us a brief explanation of the timeline and how you eventually came to sit in the office of the IBEW with the General Counsel and being allowed to change the clauses of the Constitution that you had issue with?”
Dan Boswell: “Sure. I (3:56:19) settlement of the lawsuit. We were about to go to trial on a Monday morning and the International agreed to settle the case. As part of the settlement agreement, I was given the opportunity to go over all of the Articles of – all of the
Time- 3:56:39
sections of Article 25, which at the time, was the disciplinary section of the IBEW Constitution. And myself and the General Counsel of the IBEW, a gentleman by the name of Larry Collin in Washington, D.C. would go over each and every – every Article and they would then – we would complete the elimination, rewriting and rewording of the – each Article in the – in the Article 25 section to my satisfaction before the case was signed off as settled. That was part of the settlement agreement.”
Perry Speranza: “Thank you Brother. What I’d like to do if you will is look at some of these Articles that I believe you were a part of changing. Let me just ask, do you remember changing Article 25, Section 1(E), Engaging in any act or acts which are contrary to the members’ responsibility toward the IBEW or any of its LUs as an institution or which interferes with the performance by the IBEW or LU with its legal or contractual obligations?”
Dan Boswell: “Well, first let me preface my lawsuit with, it might be six at a time, I’m not sure. I don’t believe so but there there might have been some changes in the changes that of my case for the crown, but I think essentially, I haven’t read them recently, they’re pretty much the same. Let me first (3:58:18) what was eliminated as was what was eliminated. That might help. There was a provision at that time, which I was tried, the provision of slander. That was eliminated. That was in direct violation of Title 1 (3:58:32) and was in violation, as a result, in violation of federal law. That was immediately removed. So, there is no such
Time- 3:58:42
term under the IBEW Constitution in which a member can now or subsequent on my case be charged with slander.
The other provision that was removed in totality was the provision that read something – and this is pretty much I think the essence of the wording, belonging to an organization within the organization. That was removed in its entirety. Another provision that was altered, the language resulted after agreement of the conversation between myself and my colleagues and our mutual agreement was making it known the business of the local union. And that was limited to strictly situations where an IBEW member, for example, might be on the negotiating committee and might also be in management within (3:59:46) contracting company and that would certainly apply to somebody in that position making known the negotiation strategy or the like to the employer.  That was broadly interpreted before that that any member speaking to anyone else on global unions could be charged.  That was completely restricted.  That that strictly applied to conversations or information exchanged between the employee, meaning the local union member and the employer, [4:00:21] contractors.  
Perry Speranza: Okay. Can I just read for us? That’s Article 25, Section 1 (j).  Making known the business of a LU directly or indirectly to any employer, employer supported organization or other union or to the representatives of any of the foregoing.  So, that’s what you basically described, correct?
Dan Boswell: That’s exactly correct, and that’s what that applies to.  It applies to, for example, another union would be a case of a union trying to raid our union.  Or a union in competition. Another electrical union in competition with our union. That’s what that whole is strictly related to. Making the business known to those would be sort of against the interests, or threaten the interests of the local union.  
Time- 4:01:15
Perry Speranza: Because you wanted that section out, that clause out, and then the General Counsel convinced you and you agreed on specific language related to specific circumstances that might arise.  Correct?
Dan Boswell: That’s absolutely correct.  In my case, one of the things, the issues they had raised was the fact that I had been interviewed by a newspaper.  And they told me or warned me that that was a chargeable offence and I did not… I didn’t agree with that and during that conversation with Counselor Cohen (4:01:51), I told him that that’s out and he said well, how about if we just limit it then too… well, actually I asked him well could you give me an example as to why that should remain and his example was an example that… of a local union member being on the negotiating committees giving information that would assist the employer.  And I agreed.  I said yeah, you’re right.  That could be a problem, so we agreed on that mutual language that it would be restricted to those types of situations only.  
Perry Speranza: Understanding that any member charged under that clause, the charging party would have to show somehow proof or intent that the member did that for the reason of causing damages to the IBEW or undermining an organizing campaign or helping another union.  
Dan Boswell: That’s correct.
Perry Speranza: All right.  So, let me ask you, Brother Boswell, about Article 25, Section 1 (g).  Wronging a member of the IBEW by any act or acts other than the expression of views or opinions causing him physical or economic harm.  How did you come upon… that was one of the clauses that you amended or restructured that was left in. Correct?
Dan Boswell: That was a clause that we basically wrote off that we, that came to mutual wording as I recall.  I wrote that.  I mean bottom line was that’s the free speech clause.  The idea is that wronging a member would be specifically directed towards doing some other wrong, provable obviously, other than anything related to speech.  So, in other words, you cannot wrong a member with any speech whatsoever.  And I… if I can expand upon that just briefly.  When that was argued… actually before that, that specific free speech argument went before
Time- 4:04:01
the Federal judge, the International Legal Counsel argued that he thought that it was denying a union the rights of pursuing slander.  And the Court replied to the IBEW Counsel that although that might be true to some degree, that the IBEW had shown evidence of so grossfully abusing the slander provision that the Court believed in my position that it should be removed in its entirety because that would still leave a complainant, the IBEW or someone else, the ability to go to Civil Court and pursue a charge of slander.  So, the Court determined we’re really not eliminating… we’re limiting to some degree but we’re not eliminating it entirely because you still have the option if you feel that you were slandered by using Civil Law which exists in the Civil Courts.
Perry Speranza: Okay.  So, when you specify causing him physical or economic harm, you obviously discussed that and it was very specific to physical harm.  I mean give us a little insight into how you arrived at physical harm or economic.
Dan Boswell: Well, actually we agreed with that one rather quickly because it’s pretty specific and, you know, it’s narrow in its content.  Physical harm obviously was attacking another union member physically.  You know, was, you know, union meeting, attacking someone, making a comment on the floor, threatening somebody on a job site, attacking somebody on a job site, et cetera.  That’s physically attacking a fellow union member.  Causing them economic harm is a little bit more, broad and but that would apply to a union member who was wronged, obviously in violation of the Constitution and as a result suffered economic harm.  Somebody being, for example, set up and unjustly fired and you lose his job and his income for a number of weeks, et cetera.  That kind of thing.
Perry Speranza: Okay, thank you.  Thank you very much, Brother.  So, were there any other clauses that you changed?
Time- 4:06:36
Dan Boswell: Well, actually I’d have to sit down and look at the entire Article to… Articles to see exactly.  We basically went over the language of every single… every single Article.
Perry Speranza: Right, so I took…
Dan Boswell: And in some way or another, every single Article was either removed, rewritten or the language that existed adjusted in one way or another.  I don’t recall any single one… there might have been one remaining as it was written.  
Perry Speranza: This’ll be the Second Trial Board related to these issues that we’ve had this week.  I represented a Brother on Tuesday as his Counsel and I told the story, your story, and explained about how it was in between International Conventions and how the language that was in the Constitution prior to your case was… what they did is they wrote the new language and I actually have a copy of that particular Constitution, that was pasted in.  So, in other words, I think it was like two or two-and-a-half years into the term of, between the two Conventions, which happen every five years.  So, I wanted to tell that story and, you know, some of the Trial Board wanted to have something tangible.  
So, this is how I came about this idea of having you be able to speak with them.  Now we’re doing this little recording prior to the Trial Board which will be happening in about an hour, and what I hope to do is be allowed to contact you by way of phone and use my Bluetooth speaker so to be better heard.  But we’re doing this little interview here in case that someone… or the Trial Board Chairman decides that he’s not going to allow that and I want to present this recording which should serve the same purpose.  
So, I thank you very much, Brother Boswell, for doing this and I’m hoping that you’ll be allowed to communicate with the
Time- 4:09:01
Trial Board by way of phone and actually take some questions if they have them.  
Dan Boswell: If I might make one closing comment.  The most important part of the changes in the Constitution were two of them in my mind.  Number one, free speech.  The idea is there is absolutely no, none.  There is absolutely no statement that an IBEW member can make that he can be charged for.  Period. Close case.  There is no… the IBEW member can make any comment to any other member, any… on the floor of the union meeting or job site or otherwise and there is no chargeable offence in the IBEW Constitution under which he can be charged for any comments he makes.  So, if he makes a comment that’s slanderous or libelous, the only option that the charging party has is to take it to an outside authority, the outside courts.  
The second one and I think one of the most important is belonging to an organization within the organization.  That applies to social media. That applies to political caucuses within the union.  That applies to establishing any groups that the local union rank and file membership should choose to establish.
Perry Speranza: Thanks, Brother Boswell.  Let me ask you this.  Related to the jurisdiction of the IBEW, because some people would use the argument that laws are different in Canada and the United States, but we are part of an international union and the Constitution applies to all members.  Would you not agree?  
Dan Boswell: Oh, there’s no question about that.  I mean the idea is that it’s really, as far as I’m concerned, and the Attorneys with which I was involved, there is no question about that.  The IBEW members, whether they’re in Canada or the United States, are all governed by the exact same IBEW Constitution.  And the U.S. courts, both federal and otherwise, consider the IBEW Constitution to be the ultimate contractual authority relating
Time- 4:11:25
between the IBEW members and the employer association [4:11:30].  So, there is no question that this is… whether you live in Canada or America is irrelevant.  If you’re being charged within the IBEW Constitution, you being charged under the auspices of the IBEW Constitution, plain and simple.  
Perry Speranza: Thank you.  
Dan Boswell: And applies to any one member, applies to every other member irrespective of what… of their location or where they might or might not live.
Perry Speranza: So, the agreement that you made with the IBEW General Counsel that day… is it registered in a court?
Dan Boswell: It’s a matter of… it was [4:12:11].  It was issued as a Court Order as part of the settlement of Boswell versus the IBEW.  Absolutely.  It’s a matter of court record.  
Perry Speranza: So, is there a liability for anyone violating that agreement, because basically it was an agreement between the IBEW and you because you won the lawsuit.
Dan Boswell: Well, number one, there’s not only a… there’s not only a penalty for violation, the agreement was, of this case, which is relatively, I don’t think, very few people are aware, was left open as long as both myself and the IBEW exist. That if the IBEW in any way violates the spirit or intent, direct intent of this Order of the case… there is no need to file a new lawsuit or a new case.  It can be remanded directly back to federal courts.  
Perry Speranza: Thank you very much, Brother Boswell.  And I wish you a long life.
Dan Boswell: Thank you very much.
Perry Speranza: As long as this agreement is in place, as long as you live.  Okay, thanks Brother Boswell.  Hopefully we won’t have to use this
Time- 4:13:27
and you’ll have a chance to speak to the Trial Board by way of our little Bluetooth speaker and telephone and until next time, Brother, thank you very much.
Dan Boswell: You’re more than welcome.  Any time.
Perry Speranza: Bye, bye.  
Dan Boswell: Bye.
Perry Speranza: So, that was Brother Boswell, Dan Boswell.  What I’d like to do, Brother Boswell was standing by and I called him on this phone and for a brief amount of time maybe get him to answer your questions if you have any.
James Dodman: Has anyone got any questions?
Brian Fields: How can we prove that it’s him?  Like you can call anybody…
Karl Lovett: First of all, I object to it. This guy’s a witness.  I would like a ruling by the International Office.  Witnesses are supposed to be here in person.
James Dodman: If nobody’s got questions, there’s no point in calling him.
Perry Speranza: I have a question, and if you have questions you can ask them too.
Karl Lovett: I think we should get a ruling from the International Office before we proceed with calling anybody in the United States of America to testify in a trial.
Perry Speranza: We’ve already done it.  I mean…
Karl Lovett: Well, I objected to it.  
Perry Speranza: Well, you can object and then later on if it’s… I mean…
James Dodman: So, I’m going to ask again. Does anyone have any questions for Brother Boswell? So, I don’t see a point in calling this guy.
 
Time- 4:14:58
Perry Speranza: Well, I’d like him to elaborate a little more.  What I really should have said is I have some questions.  I’ll ask him and if you have questions also, we could ask, just to elaborate on the issue that we were talking about.  It’s going to be brief.  
James Dodman: It’s pretty straightforward.
Perry Speranza: If it works.  If it works.  It might not work.  Can I try?
James Dodman: I don’t, honestly, I don’t see a point.
Perry Speranza: Well, I mean I can [4:15:28].
James Dodman: Let’s make your point and then I’ll decide whether we need to call him or not.  
Perry Speranza: Well, that’s my point.  I’m going to… I’m going to ask him a question and have him answer it in front of the Trial Board.  
James Dodman: Pertaining to what, though?  That’s…
Perry Speranza: Pertaining to this issue, the issues in the Constitution.  That’s what the issue is.  And then I want to elaborate it in my defence.  He’s my witness.  And I’ve showed you his card.  So, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be allowed.  
James Dodman: Well, number one, I don’t see a point disturbing the guy.
Perry Speranza: Oh no, he’s ready to go.  He’s waiting.  He’s watching the Blue Jays and the Yankees and that’s probably over.  We’ll find out what the score was because I’m dying to know.  
James Dodman: Karl?
Karl Lovett: First, I’ll make a point. The federal law in the USA doesn’t apply in Canada.  Whatever he’s talking about does not apply in Canada.  As Perry previously stated, we have the same Constitution in the USA and Canada, although we don’t have the same federal, state or provincial laws in both countries.  Everything you just heard on the tape was speculative and
Time- 4:16:37
what was said was I wanted it to be removed and agreed to.  But it didn’t get removed.  Specifically, it didn’t get removed.  We rely on provincial law in Ontario, and the Ontario Relations Board.  We don’t have federal provisions to the Act.  We just deal with it at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.  Right now, currently at the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which is a federal project, we have issues with labour law and jurisdiction.  It’s been referred to the provincial courts because we don’t have federal jurisdiction over jobs.  In Canada, there’s a separate Act for that.  Okay.  Our Constitution is governed under the provincial law in Ontario.  That’s why when we have an issue with it, we go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, not the federal government.  
So, the reason why it’s still written in the book is because it’s an opinion of this.  The reason it’s still in the Constitution is because it still applies in Canada.  What happened in the United States has nothing to do with Canada.  Like Perry stated, the Constitution is both used in Canada and the United States and if there was a provision that was removed in the United States, it’s still written in the Constitution.  Now, he claims this happened in the 80s.  I’ve been around for the last three conventions. They have had all kinds of times to take it out of the Constitution but it’s still written in the Constitution. So, I think we have to deal with what we have, which is a Constitution, not an opinion of somebody over a phone of something they dealt with. They had a legal decision they got it removed, but they didn’t really get it removed because it’s still in there.
Perry Speranza: What you said is totally inaccurate.  I’m stating… I’m dealing with language that’s…
Karl Lovett: So, if I just could continue on that.  If the clauses were changed…
Time- 4:18:14
Perry Speranza: No, actually…
Karl Lovett: … why do they still appear.  The Constitution…
Perry Speranza: You’ve interrupted me now.
Karl Lovett: … has been changed and rewritten multiple times…
Perry Speranza: I was talking…
Karl Lovett: … but it’s still in there.
Perry Speranza: Point of order.
Karl Lovett: I asked for the Chairman’s ear and he gave it to me.  You just interjected.  I asked for the Chairman’s ear and he gave it to me.
Perry Speranza: Go ahead.
Karl Lovett: Thank you.  So, if the clauses were changed, why do they still appear in the Constitution?  I’ve been around for at least three… I’ve been to at least three conventions. There was plenty of time to change it, but it’s still written in the book.  Cleveland, Vancouver, St. Louis last time.  And we’ve got one coming up this summer.  And I can tell you, it won’t be changed again.  That’s my point.  It’s in the Constitution.  We’re dealing with the Constitution right now, not a person’s opinions.  Something that could be a fallacy. We don’t know if it’s true or not.  We don’t have it in front of us nor do we have a decision by any government saying that those clauses no longer affect us.  
So, to continue down this path, this rabbit hole, is the wrong way to go.  We’re wasting time.  We’re dealing with the Constitution that we know, the laws we know.  Not something that happened in New Jersey at a federal level.  We don’t have no copy of that in front of us.  I’m asking anybody here.  Have you been provided a copy of a Labour Board decision, state,
Time- 4:19:33
provincial or federal, that shows that these provisions have been changed.
Perry Speranza: May I?
Karl Lovett: Nobody here has those.  So, I say we deal with what we have which is the Constitution.
Perry Speranza: May I?
James Dodman: Sure.
Perry Speranza: Mr. Chair.  That’s what we’re dealing with.  I’m not talking about something that wasn’t changed.  I’m talking about what exists now and we’re talking to the Brother that actually changed it from what it was here, I’m holding in my hand the Constitution from 1978, I believe it was.  Seattle, Washington.  The language in this Constitution is what it was before Boswell changed it and this is what I’m talking about.  What Brother… Brother Lovett is very confused about what we’re talking about here.  Most of what he says, about 80 percent was nonsense.  Pardon me. Because if you were listening you would understand what I said.  This is the Constitution right here. We’re talking about the guy that changed it to what it is here.  It has nothing to do with provincial, Canadian or anything.  This is the same Constitution that Canada has that the US has.  And I have a witness, Brother.  I’ve introduced him.  I’ve showed you his card.  I would like to continue.  
James Dodman: So, we’re dealing with these issues, not those issues.  
Perry Speranza: Huh?
James Dodman: This Constitution has the defined charges in it, right.  This is…
Perry Speranza: Yes.
James Dodman: … the new… so we’re dealing this. Not that book. That book’s expired.  
Time- 4:21:12
Perry Speranza: Yeah, I’m talking about this book.  This is the IBEW Constitution.  Yeah.  This is the language.
James Dodman: So, we’re dealing with these…
Perry Speranza: Yeah, yeah.  That’s what I’m saying.  
James Dodman: Okay.
Perry Speranza: This is the language now and I’m talking about the guy that changed it from this to this.  And I’m saying to you that we’re going to make a case because he’s an expert witness related to edits.  And he’s a witness.  He’s my witness. I’ve identified him.  I want to have him continue if you would let me, because if you don’t, it wouldn’t be fair.  Because you’ve allowed all kinds of evidence to be presented that doesn’t even relate, and I’m trying to show you that anything related to speech is contrary to this Constitution right here.  And I’m going to let you talk to the guy that actually changed it.  
James Dodman: And we understand that.  This is not completely about speech though. You understand?
Perry Speranza: Oh, it is because it’s all related to comments the Brother’s made and opinions and things he’s posted on Facebook.  And what I’m going to show you is that this Trial Board is improperly constituted related to the charges that are being tried.  And wasting your time and our time and illegal.  This is the Constitution.  
James Dodman: I agree. This is our Constitution.  These are the… these are the rules that we have to abide by.  
Perry Speranza: May I continue with my witness?
James Dodman: I’m not sure what he’s going to bring to us but…
Perry Speranza: Oh, you don’t need to be, Brother.  I’m going to… I’m providing the witness and so let him… let him speak for himself.  
Time- 4:23:02
Matt Bradfield: Can we wait till Brother Lovett is back in the room please?
Perry Speranza: We’ll wait.  
Dan Boswell: Hello.
Perry Speranza: Hello, Dan.
Dan Boswell: Yes.
Perry Speranza: It’s Brother Perry Speranza calling you from Windsor, Ontario.  I’m currently in a Trial Board with some Brothers here.  I’m acting as counsel for Brother Chris Inch.  I’ve played your… our recorded interview and I’ve asked the Chair to allow me to talk to you by way of this Messenger, through Facebook, and for you to further clarify some of the issues that we’re having here. It seems that some of the Brothers here, first of all, they’re not convinced of the validity of your identity and I want you to state it for them on the record here for the Trial Board.  Who you are and why you made that recording with me and then perhaps I’m going to ask you another quick question? Can you do that for us, Brother Boswell?
Time- 4:24:20
Dan Boswell: Yes.  My name is Daniel Boswell.  I’m a 55-year retired member of the IBEW, Card Number D217771, and I was contacted by Brother Speranza and asked if I would be willing to comment and testify about my role in the authorship of what is now Article 25 of the IBEW Constitution.  
Perry Speranza: Thank you, Brother Boswell.  We’re specifically addressing Article 24, Section 1 (g), wronging a member of the IBEW by any acts or acts other than the expression of views or opinions causing him physical or economic harm.  I played the audio recording we made and you specifically clearly defined that any speech, any form of speech related to written or spoken or social media as being something that there is no provision in the IBEW that a member can be charged according to. Can you elaborate on that for us a little bit please?
Dan Boswell: Yes, that’s absolutely correct.  In fact, as I stated in the interview, as far as… as far as settlement of the case that I had with the IBEW, was I was, by Court Order, given the right to sign off on the final language of the new reconstructed Article 25.  My case developed because of a similar situation it seems that you have there.  I had spoken out against the… in criticism of the general election period of the administration and was charged with slander.  So, my case was basically based upon that.  I was found guilty and removed from office as a result.  The Court Order, that is, I might add, still exists outstanding to this day concerning both the IBEW and myself specifically addressed the issue of slander.  The fact that it had to be… that evidence, when the legislation was passed, that the IBEW Constitution had abused the slander provision in terms of the rank and file.  The Court held that as a result of that, that any semblance of slander would be removed from the IBEW Constitution.  
 
Time- 4:27:10
Perry Speranza: Thank you, Brother. Can you give us your opinion about IBEW’s officers ignoring your Court Order and what would happen in such a situation related to your lawsuit?
Dan Boswell: Well, my understanding is that when this matter was settled, it was settled as an outstanding and open Order concerning both the IBEW and myself.  And if the IBEW were to prosecute or persecute me after the settlement, there would be no need for me to file a new lawsuit action in the Court. The Court would simply be petitioned by the offended party and the case would still… would be outstanding.  That also applies in terms of the IBEW.  If they fail to honour the federal Court Order, they could be brought before the Court without the necessity of a new lawsuit and at that point would be facing the possibility of several damages for violating the federal Court Order.  
Perry Speranza: Brother Boswell, I’ve stated to the Trial Board that I believe that the charges related to the Brother that are related to speech, which is most of the charges, be dropped and that the Trial Board be adjourned and we should move on from there. Would you agree with that kind of a move?
Dan Boswell: Well, I would absolutely agree.  As I said earlier in both the interview and in this comment, by virtue of the Court Order, I have the right to sit down with the… at the time, the General Counsel of the IBEW in Washington, D.C.  His name is Larry Cohen (4:29:19). And between the two of us, we would go over the entire Article.  It was up to me to sign off on final language. The Article at the time was a section that addressed slander.  It was immediately removed as per the Court Order, and when I discussed with Larry Cohen (4:29:40) the fact that that needed to be noted in some way within the new reconstructed sections, we came up with, mutually agreed to language of Section G, which is views and opinions for free speech, period.  It can’t get any clearer than that.  Anyone’s view or opinion is
Time- 4:30:03
speech and that isn’t in any way restricted to simply verbal speech, written form or would include a written speech, et cetera.
Perry Speranza: Thanks, Brother Boswell.  If an IBEW Brother was tried under that clause and found guilty and punished, would that Brother be able to file a lawsuit directly related… directly through you and your case?
Dan Boswell: Well, that I’m not entirely sure of.  I do know this. That the Order for the IBEW to conform with the Order.  And any violation of that Order inform… in terms of the IBEW’s informants, would or could, depending upon who brought the Action, result in the IBEW coming before the Court a second time.  It is clear that there are many in the IBEW, certainly in Washington, in the IO, that are fully aware of the case and its ramifications and the… and the Court Order.  I… it was published in both the front page in the New York Times.  It was also published in the IBEW Journal at the time.  I would suspect, and I would expect, that most offices throughout the IBEW would surely be aware of the Order and its consequences since it was so widely published by the IBEW.  The impact of that case, I might add, the following year the Labourers’ Union, International Labourers’ Union, the case was brought up on the floor of their convention and my understanding is that their Constitution was also adjusted to conform with the federal Order and interpretation of the slander provision and the other provisions that were also removed.
Perry Speranza: Thanks, Brother Boswell.
Dan Boswell: I also, if you let me, I might add, there’s a recent situation, a case in a Denver Local, I believe it was 68, where a Member was charged for making comments about officers of his local union, very similar, if not the same, as what you have there.  He was found guilty and received similar punishment.  I don’t
Time- 4:32:46
really recall the specific punishment per se, but in an Appeal letter that was written to the Vice President of that District, referring to the Order, of my case, the Order, the Vice President reversed and overturned the decision in relatively short order.  And that was just recently.  So, obviously that Vice President in that District was well aware of what the Order says and the fact that it’s still relevant.
Perry Speranza: Thanks, Brother Boswell.  Do you recall who the two Brothers who assisted the Brother Jason case in Local 68, Denver Colorado, were?
Dan Boswell: I’m sorry. Was that directed to me?
Perry Speranza: Yes, Brother.  Do you remember… I’m getting an echo in here on your computer now.  What I’m saying is did you… do you remember the names of the two Brothers who helped Brother Jason case in Local 68?
Dan Boswell: Who helped him?
Perry Speranza: Yeah.
Dan Boswell: Yes, I helped him and you helped him.
Perry Speranza: Thank you.  What I wanted to say related to the… your lawsuit. I believe you said to me once that there would be no need to file a new lawsuit. Any Brother who was aggrieved related to the issues that you established, those new clauses, could simply piggyback on your lawsuit.  Is that not correct?
Dan Boswell: That, I can’t say that I’m absolutely sure about that. All I can say relative to that is, and it’s been some time obviously since the case was, and Order were issued, is that the IBEW International is, by virtue of that Order, banned from any activities similar to the activities that occurred in my case and that is restriction of speech and the other changes that were made. At the time of the case, it was Article 27.  It’s now, I
Time- 4:35:10
believe Article 25.  So, if the IBEW were to knowingly violate that Order, my understanding is that that it could very easily be brought back to federal court in the District where the case was heard.  
Perry Speranza: So, in your opinion, would the IBEW First District have liability in this situation if they somehow were to sustain a decision of guilty related to any free speech violations?
Dan Boswell: Could you repeat that again please?
Perry Speranza: In your opinion, would the IBEW First District Canada be liable or what do you think they’d do if a Member filed an Appeal?  Would they sustain it or do you think they’d just overturn it?
Dan Boswell: Well, the thing… well, let me… let me first say I think it’s clear they would have to overturn it.  The First District is no different than any of the other districts in the IBEW.  They are all governed by the same IBEW Constitution and as a result, are affected in the very same way as relative to the settlement of the case and the Court Order.  
Perry Speranza: Would you say that the IBEW International First District is governed by the Landrum-Griffin Act 1959, also known as the Labour Management Reporting and Disclosures Act?
Dan Boswell: Well, I would say this. The LMRDA is clearly applicable to the IBEW and the IBEW Constitution since I think as I’ve mentioned to you, we found out at the time that when the initial legislation was being proposed in the United States Congress, that the Senators that wrote the proposed legislation actually referenced the IBEW Constitution and its slander provision as a need for this legislation because the provision was so… the slander provision was so broad, it could be applied to just about anything, as it was actually in my case. So, the fact is that that law was directly, if not directed towards at least the IBEW and some of the other building trades, it certainly was… they
Time- 4:37:54
were a major factor in its enactment.  And now having said that, the IBEW Constitution, through my case, finally responding to the changes that needed to be made as a result of that law, that affects all of the districts in the IBEW, including Canada.  The Canadians aren’t… the Canadian First District isn’t separated in any way as far as the responsibilities of the LMRDA relative to the IBEW Constitution.  
Perry Speranza: Brother Boswell, let me ask you this.  Being the guy that fought that battle, which was a long one, what do you think about members being charged currently in IBEW locals for issues related to comments made on social media?
Dan Boswell: Well, I can say this to you about that.  I have had a conversation recently within the past six months about this issue with an attorney for Public Citizen, which is a non-profit in Washington D.C., a very prominent, nationally renowned organization in Washington D.C.  And this attorney had filed a Friend of the Court Motion in my case going way back when.  And I asked him that specific question.  His field of endeavour now is ironically enough, related to social media issues.  And he assured me that as far as the cases he had had up and to this point and in his legal opinion, that the Title One applies every bit as much through social media as it does to any other speech.  
Perry Speranza: Would the name of that attorney be Paul Levy?
Dan Boswell: That’s correct.
Perry Speranza: Thank you, Brother Boswell.  I’m going to ask the Trial Board if they have any questions for you.  Hopefully they will.  I think we’re actually making history here today by doing this.  I don’t believe this has ever been done before in an IBEW Tribunal.  So, if you will, Brothers, any questions for Brother Boswell,
 
Time- 4:40:17
other than who won the Blue Jays and Yankees game? Brother Lovett?  
Karl Lovett: Oh, definitely not.  I object to the… to you calling him.
Perry Speranza: Okay, Brother, can you tell us who won the game?
Dan Boswell: You got lambasted.  16 to 3, I think was the last I saw.
Perry Speranza: Holy sh… well, that’s disappointing.  But I thank you Brother for doing this and have a nice evening.
Dan Boswell: Come again?
Perry Speranza: I said I thank you Brother for doing this and have a nice evening.
Dan Boswell: You’re more than welcome and I thank the Brothers from the local union, the Trial Board, for allowing me to have the opportunity to be a witness here, and I would simply, if I may, just close with this.  I’m a graduate of the Labour Studies Program.  I’ve been a union activist my whole life, and I’m a union activist to this day. The case with the IBEW was an unfortunate and a sad and a disappointing time in my experience in the IBEW.  I didn’t ask for that case.  I didn’t seek it out.  I was charged and removed from office and my family and myself were at risk in terms of my future in the IBEW, and I simply defended myself in response. And I would like the people on the Board, Trial Board, to understand that.  That I’m a dedicated, to this very day at this stage in my life, union activist and a union member.  So, I thank you very much for the time of allowing me to be a witness in this case and hopefully everybody will do the right thing.
Perry Speranza: Thank you very much, Brother. Good night.
Dan Boswell: Good night.
Perry Speranza: Thanks, Brothers.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Time- 4:42:21
Karl Lovett: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. All the testimony that was just given has to be struck.  It was an illegal phone call that took place. Witnesses are not allowed to call in because even if they say who they are, you can’t figure out their identity. This is a decision from the First District office.  So, any testimony that was just given must be struck and can’t be dealt with.  
Perry Speranza: I don’t agree, Brother.  
Karl Lovett: Well, you’ll have to argue that with the International Office.
Perry Speranza: We’re in a COVID situation.  I bet you the Brother would have come if he could.  
Karl Lovett: What he would have and what he could have done are two different things…
Perry Speranza: And since…
Karl Lovett: We’re dealing with the fact that…
Perry Speranza: Excuse me, Brother. You’re interrupting me now.  
Karl Lovett: I asked the Chairman for a point of order.
Perry Speranza: No, no, I was speaking and you interrupted me.  I expect the same courtesy I give you.
Karl Lovett: Sure, go ahead.
Perry Speranza: So, I believe you accepted the witness. You did, right, Brother.  And…
James Dodman: I allowed you to call.  I didn’t say I could accept the witness’ testimony, but we heard his thing and we can’t unhear it.  But we’ll have to put certain weight on that testimony.  That’s up to us to discern whether it’s legitimate testimony or not.  
Karl Lovett: It’s actually not up to you, Mr. Chairman.  It’s a direct order from the International Office that all testimony that was just said has to be struck.
Time- 4:43:39
Perry Speranza: What do you mean, a direct order?  When, who’d they give the direct order to?
Karl Lovett: To all these guys right here.  
Perry Speranza: When?
Karl Lovett: Right now.  
Perry Speranza: Right now.
Karl Lovett: Yeah.
Perry Speranza: What, through you?
Karl Lovett: Well, I objected to it.  No [4:43:50].
Perry Speranza: Well, so you’re… yeah, but you just said it’s a direct order and I’m asking you what do you mean by that.  
Karl Lovett: Because there was just something that was sent to the Chairman of this Trial Board saying that you can’t have phone-in witnesses. It’s illegal.
Perry Speranza: Okay, well, if that’s true, then fine.  We’ll deal with that later.  But I actually identified the Brother and I showed you his card.  And we’re doing things that we’ve never done before because of the COVID.  And people are having Zoom union meetings rather than not do it.  We’re dealing with defending a Brother and we’re dealing with issues of law and like we… like I said, we just made history here today.  It’d be up to you.  If International Office actually did say that, they’re going to take…
James Dodman: They did, it’s up to us.
Perry Speranza: Yeah.  So.  All right.  So, you know what.  I have a lot of stuff I could talk about here.  But it all relates to… the Brother didn’t really give proof that there was a violation of making known the business of the Local union to employer organizations or
Time- 4:45:02
other unions, and I think Brother Boswell interview, I think clarified that.  I think that someone needs to show intent and he discussed why and how he left that language in for reasons specific to somebody who’s doing something intentionally, not just speaking about something and someone else deciding that speech falls under this category. Same thing with harassment and stress. That’s regrettable.  You know what.  Elections are tough and, but we’re not going to make up rules and interpret rules on issues that have been fought and fought at federal court and Court Orders handed down.  You know what.  I really believe that if… that when the Brother, if the Brother is found guilty related to any issues of speech, the International Office will have to re… reverse that decision.  And it’s not going to be good because it’s going to be news because social media is news and it relates to freedom of speech.  The old IBEW where people used to get caught, charged for slander for whatever, for doing a newspaper interview is gone.  We have social media. We have people speaking about issues and the old IBEW is still trying to fight and suppress that.  And you know, like the Brother said, there’s ways to address harassment and slander and libel.  It’s in civil law.  So, there is ways to do that and Facebook has mechanisms for addressing issues of harassment.  And I’ve asked Brother Lovett in past Trial Board, I’ll ask him again. Did he actually try to address his concerns with the mechanisms that exist in Facebook, because there are mechanisms? Did you, Brother Lovett?  
Karl Lovett: Like I said in previous cases, I don’t have a responsibility to go on Facebook and ask them to remove that sort of stuff. As you may know, or maybe you don’t know, Facebook only removes comments if they’re racially motivated, a schism of some sort, that sort of thing.  They can’t address what people say that they don’t know if it’s factual or not.  That’s the answer to that question.

Offline ForumRanger

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 204
Re: Chris Inch Trial Transcripts September 15, 2020
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2021, 02:29:54 AM »
Defense Counsel Wrap Up

Perry Speranza: You’ve indicated that you suffered stress and anxiety and depression.  But you didn’t go to the doctor to get a note till a month and a half after you filed the charges. Why didn’t you do that?  And if you were so stressed out and depressed, why didn’t you go to the doctor earlier?
Karl Lovett: Maybe you forgot because this has gone on so long.  You’ve already asked that question.  I’ve already answered that question.  It’s in the testimony.  It’s recorded under oath.
Perry Speranza: Because you’re a man and you didn’t feel that…
Karl Lovett: So, you know the answer.
Perry Speranza: Yeah.  Well I just wanted to make sure.
Karl Lovett: So, you know the answer.  I’ve answered that question.
Perry Speranza: Because I’m asking clarifying questions before.  Now I’m presenting the defence to the Trial Board.  I’m saying it’s unreasonable that we should want to accept that.  That a Brother goes and gets a doctor’s note after the initial Trial Board where it was requested that, and pointed out that he didn’t have the evidence. All of a sudden, he produces…
Karl Lovett: Point of order.  Point of order.
Perry Speranza: Produces a note.  It’s my defence…
Karl Lovett: No, no, objection.  He’s trying to blend two trials together here. That’s not admissible.
James Dodman: We’re discussing this trial.
Perry Speranza: I’ve seen… I’ve seen the Brother bring in trials from 2009, 2013, 18, whatever, you know, Sol Furer letters, letters from contractors, and now he’s taking issue with me pointing out a trial related to the same issues from less than a month ago, a week ago. That’s not reasonable.  Come on.  So many issues here and all of these rafts of evidence, all related to opinions.  
Time- 4:49:44
Evidence, witness, my wife told his wife.  His wife told my wife.  I mean seriously.  How are we going to go? This is going to embarrass the IBEW. This will! I tried to say it to you guys three weeks ago.  Let’s bury the election.  It was tough.  It was hard.  Brother Lovett won.  You’re opening up a Pandora’s Box.  Seriously! This is going to be huge news and it’s going to embarrass this Local.  It’s going to embarrass the First District.  If that’s what you want to do, and whoever Brother Lovett is calling on the phone, you better clarify with them. You know, if you’re going to exclude testimony that I’ve already posted, that recording I played for you is not part of this Trial Board.  I made that.  I could post it.  I played it here.  How can you now ignore that?  You can’t.  You guys might have issues with each other and it happens in every Local, but we got to get with the program.  We’re in a world of social media.  The internet wasn’t around.  Like the law was made to address the IBEW and not until 21 years later did Dan Boswell have a case to actually get a ruling.  The LMRDA has Title One.  Union Members’ Bill of Rights that defines your rights to fair elections and to not be sued with union funds and it defines your right to free speech. That law doesn’t exist in Canada, but the IBEW Constitution does.  The law was changed and here it is.  I’m holding in my hand.
Brother Lovett, if you were confused about what I was talking about before, please look at it.  It contains the law as changed by Dan Boswell, and still means what it meant when he actually sat there with the IBEW Counsel in the office and negotiated from a position of power, because the federal court gave him that. So now, are you wanting to open that Pandora’s Box?  You will if you continue down this road.  I mean it’s inevitable.  I’m not… I’m not threatening you.  I’m begging you not to go there.  For the good of everyone. We don’t need to embarrass ourselves this way.  But it’s going to do that.  And you know
Time- 4:52:39
what?  If we wanted to do it, let’s do it.  Let’s make it go away.  We’ll all stop and we’ll stop insulting each other on Facebook.  I would agree with that.  I don’t agree with name-calling but I… but now we’re crossing that line into where we’re dealing with a Member’s freedom of speech.  If people are crossing that line, there’s ways to deal with it but not through the IBEW Constitution. This, this is fought for.  It was fought for and what’s in here is solid.  And some people may not think so, but it is.  It’ll cause a whole bunch of litigation for what. We’re going to wind up in the position where no, it’s clear.  Other than opinions or views. Anything stated. You can’t say on the worldwide web, harassment, threatening.  It’s doesn’t… it’s not in here.  It’s not in here!  You can’t charge a Member for that.  You can file a civil lawsuit.  If you got the money, yeah, go ahead.  And that’s the way it should be.  
I’m not sure if I’m at the end here, Brothers, but I’m going to have to think here for a second.  Swearing on the phone.  Swearing on the phone is violating a (i)?  I mean that’s a broad interpretation.  Anybody, you know, like, and then this taping members without… without letting them know they’re being taped.  As an official I think you should make it clear.  Hey, look.  You’re an organization.  Let them know.  This call may be recorded for quality control or whatever it is you want to do.  I’m going to talk to my Brother here. [4:54:55].  
Brother, Brother Lovett testified as to bringing his work home and all that causing a lot of stress of bringing his work home all the time.  The internet’s not going away, Brother Lovett.  You know.  And yes, it’s stressful.  But let’s not bring the IBEW Constitution in there.  Let’s sort this, let’s sort this out.  I know we can do it.  I’m going to cease and desist.  I’m not going to talk about it at all, but you’re going to force me to do it if you guys go ahead and find these Brothers guilty, and you’re going
Time- 4:56:10
to drag the IO into this too.  Unless they’re in there all the way already.  Maybe they think they got this beat.  I don’t know.  Anyway, thank you very much for allowing, Mr. Chairman, what you did because that was awesome.  
James Dodman: So that’s the end of your…
Perry Speranza: Yes.  Did I miss anything?  
James Dodman: I’ll just ask if both parties have had a full… feel they have had the full opportunity to present their case.  
Karl Lovett: I do, with the objections I noted.
James Dodman: Okay.  I’ll release both parties to a separate room at this time.  Don’t leave the building just yet just in case.  We’ll have a discussion and then get back to you.  
Perry Speranza: I hope there’s, that we’re not going to wait 25, 30 days. That is such a departure from the regular way things are done.  It’s just unbelievable.  And I know, it might not be you guys.  I think it’s probably people above that are causing this.  They should know better.  Thanks, Brothers.  Apologize for getting a little bit heated here, but this is… this is very close to my heart.  
Dave Colasanti: It’s, I want to say it’s probably three-quarters of the way through.  I’ll just read that, that section on it.  It’s the last paragraph.  It says, controlling the work and controlling the President, the E Board, the Committees and the Members, aka dictatorship. Like just wondering, what proof like do you have of that?  Like you know, to say a remark like that, right, about Officers of the Local.  Like what’s… what’s the intention of that?  
Perry Speranza: So, Brother?
Dave Colasanti: Colasanti.  
 
Time- 4:58:40
Perry Speranza: Brother Colasanti.  It’s an opinion.  It’s an opinion.  It’s like when I was… Brother Heeney.  Opinion.  Other than views or opinions.  So, anything related to speech.  You might… you might hate what someone says, but you can’t use the IBEW Constitution against them.  That’s it.  I mean it’s not about arguing whether it’s right or wrong or whether it’s inaccurate or accurate.  It’s that IBEW Constitution doesn’t allow a Trial Board or an Officer or another member to charge a member related to speech because it was deemed to be too much of a huge loophole that anybody could drive through if they wanted to.  So, that’s why the judge agreed and the law in the US and the Constitution reflects it.  I think Brother Boswell made it pretty clear.  Nothing related to speech.  When IBEW Brother [4:49:53] anywhere he got charged with having a newspaper interview.  They were calling it making known the business of, and then they called it slander.  They were misinterpreting.  His… his trial allowed the judge to make an order that the IBEW had to open their files to his lawyers. They had to hire new lawyers from the association for union democracy. They couldn’t get all the districts. They discovered thousands of cases of the IBEW that violate the law and that’s why this constitution exists today. Some people still want to interpret it and I can sit here and argue. I actually – like it’s up to the guy that actually negotiated it. This is not – it’s not our – you can’t argue about it. Well, you can, you can if you want, but I mean in the end, I think we gotta get over trying to charge each other over the constitution for what somebody else says. It could be anything, it doesn’t even have to be, you know, I called you a dictator. I have been calling people dictator on the internet for a long time. Nobody can charge me. Nobody in the US. The IBEW in my opinion is a dictatorship. I don’t have a problem saying that and I can say it on the internet. It’s my opinion.
 
Time- 5:01:32
Brian Fields: I have a question. Brian Fields. What did you mean about the threatening phone call, you're f#@&ed?
Perry Speranza: I believe that’s a reference to the ideology, you know, using certain language related to issues. you know, like people do it all the time. you’ll express yourself and somebody will say, you're f#@&ed or you’ll do something and somebody will say, you're f#@&ed. I don’t see that as a threat. I mean this is an interpretation. This is one of those situations where that could be done, you know, like so is anybody – like if the precedent was said that – saying, you're f#@&ed to somebody on the phone, it means it’s a threat to do physical harm, then any time somebody said that, they’d be wanting to do the same thing. going down roads you don’t wanna go.
Dave Mifflin: So, you're referring to, you're f#@&ed, as it’s like knee jerk on a conversation comment?
Perry Speranza: I would say so. And if they're saying to them, you're f#@&ed over what you did or what you said. I don’t really say…
Dave Mifflin: That’s more of conversational, you're implying that towards, right?
Perry Speranza: Pardon me?
Dave Mifflin: The knee jerk of a, you're f#@&ed comment?
Perry Speranza: Yeah, I’d say so. I don’t see that as a, you're f#@&ed, meaning I’m gonna get you, I’m gonna kill you, I’m gonna harm you. I mean…
Brian Fields: But that’s, that’s different people’s opinion there.
Perry Speranza: Exactly.
Dave Mifflin:           I think he’s referring to his phone call.
Perry Speranza: Exactly.
Time- 5:03:15
Dave Mifflin: It wasn’t in conversation.
Jaret Wills: Was there a conversation in that?
Perry Speranza: Pardon me?
Jaret Wills: Was there a conversation in that?
Karl Lovett: I think you guys should state your name for the recording.
Jaret Wills: So, I ask was there a conversation about that?
Perry Speranza: I don’t think it matters. A statement like that is – you can’t interpret it as threat, it doesn't belong.
Shawn Devlaminck: Same question. If I was talking to someone personally happen to put an expression and you're saying it’s in conversation, I back my car into a pole and it was all bent, I can’t believe you did that. You're f#@&ed. But I pick up my phone because it’s ringing and there’s not conversation and there’s a hysterical laugh and then, you're f#@&ed. If that was me and then they hang up, I’d be like, how am I f#@&ed. There was no conversation. I, myself, I would think, how am I f#@&ed.
Perry Speranza: These things happen.
Shawn Devlaminck: Like it’s my opinion now, like how I’m taking it. Like I have a wife, I have kids, how am I f#@&ed.
Perry Speranza: This was when Brother Inch first found out about the election being rerun. So, it was his reaction to that. It’s not a threat.
Shawn Devlaminck: Shawn Devlaminck again. Is Brother Lovett supposed to know that, just that phone call that has no conversation base to it, is that he hears that and he has to just interpret that a laugh and you're f#@&ed is due to a new election. Like he has to read the mind of that and just be like, oh, this must just be because of that. Like that would never happen. If you're home phone rang at home and that happened to you, you would not speculate on some event that could be. You're gonna speculate on the
 
Time- 5:05:22
basis of that phone call. A laugh, hysterical laugh, and you're f#@&ed.
Perry Speranza: On the other side of that, why would someone choose to interpret that as a threat? Just as a…
Shawn Devlaminck: Myself, I’ll tell you right now, I would determine that as a threat, exactly how in the way it was said, if I pick that phone up in my house and someone phoned me and laughing at me, and tell me I’m f#@&ed and then hang up, I’d be like, I don’t – there’s no conversation – how am I f#@&ed? They're obviously mad at you. Like do I have to worry about my family, my kids, walking out of my place of work. Like I get you're getting an interpretation of what he means, but that interpretation was never given like to Brother Lovett to interpret when he got that phone call.
Perry Speranza: It’s still his interpretation and when I say under – under what part of the IBEW constitution are you charging and I referenced that there’s nothing in IBEW constitution that allows another member to charge another member with anything they say whether it’s harassment or whether they interpret it as a threat. It’s not there. That’s the bottom line and the relief was, as Boswell mentioned, the court did rule it out because they know that a member, a citizen has the right to address it in civil court. Would Brother Lovett address this in civil court? Ask yourself that question.
Speaker: I don’t know (5:07:06).
Perry Speranza: Sometimes – some officers have decided in Toronto that they’ll file defamation lawsuits against the member. They wouldn’t spend their own money on it and then they wasted fifty thousand dollars and cost the member ten thousand dollars to retain a lawyer. Is that the kind of IBEW, the same kind of thing, is because of interpretations. In civil law, you’d
Time- 5:07:32
have to make a bigger case. You wouldn't be doing the kinds of things we’re doing here at this Trial Board. So, it is about interpreting. It is about, did he mean that. He hasn’t proven it and there’s nothing to address it in the constitution. It’s in the law, you have to refer to a – this is why I kept making the case, you have issues with all this stuff, okay, but how does it reference to the law of the IBEW constitution. You have to do that. We’re opening another box. We really are.
Karl Lovett: Just as a point to that. If I didn’t feel it was a threat, I wouldn’t have called the police.
Chris Inch: Was I charged?
Speaker: Speaking out of turn.
James Dodman: Anyone else got any questions?
Shawn Devlaminck: So, (5:08:37) statement, I guess. Shawn Devlaminck again. So, when you asked Brother Lovett why he waited so long to come and see the doctor in your, kind of your answer towards him, was like your only answer is because you're a man. Well, that’s – and I’m going to resort to a different kind of story that you have. My wife is a psychologist and she deals with women, battered women. Why, people always said, why didn’t she go and see the police and doctor right away, why did she wait. They wait till they get to a breaking point and then they go and that’s exactly the same thing. He got to a breaking point and that’s when he went to seek professional help, not because – if his answer is because he’s a man, he didn’t want to feel – whether he feels embarrassed or he feels like he can take care of himself. There’s no difference like to say like, your only answer is because you're a man. We’ve all said that. We’ve all been like, someone says, oh man, you didn’t cry at that funeral and it’s, you know, unmanly, I’m not gonna cry at that or you're hurt more than you want to say you are, why, because
Time- 5:09:58
you're a man and you don’t want to show the guys at work that, ah man, that hurt when you did that or whatever. It’s why, because I’m a man, yeah, that’s why I did that. Because he felt like he was a man and he didn’t want to go do that, but he got to a breaking point where that’s when he went, well then that’s – so I don’t understand when your answers, is it only because you're a man? Well, if that’s his breaking point, that’s his breaking point. So, to me, I just thought that was kind of ignorant.
Perry Speranza: My impression of what Brother Lovett did was when I challenged him at one of the other Trial Boards about evidence, he decided he’s gonna get a doctor’s note and it’s the timeline that leads me to think that. I only said what I said about, was it only because you're a man, because that’s what he testified. I didn’t say that to him to make fun of that fact that he was stressed. I said, I understand that. I get it and I get that men don’t want to show their weaknesses. I understand that. But it doesn’t relate to the law of the constitution.
Shawn Devlaminck: When did he get the doctor’s note?
Perry Speranza: No. Leading to charge somebody for things he said that hurt you. (5:11:29). It just doesn’t exist in the law. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen and I’m not saying it’s right to hurt somebody with the things you say. I just think we’re wandering down a road. Only do that (5:11:44) tried to show it, anything related to speech, posts, harassment. It’s always interpreted. It’s like the very simple, you're f#@&ed. There’s a lot of different examples where two different people can take it to mean one thing and another guy could mean, no it wasn’t that at all. So, you can’t have that in a law so that’s why it’s defined. If there was something in the law, in the IBEW constitution that specified harassment or name calling or whatever you wanna make, would be in there. It isn’t. It’s specific. Physical or
Time- 5:12:33
economical harm. And we heard the guy that actually negotiated and put that language there because it would be taken advantage of. It was being abused and now we’re going back there. We’re going back there now. It’s not how we happen here. It’s happened in a lot. It’s happened – but it’s always overturned. I can tell you that. It’s overturned. There was like six cases in Ottawa where a guy was charged with things he said on Facebook. One person was found guilty. It’s under appeal and the IO is dragging their feet. Its been eight months, why haven't they made a decision. There was a guy in Manitoba who was found guilty of things he said because of charges that his business manager filed. They is and for five years and not being able to run or participate and then they took issue and the penalty for violating that five year ban was expulsion. They went ahead because, well, we’re trying to expel him but the guy appealed to the IO and the president. He had to get there before the president overturned everything. And that’s not because he just wanted to. He actually tried to warn him about the things he said because the law is in place to prevent that otherwise they would've gone through with it. Now, we have this happening in Local 773. That’s why I tried to say to you, this is gonna blow up in all our faces and look it, I’m not anti-IBEW. I wouldn’t do the things I do if wasn’t passionate about being a Brother and I wasn't an organizing for ten years and fought the fights in the trenches and faced guys who wanted to beat me up all the time. I really did. I could tell you stories about that. I’ve fought. That’s why I protect this.
Karl Lovett: Mr. Chairman (5:14:29). Point of order.
Perry Speranza: Protect this.
Karl Lovett: Point of order. The trial has concluded. You had some questions to ask. The questions were asked, answered directly
Time- 5:14:37
related to the question was asked. We shouldn’t open up new testimony especially about the background of Perry Speranza because he’s not on trial today. So, I think at this point in time, you guys should deliberate your decision. You asked a question that the answer is not directly related to the question. This is new testimony.
Perry Speranza: Was this is on the record, by the way?
Brian Fields: Yeah.
James Dodman: Yes.
Perry Speranza: All right, so this is part of the trial isn’t it.
James Dodman: Do you have any questions Karl?
Karl Lovett: I have no questions.
James Dodman: Anyone else got any questions, comments?
Jaret Wills: No.
Brian Fields: No.
James Dodman: Okay. I’ll ask you guys to leave the room now. We’ll deliberate and…
Perry Speranza: Thanks Brothers.
James Dodman: … (5:15:10).
Karl Lovett: So, once again, you have the stuff I left, if you need the audio evidence, it’s right here and I believe it shows somebody how to get into here.
James Dodman: You need to give me a code Karl.
Karl Lovett: A code?
Brian Fields: The code.
Karl Lovett: I’ll give you one without saying it out loud.
Karl Lovett: Drive safe Perry.
Perry Speranza: Okay. Thanks Karl. See ya. I want to take another one of these bottles of water.
Karl Lovett: I’ve gotta come back through this way so can you give me a minute because the witnesses weren’t released, they were still sitting in the front there. So. Shawn is still sitting here, Barry went out the front. But because….. he was still sitting beside the building. He didn’t want to leave that way so if you just give me a minute.
Page 2 of 2