Members for Democracy Archive

On January 6, 2005 I received a letter from Anthony Glavin, legal representative for the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300 of which I am a longstanding member, threatening me with legal action for posting material on this web forum and that of Babble/rabble that the Union found to be false and defamatory.

A similar threat was made by Mr. Glavin to the moderators/administrators of MfD a few days later.

In deference to MfD I have waited patiently for its administrators to make its response to this threat of legal action before taking this opportunity to make my own direct response to the unfounded allegations found in Mr. Glavin's threatening letter to me.

Now that MfD's response has been made, with its invitation to Local 300's president Roy Graham to come on the site and personally refute the content of my postings, I feel it is now time for me to address the matters raised by Mr. Glavin directly.

Was the content of my posts on MfD and elsewhere defamatory? You be the judge, and decide for youself.

The Union's Allegations:

1/ - "you referred to the Union's officers' relationship with Molson Breweries as being 'the result of collusion by corrupt union officials...' in your April 14, 2004 posting in the Molson's Suckerpunch thread (MfD Forum). This is false and defamatory comment that has now been circulated to a potentially immense audience;"

Labatt Buster Responds:

Not only has Mr. Glavin misquoted me, he has taken my words so out of context as to give them a new and different meaning.

Here's the original sentence in its entirety:

[With reference to Dick Findlay] "He has copious amounts of evidence indicating his constructive dismissal by the company was as a result of collusion by corrupt union officials and an unscrupulous Director of Personnel & Industrial Relations for Molson Brewery, B.C."

It is clear from the above that the "result" referred to was with respect to the "copious amount of evidence" of a "constructive dismissal" in Findlay's possession, and NOT "the Union officers' relationship with Molson Breweries", as suggested by Mr. Glavin.

Furthermore, the "collusion by corrupt union officials and an unscrupulous Director of Personnel & Industrial Relations for Molson Brewery" referred to is well supported and substantiated in Dick Findlay's lawsuit against the Brewery Workers' Union and some of its officers both past and present. Of this, Mr. Glavin is undoubtedly aware.

2/ - "you describe your situation with former employer Labatt Brewery as resulting in discrimination by your employer to which the Union ‘apparently acquiesced' in your April 14, 2004 posting in the Molson's Suckerpunch thread. This is false and defamatory."

Labatt Buster Responds:

Here's the original sentence in its entirety:

"The reader should be made aware that I, like Findlay have too, fallen victim to this type of human rights violation by my former employer Labatt -again with the apparent acquiescence of the Brewery Workers' Union."

This is with respect to my termination by Labatt while disabled, which I consider to be a discriminatory act (as was likewise in the case of Findlay's termination by Molson).

My World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary defines "acquiescence" as: "consent given without making objections; agreeing or submitting quietly".

Given the nature of Local 300's settlement with Labatt of my grievance for wrongful dismissal while disabled ("the Flegel/Puchmayr Deal") which served to nullify an arbitration award that found Labatt to have violated numerous provisions of the collective agreement without any penalty imposed upon Labatt, it would be exceedingly difficult for me to view mine and Findlay's respective terminations and the Union's allowance of such conduct by these employers in any other light, with perhaps outright capitulation by the Union.

3/ - "you also posted in that same thread: 'Thus I can attest to what I've found to be an unprincipled and ineffectual union that for too long has been corrupted by it's former Business Agent [Rick Sutherland]. This is false and defamatory."

Labatt Buster Responds:

See response No. 2, above. It is noteworthy that "the Flegel/Puchmayr Deal" cited above was in fact, originally conceived by Rick Sutherland and HIS lawyer David Blair but later implemented by Chuck Puchmayr after taking office as the Union's business agent.

In the course of my DFR Complaint to the LRB (decision still pending) I had reason to charge Mr. Blair with gross negligence and obstruction of justice with respect to his representation of me in the arbitration of my two grievances against Labatt.

Insofar as David Blair took his instructions from his client Rick Sutherland, it follows that Mr. Sutherland was the corrupting and unprincipled influence in respect to the Union's handling of my grievances. That the grievances were in effect prematurely abandoned by the Union, speaks to the "ineffectual(ness)" of the Union in the matter of resolving those grievances for me.

4/ - "you posted an edited version of Mr. Findlay's 'open letter' (December 26, 2004, 'A Plea for Justice...' in the MfD Forum; December 30, 2004 in the rabble.ca Babble Forum) in which it is claimed that 'an investigation by an officer of PIPA is currently underway' in respect of the Union's alleged failure to provide Mr. Findlay with documentation pertinent to his (non)membership in the Union. The Union has verified with the Privacy Commission that no investigation of the Union whatsoever has been contemplated and that the enquiry made by Mr. Findlay found (in November 2004) that 'Local 300 has provided [him] with access to all of the records to which [he] is entitled'. Thus, you have completely misled the public with that posting;"

Labatt Buster Responds:

In fairness to my friend Dick Findlay for whom I posted "A Plea for Justice: Dick Findlay's Open Letter" during the last week of December 2004, I must confess to making a slight change to his letter in which I substituted the words "under way (as noted above) for his original word "ongoing". In light of a number of subsequent events this innocuous editing of Mr. Findlay's original text might have been shortsighted on my part.

As well, at the time of Findlay's composition of his letter (as well as when I posted my slightly edited version of same), Mr. Findlay was awaiting a response from a Mr. Jay Fedorak, the "Officer of PIPA" referred to above.

It now appears Mr. Fedorak's response to Mr. Findlay (by letter dated November 16, 2004 and referred to by Mr. Glavin) was somehow lost in transit as Mr. Findlay to date has yet to receive it.

Subsequent to my receipt of Mr. Glavin's threatening letter (in which it was revealed that Mr. Fedorak had completed his investigation), Mr. Findlay wrote to Mr. Fedorak January 11, 2005 complaining that the Union had failed in its duty "to respond accurately and completely as possible" with respect to Findlay's request for documentation from Local 300 that pertains to the unjustified suspension of his membership in the Union.

In a subsequent letter dated January 13, 2005 sent to Dick Findlay, Mr. Fedorak noted that Findlay had indicated to him that a member who becomes disabled continues to remain a member in good standing, even if they do not work or pay dues, in accordance with the Union's Constitution and By-laws which states such a member is neither required to apply for a withdrawal card.

Mr. Fedorak wrote that Union president Roy Graham has indicated to him that "[Findlay] ceased to work or pay dues prior to receiving disability status."

In response to THAT erroneous statement by Roy Graham, Findlay has once again contacted Jay Fedorak by letter dated January 21, 2005 providing him with numerous documents which "contradict the response given...by [Roy Graham and] the Union to date."

These include: a reference to the relevant section of the Union's Constitution concerning a withdrawal card with respect to a disabled member; a letter from Molson's medical advisor confirming Findlay's state of disability on September 15, 1988 -the day before his firing by Molson's; a Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal decision dated February 14, 1995 which determines that Findlay "became so disabled in about 1988"; a letter dated April 20, 2001 from (then Union president and now business agent) Gerry Bergunder to Molson's requesting that Findlay's case be reopened -enclosed with that letter was the CPP decision (cited above) determining Findlay was disabled in 1988 and remains so.

Suffice to say that PIPA's investigation on Findlay's behalf with respect to his undocumented and unjustified expulsion from the Union will undoubtedly soon be both "under way" and "ongoing".

5/ - "in those same threads there is a reference to an alleged 'atmosphere of violence and intimidation at Molson's' the implication of which is that the Union and it (sic) officials have created and/or contributed to such an atmosphere. This is false and defamatory."

Labatt Buster Responds:

As stated in the web forum threads cited here by Mr. Glavin as objectional, the allegations contained therein are levelled by Dick Findlay and not by me.

Here's the offensive passage in its entirety. There has been little altered and/or edited from Dick Findlay's original text:

"The background to my case is disturbing. There was an atmosphere of violence and intimidation at Molson's Vancouver brewery in the late 1980's, a matter I unsuccessfully attempted to raise at the Labour Relations Board in the early 1990's. I was ruled "out of time" by the Board."

Mr. Glavin here truly exhibits his unfamiliarity with the Union's (particularly with respect to Molson's) own history.

What I find truly surprising however, is Roy Graham's apparent failure to properly brief Mr. Glavin of the existence of this 'atmosphere of violence and intimidation at Molson's' -something that was common knowledge to those union members who worked at Molson's during the time in question.

Because included in that group of workers was Roy Graham, himself.

Could it be that Roy Graham has repressed the knowledge that such an "atmosphere" existed? Is it possible he's blocked this aspect of his time at Molson's from his conscious mind?

Perhaps if Graham only dug deeper, he'd recall one wise-ass in particular with his "ARMY" of supporters -why, in February 1978 this man was charged with allegedly threatening a Molson supervisor with the breaking of his arm, as indicated by an arbitration award in my possession.

While it was conceded that the supervisor had been told by the accused that "he would get his arm broken" if he removed a cartoon put up on a plant bulletin board by the accused, his adding the disclaimer "but not by me" prompted the arbitration board to conclude that "what would otherwise constitute a threat becomes a warning"...to the supervisor..."of what other employees might do"...to him if he "tampered with what they considered to be the Union's private bulletin board."

That finding by a duly convened arbitration board clearly speaks to an atmosphere of violence and intimidation at Molson's.

The accused was described by the arbitrator as "the senior [Union] officer in [the] plant, as well as the chairman of the Union's grievance committee."

His adherents could be identified by their T-shirts emblazoned with a cartoon logo designed by this same Union official. Dick Findlay had at one time been a friend to this official but by 1988 their relationship had soured.

Findlay has long maintained as stated in his "Open Letter" that "during a plant election [this] member of the Union's Executive Board said he would have me fired, simply to prove he could do it -this was after I had told him I would not be voting for him in an upcoming plant election."

It is doubtful Roy Graham truly knows not, the Union official to whom I refer. As for other senior members of the Union from this time -such as Rick Sutherland -there must surely be some familiar with the details of this particular episode.

One such senior, former "member of the Union Executive" in fact provided Dick Findlay with an affidavit dated November 27, 1991, in which he recalled "there was animosity and threats of violence from [the Union official referred to above] and his associates towards [Findlay] and other brewery workers.

The affidavit clearly shows the intimidation endured by Dick Findlay at Molson's was not limited to that inflicted by a single Union official and his associates, but included similar treatment by a Molson Director of Personnel.

This affidavit contains evidence describing "several instances of [this Director of Personnel at Molson's] pressuring and browbeating [Findlay] to return to work despite his leg injury" and "during several such [disciplinary] meetings [this Director of Personnel] yelled and screamed at [Findlay] trying to get him to return to work. [This Director of Personnel] could not or would not believe that [Findlay] was unable to work because of his leg injury."

6/ - "in your posting of the open letter on these two websites you have also conveyed another false and defamatory comment concerning the Union and its officials when it is stated that there was 'collusion between management and a corrupt union official' at Molson Breweries that resulted in Mr. Findlay's termination of employment. This is false and defamatory.

Labatt Buster Responds:

As stated in the web forum threads cited here by Mr. Glavin as objectional, the allegations contained therein are levelled by Dick Findlay and not by me.

Here's the offensive passage in its entirety:

"I was essentially fired from Molson's because of collusion between management and a corrupt union official. During a plant election a member of the Union's Executive Board said he would have me fired, simply to prove he could do it -this was after I had told him I would not be voting for him in an upcoming plant election."

This allegation is supported by further evidence from the affidavit cited above in No. 5 in which a senior, Union official swore that "during June of 1988 there was a union election in which candidates ran in opposition to the incumbent slate.. A pamphlet criticizing the existing Plant Committee and calling for change was circulated. The author of that pamphlet was not [Dick Findlay]"

The sworn affidavit suggests that the "corrupt union official" referred to by Findlay appeared to have "mistakenly formed the opinion that [Dick Findlay] had written the pamphlet in question and would later approach [Findlay] and accuse him of distributing the pamphlet."

"In the course of this argument, [the individual in question], a member of the Union Plant Committee [is alleged to have] told Mr. Findlay that he was "finished" at the brewery."

I reiterate that the words objected to by Mr. Glavin, above are Dick Findlay's and not mine. The "corrupt union official" referred to is one and the same as referred to in No. 5, above.

7/ - "in your December 30, 2004 posting (Babble Forum, 'Chuck Puchmayr (Rhymes with Liar)' posting, you begin by implying that Mr. Puchmayr, a former Business Agent of the Union, is a 'liar'. You then malign the character of current Union President Roy Graham suggesting he is a ‘hypocrite'. And then you state that Mr. Puchmayr is a 'two-faced, duplicitous backstabber'. All of these statements are false and defamatory and attempt to malign the character and integrity of current and former Union officials;"

Labatt Buster Responds:

Not so. In fact I've implied nothing -I simply noted in the title of the thread that Chuck Puchmayr's last name rhymes with liar, which is entirely factual -as is "Puchmayr (Rhymes with Pantsonfire)" to which the title of the thread was changed by me in deference to Mr. Glavin's threat of legal action.

And whereas Mr. Puchmayr may well be "a former Business Agent of the Union" as correctly stated by Mr. Glavin, currently Mr. Puchmayr is a political candidate vying for the NDP's nomination as candidate for the riding of New Westminster in the upcoming provincial election.

As such, I maintain that Puchmayr is open game to any and all criticism that I or anyone else might wish to level at him particularly with respect to his record as the former business agent for my union.

Mr. Glavin appears to be suggesting that I not be allowed to offer my opinion of candidate Puchmayr based on his former role as an elected official of Local 300.

Furthermore but notwithstanding the foregoing, based on the evidence put forth by Mr. Glavin in the context of the Union's Response to my DFR Complaint to the LRB and my subsequent Reply to same, Mr. Glavin is well aware that I am of the opinion that Mr. Puchmayr has indeed lied to and misled the Union with respect to numerous meetings, conversations and discussions he has apparently alleged to have had with me -none of which, I maintain, ever occurred.

I deny that I have "maligned the character of current Union President Roy Graham [in] suggesting he is a hypocrite"

I have rather, pointed out Roy Graham's absolute hypocrisy in publicly denigrating Puchmayr while simultaneously privately committing massive amounts of the Union's funds towards a defense of Puchmayr's deplorable and surreptitious settlement of my two grievances with Labatt.

A close examination of Roy Graham's own words as reported by Sean Holman of Public Eye Online is instructive:

"Even though Steve McClurg's opponent was our business agent, our union voted to support Steve for the New Westminster nomination because, when it comes to supporting working people, Steve not only talks the talk, he walks the walk," obviously implying that while Puchmayr may "talk" one way his actions speak quite differently.

This suggests to me that Roy Graham, speaking on behalf of Local 300 considers Puchmayr to be a hypocrite.

Although I sincerely disapprove of Roy Graham's public repudiation of Puchmayr and his possible motivation in denigrating him in this manner, I nevertheless concur with Graham's assessment of the man -as would undoubtedly numerous other members of our union.

However, I suggest Roy Graham's denial to me -with his threat of legal action -the similar opportunity to offer my own commentary on Puchmayr, is equally hypocritical of Graham. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the adage goes.

8/ - "finally, in your December 30, 2004 posting 'Chuck Puchmayr (Rhymes with Liar)' posting, you state that Mr. Graham 'currently lines the pockets of the Union's representative law firm' implying that both Mr. Graham and this law firm are involved in some untoward, unethical, and corrupt scheme that would benefit Mr. Graham's (and the Union's) political and legal interests, as well as this firm's financial interests. This statement is false and defamatory of the Union, its officers, and the law firm of Fiorillo Glavin Gordon."

Labatt Buster Responds:

Now THAT'S stretching things a bit, doncha think? Methinks he doth protest too much.

For I know nothing of any "untoward, unethical, and corrupt scheme".."that both Mr. Graham and [Mr. Glavin's] law firm are involved in, nor do I have any idea what "would benefit Mr. Graham's (and the Union's) political and legal interests, as well as [Mr. Glavin's law] firm's financial interests," and have never implied such things in my web forum postings.

In my use of the words "lines the pockets of I simply meant that Fiorillo Glavin Gordon was being paid -nothing more and nothing less than that.

Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as Mr. Glavin has, above.

So in deference to Mr. Glavin's wild accusations above, I have added a disclaimer to the text of my original post to reflect my true meaning.

So there you have it -a complete and full explanation by me of everything that my union has objected to as being false and defamatory.

I hope you're satisfied, Roy Graham. And in the future if you've got any other objections to raise, I sincerely hope you'll take advantage of the moderator of this web forum's invitation to you to make those objections on-line.

In that way you can quit squandering the membership's money, lining Mr. Glavin's pockets (by which I mean paying him) to send me and others letters threatening legal action.


Comments??