Members for Democracy Archive

Whenever I'm asked how I became the Labatt Buster I always point to my friend and fellow brewery worker Mike Nunas.
In the early ‘90s Mike and I worked at Labatt's brewery in New Westminster, B.C.
And although we'd known each other since 1981 when we'd both worked at the now defunct Carling's brewery in Vancouver, we were never really good friends or anything like that -just a couple of guys who knew each other from work.
But in 1995 during a time of great upheaval at Labatt's, when my disability benefits were being challenged by Labatt and its insurance carrier Manulife Financial -and as a result I was facing imminent termination by Labatt -I made a fateful decision, and one I've never regretted.
I called Mike Nunas.

Injured and Disabled...
You see, I had known that Mike Nunas had been off work at that point for nearly three years as a result of serious injuries he'd sustained in a M.V.A. As someone who had been in receipt of disability benefits, I figured he might be able to advise me about Manulife and W.I. and LTD benefits etc.
So on Easter Sunday 1995 I simply looked up his home number and called him.
I was shocked to learn the truth about Nunas' treatment at the hands of Labatt -as it turns out his claim for LTD benefits had been interrupted numerous times prior to being discontinued altogether.
As a result he had been terminated by the brewing giant -and our union was doing little about it.
My outrage at this disregard for Nunas' rights was only equalled by my certainty that Labatt had the same treatment in mind for me -and moreover that my union would undoubtedly prove equally ineffective in protecting my rights.
Since that time Mike Nunas and I have become good friends and I have remained an outspoken advocate for him. The bond we share as a result of our respective mistreatment by Labatt (and our Union's subsequent acquiescence to that mistreatment) may well last a lifetime.
As I wrote on our behalf in a recent submission to the LRB: '..we are inextricably linked by a number of remarkable similarities to our respective stories -by time and circumstance, and by a familiar cast of characters...'
But this tale is not about me. This is Mike Nunas' story.

Just Another Day...
On the afternoon of May 26, 1992 Mike Nunas, a brewery worker at Labatt's New Westminster plant, climbed onto his big, red Harley Davidson for a quick trip to the store. He was intent on picking up a few items for his lunch break later that evening (he was working graveyard shift that week). Just another day in the life of a working man -a man with a wife, two small children, a mortgage, etc.
Instead, he became the victim of an horrendous motorcycle accident in which he was struck head-on by a pickup truck turning left in front of him. Mike sustained numerous injuries after being thrown from his bike and striking his head on the pavement.
Mike Nunas' real-life nightmare had begun; and his life would never be the same.
Fortunately, or so it seemed at the time, he was covered under the Labatt collective agreement for insured wage-loss disability benefits in the event he couldn't work.
Unfortunately, Labatt's insurance carrier Confederation Life would soon encounter serious fiscal troubles that would lead to its eventual 1994 bankruptcy and dissolution -as you will see, this was to have a disastrous effect on Mike Nunas' claim for disability benefits.

Washed Up and Hung Out to Dry...
At the time of his termination by Labatt a few days before Christmas 1994 Nunas was senior to me and like me was both injured and disabled. Like me he was covered under the same Labatt collective agreement.
Earlier, in May 1994 Nunas was in or about his 102nd week of continuous disability when his L.T.D. benefits were once again interrupted by the insurance carrier Confederation Life, astonishingly, for the third time since his claim began.
On December 22nd, 1994 he was terminated by Labatt pursuant to Article 3:3 of the Labatt collective agreement -essentially for failing to work 30 shifts in the 12 months prior to his dismissal, notwithstanding he was injured and disabled and unable to work and in receipt of LTD benefits for at least five of those twelve months. [The Union has recently denied that Nunas was terminated under Article 3:3, as was the case with me. This is in absolute contradiction to what was told to me in May 1997, by the Union's former Business Agent]
As noted above, the decision to discontinue Nunas' disability benefits had been made by Labatt's insurance carrier, Confederation Life, just prior to its bankruptcy and dissolution and subsequent takeover by Manulife Financial -a decision, given arbitrator Colin Taylor's finding in my case, we now know was wrongly delegated by Labatt to its insurance carrier.
Later Mike would be advised by Manulife (in a letter to his marital attorney) that pursuant to Manulife's agreement with the no longer existent Confederation Life: 'Manulife Financial does not assume any liability for coverage of group long-term disability benefits in respect of claims incurred prior to the liquidation of Confederation Life.'
Such was the case with Mike Nunas.
Thus, as a result of Labatt's failure to provide for him a policy that contained the stipulated benefits, Nunas was left with nowhere to turn to secure his benefits. One could argue he was effectively washed up and hung out to dry.

Discrepancies, discrepancies...
Notwithstanding the foregoing, evidence currently before the LRB indicates that following the dissolution of the Employer's former insurance carrier, Confederation Life in 1994, Labatt gave its assurances to the Union (but later to apparently be reneged on) concerning the subsequent takeover of the insurance contract by Manulife Financial, and the ramifications that change held for eligible, Labatt employees.
In a letter to Mike Nunas' marital lawyer, Victory Square Law Office (the Union's former legal representatives) would write: 'The Union was advised orally (by Labatt) that Manulife would be taking over and that there would be no interruption in coverage.'
Surely that constitutes a promise to the Union, made (it's assumed) in good faith by Labatt and therefore implies the existence of a duty of good faith and an obligation by Labatt to ensure the promise is kept: namely, that the change-over from Confederation Life to Manulife Financial would result in 'no interruption in coverage' for eligible Labatt employees.
Unfortunately that proved not to be the case for Mike Nunas.
In any event, the Union appeared to have little concern for the denial of Nunas' long term disability benefits. No grievance was ever filed on behalf of him by the Union to secure those benefits, as was done for me.
Instead, the Union filed an unjust dismissal grievance for Nunas -only to abandon that grievance under questionable circumstances some 20 months later in September 1996: specifically, the Union abandoned the senior Nunas -a discriminatory act given its continued, purported advancement of my grievances -its reasoning being there was 'no forum through which the Union (could) proceed.'
But there was such a forum and the Union knew so.

The Manulife Policies...
Because the evidence indicates that in the course of its preparations for the arbitration of my grievances, the Union had come into the possession of Labatt's newly acquired Manulife insurance policies -the inspection of which revealed the existence of numerous discrepancies between the policies' and the Labatt collective agreement's respective disability definitions.
This held particular significance for Mike Nunas.
Or more rightly, should have.
Consider the Union's 1999 submission (in the matter of my grievances) to arbitrator Colin Taylor: 'As Arbitrator Germaine observed in MacMillan Bloedel, supra, where there is a discrepancy between a collective agreement requirement and the provisions of an insurance policy such that coverage to which and (sic) employee is entitled may be properly denied under the policy, the Employer is liable for the benefit and the Union may arbitrate to get it.'
It would have been a simple matter for the Union to add Mike Nunas' name to my grievances, given the similarities in our respective cases.
Instead, the Union somehow chose to attempt to obscure from Nunas' and his lawyer's view the existence of the discrepancies noted above -and did so even after Nunas' lawyer had brought to the Union's attention the matter of Manulife's stated non-liability for claims incurred prior to its takeover of Confederation Life's group claims (such as Mike's).
What was the Union's reasoning for dumping Mike Nunas while continuing its purported advancement of my interests?

The Question is Why?...
That question is currently before the LRB in the form of mine and Nunas' respective DFR Complaints, which the LRB have recently consolidated (see Terminated while Disabled: Labatt's Dirty Little Secret in the General Mayhem Forum).
What was abundantly clear, as noted by the Union in its August 9, 2000 letter to the LRB was that in the matter of my grievances: 'the preliminary issues...have become more an argument about future arbitrations than Mr. Hughes' claim.'
It was that concession by the Union which prompted me to declare in my recent Complaint to the LRB: 'the Union has clearly and actively sought to avoid advancing my interests beyond 104 weeks of disability in an extraordinary attempt to avoid 'future arbitrations' of this kind for other disabled Union members and to avoid the wrath of at least one member -the aforementioned Michael Nunas..'

What Goes Around...
The road to recovery from his devastating motorcycle accident held a number of obstacles for Mike Nunas, not the least of which included his desire in 1997 to attempt a return to work in the industry in which he had faithfully been part of for more than fifteen years.
But due to what Brewery Workers' Union Business Agent Gerry Bergunder (in his letter to Mike in 1999) termed 'the Labatt situation,' Bergunder agreed 'the industry appear(ed) to have 'blacklisted' (Nunas).
Finally in July 1999, Nunas was given a chance to prove himself capable of working when the Union was able to find him a position at Brewers Distributers Ltd. (BDL), jointly owned by Labatt and Molson.
Nunas' hiring, it should be noted, was conditional and contained an even longer probationary period than the collective agreement required of a rooky permit card worker, notwithstanding he had been a member of the Union in good standing for more than 18 years.
Mike worked tirelessly for BDL; to the point where he sustained a hernia, a work-related injury that required surgery to repair.
Unfortunately, Mike suffered complications from the operation and subsequently had to undergo a second, invasive surgery to rectify the problems caused by the first.
It was while awaiting the second surgical date in the Spring of 2003 that BDL dropped a bombshell on Nunas by terminating his employment, ostensibly for failing to work during the six months prior to his date of termination -when he was injured and disabled!
Thus, for the second time in less than a decade, Labatt (or its subsidiary BDL) had terminated Mike Nunas while he was injured and disabled.
What goes around surely comes around.

But Now for the Good News...
This story has an upside, though.
Because this time the Union took the matter of a disabled Mike Nunas's termination by BDL to arbitration and WON!!!
Arbitrator Robert Pekeles issued his award May 6, 2004 and determined that the BDL collective agreement did indeed provide specific protection of a disabled employee's recall rights (as well as an employee on maternity leave as was the case with the other employee represented in the grievance).
He ordered Nunas be made whole, and in the event the parties were unable to resolve the relevant issues making Nunas whole, arbitrator Pekeles reserved jurisdiction to determine himself what his decision meant.
Arbitrator Pekeles's decision must undoubtedly have relevance to Nunas' 1994 termination by Labatt (as well as to my own 1995 termination) because the language in BDL's collective agreement that Mr. Pekeles' decision turned on was and is identical to the language found in the Labatt agreement.

And a Pinch of Irony...
With quintessential irony, the Union thus finds itself of being in the unenviable position of having successfully won in arbitration for Nunas regards his recent termination, while concurrently having to defend against Nunas' current Section 12 Complaint in which he accuses the Union of abandoning its grievance of Nunas' earlier termination by Labatt -a case with stunning similarities to the latter BDL termination.
In both cases at issue was the termination of a disabled employee.
And in the BDL case recently won by the Union, the determining factor was the collective agreement language that stipulated that "Seniority shall not be considered broken by reason of: ...(c) Sickness or injury".
As noted above, this same, identical language is found in the Labatt collective agreement, and is in fact standard in all the Union's agreements.
Does this sound like a bit of a cunundrum for the Union, or what?
Regardless, I'm sure all will agree that Mike Nunas' prospects have indeed brightened with this new development and perhaps so have mine.
That such a win should occur just as the LRB has determined his Complaint regards his earlier termination by Labatt discloses a prima facie case against the Union concerning its representation of him... well all this must surely be seen as a strong indication that Mike Nunas may soon be able to see a number of longstanding wrongs -committed by Labatt at his expense -at long last addressed and rectified.
The LRB have given the parties until June 7/04 to provide a written response to Nunas' and my respective Complaints.
Still more to come on this one...

I hope you and your co-worker find justice. Your fight will probably be a long and difficult one. As a former Union official I found it very difficult enforcing disabled members rights, regardless of what the law says. My confrontations involved both company (expected) and union (unexpected) officials.
Additionally, you may find difficulty with the legal system itself. They can put you in a legal merry-go-round, from the labour board to the human rights commission, with no one wanting to take take jurisdiction and referring you to each other.
Beware of legal time limits and when in doubt file complaints in all forums in order to avoid a dismissal based on time. The legal system will not help you, instead of looking to enforce the law they will look to dismiss your complaint. Be aware of this, and do your homework, know the issues. The system loves time limits, red tape and finding reasons to dismiss complaints.

Good luck.
Reuther