Brewery Workers Union Threatens Disability Activist with Lawsuit
Representatives Want Him Banned From MfD Forum
Nick Hughes, a Vancouver area disability rights activist, has been threatened with a lawsuit by the Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers Union, Local 300 in connection with two items he posted in MFD forum and on www.rabble.ca.
A letter from the union's law firm that was sent to Hughes earlier this month alleges that certain statements made in A Plea for Justice a letter that Hughes posted on behalf of Dick Findlay, another disabled worker for whom he is advocating and Molson's Suckerpunch: The Dick Findlay Story are defamatory. The union demands that Hughes delete those statements and post a retraction and apology.
On January 12, 2005, MfD received a letter from Local 300's law firm demanding that Hughes' statements be censored. In a more recent communication, the Local is demanding that Hughes' posting priviledges in MfD forum be revoked altogether.
Hughes has been fighting a prolonged - ten year - battle for workplace justice after being fired while disabled from his job at Labatt Brewery in Vancouver in 1995. Along the way, he befriended and picked up the causes of other disabled brewery workers, Dick Findlay and Mike Nunes, for whom he is has advocated and about whose battles he has spoken publicly.
Hughes has recently started a retrospective blog in MfD Forum where he plans to chronicle his decade long battle. Check out the first entry in 10 Years After: A Decade of Fighting for My Rights.
MfD is considering Local 300's demands and will respond shortly.
quote:
posted by news:
Former Representatives Want Him Banned From MfD Forum
On January 12, 2005, MfD received a letter from Local 300's law firm demanding that Hughes' statements be censored. In a more recent communication, the Local is demanding that Hughes' posting priviledges in MfD forum be revoked altogether.
Local 300 'demands' that the MfD website censor statements made by Hughes - is local 300 - God? (note to self - get help from Info).
Revoking Mr. Hughes' priviledges - is that not entirely the decision of the people who run MfD?
Or do 'unions' think they do?
I would be interested to know if the dues paying membership of local 300 understands where the dues is going/how it is being spent?
I hope the response to these demons will be posted.
oops, sorry - typing error 'demons' - should be 'demands' ~ my sincere apologies.
I find it interesting that I myself wasn't all that interested in this thread until after this local thought to threaten the MFD. Now, it has my interest.
I guess it's posible LB isn't providing a complete picture, but it's a stretch for me to think he's completely made it all up. I'm curious why union officials didn't just log on and confront him? Why do union leaders feel more confortable hiding like cowards behind lawyers?
A little lesson in business...the consumer makes the rules, it's our money.
This law firm didn't ask the MFD administrators to withdraw inflamatory material, they demaded it be removed under the threat of further legal action. Furthermore, they had the unmitigated gaul to demad this person be silenced forever on a web site intended to give a voice to working people! That is unforgivable to me personally.
I'll no longer purchase any kind of Molson product. I'll also see if this union represents workers elsewhere and add products make by those locals to my list. Where there is smoke there is fire and I personally find it very hard to believe this law firm's tactics are not simply a polished public extention of a the union described in LB's original posts.
Molson's, your competitors thank you for my business.
I feel for Nick Hughes, Dick Findlay and Mike Nunes. I wish I could help these people in some way. Does anyone have any ideas?
You have already helped just by expressing your interest. We are going to start putting the spotlight on these unions, their law firms, and their practices. The fact that they felt compelled to threaten a lawsuit shows that we already have them worried.
One of the things we must do next is get the message out to the majority of the rank-and-file who I believe are still not aware of how their dues are being wasted. How much do you suppose Fiorillo Glavin Gordon have charged the Brewery Workers members already just for throwing together a threatening letter? That's money that could have been used for some productive purpose.
There are two sides to this issue. If any of the statements are libelous or defamatory the site has an obligation under its own rules to remove them.
Unfortunately, Mr Glavin made no effort to refute the allegations and simply told mfd to remove them "cause they said so." Oops, for an attorney, he really should be smarter than that.
I agree with BR2, the local would have been better served by proving their case. Then the moderators would have been compelled to follow their own rules. Until that happens, i find it hard to believe anyone will just roll over cause some lawyer said so.
It also seems to me the members of this local should be told how the officers are spending their dues money. As noted above by several folks, most members see free speech as one of those basic rights unions should be fighting for, not against.
The views expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of this MFD member
This Defamation case is an example of a person being sued for information posted on a website
quote:
posted by concerned citizen:
The views expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of this MFD member
You do not have to be a 'member' to post. Correct, me if I am wrong, but I do believe you can post on various categories without becoming a member?
I do not agree with all postings I read on this website, however, that is what makes it interesting. I cannot imagine what the world would be like if we all agreed.
I am of the opinion that when one is posting, they are posting because they want to share their information, to alert working people - the rank and file. To educate and share knowledge.
I am in agreement with you, BW2 - no buying here, I'll cease and desist, and be sure to tell relatives and friends.
Can someone provide a list of products produced by this company, I'd be interested to see it. Thank you in advance.
quote:
posted by Susan Roth:
I feel for Nick Hughes, Dick Findlay and Mike Nunes. I wish I could help these people in some way. Does anyone have any ideas?
As what gbuddy had previously posted, you already have. Now tell all your friends, relations, neighbors, tell folks at your workplace. Pass it on to other websites you frequent.
I, too, feel for these people. If I can't retain the format of free speech and the freedom to write without someone kicking ass, let alone a union, I may as well revert to the days of Adam and Eve.
Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers Union, Local 300
quote:
Local 300 of the Brewery, Winery & Distillery Workers' Union has been around for close to a century. Today's membership totals approximately 1000. Major certifications include breweries: Labatts, Molson, Granville Island, Okanagan Springs, and Pacific Western in Prince George; wineries including Calona, Mission Hill, and Andres; as well as Coca Cola in Prince George, and Brewers Distributors Ltd.
In my view a boycott would be unfair to the members of this local. 147 of them already expect to be laid off in 3 months when the Labatt New Westminster brewery is closed. The local union membership may not even be aware of the threatened legal actions.
quote:
posted by yankeebythewater:
Can someone provide a list of products produced by this company, I'd be interested to see it. Thank you in advance.
BW2 was talking about Molson products (in relation to Dick's job)
Nick worked for Labatt Brewery.
So if you want to boycott, 90% of the beer is out the window.
My suggestion is Lakeport out of Hamilton. About a buck a bottle. Pilsener or Honey Lager
Fuck Molson. Fuck Labatt. Fuck the union, and fuck the lawyers. Sue me too fuckers... my name is DRINK LAKEPORT.
quote:
posted by Duffman:
In my view a boycott would be unfair to the members of this local. 147 of them already expect to be laid off in 3 months when the Labatt New Westminster brewery is closed. The local union membership may not even be aware of the threatened legal actions.
In my rage I didn't check on whether Lakeport is unionized or not. Does anyone know?? Because if it's not, that should give the 'fuckers' I spoke of before something to do. Go unionize. We're coming Lakeport!!
Labatt right now is run by Interbrew. Damn Belgians. Sue me you Belgian fucks!! My name is GO GUINNESS.
note edited Heine to Guinness. Much better.
quote:
posted by Duffman:
Lakeport > Teamsters Local Union 938
Thanks Duff!!
I knew Hamilton was good for something
As attractive as it sounds at first glance, I think boycotting a company's products is not the way to go. I believe we have to keep focusing on communications. If the entire rank-and-file membership knew how their own dues were being routinely used against current and former members they would soon put a stop to it.
Threats of defamation lawsuits against individuals who have no resources and are simply fighting for justice are, in my opinion, a form of economic repression. Unfortunately, our society is burdened with a legal regime that encourages such behaviour. Among the principle beneficiaries of this systemic injustice are the members of the legal community, who are engaged in siphoning off more and more of society's assets without returning any benefit.
quote:
posted by Duffman:
Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers Union, Local 300 The local union membership may not even be aware of the threatened legal actions.
And why not?
Where is their dues going?
Silk pockets ABOUND!
censorship is alive and well.
heaven forbid the truth gets out. after all, eveything on the internet is true right?
I Ain't Been Banned Yet...
This is just a quick note to express my gratitude for all the support received during a particularly stressful time.
In deference to the MfD administrators and their anticipated reponse to the threats and demands of my union's legal representatives, I have decided to hold off in responding to not only my union's allegations of defamation but to the many thought-provoking contributions contained on this thread as well.
It's good to know there are others out there who share my sense of outrage with respect to my union's attempt to muzzle me. In the coming days I hope to be able to address a number of your thoughts and ideas put forth in the posts above, but for now I'll have to bite my tongue.
And notwithstanding allegations to the contrary, I stand by all I have had to say on this web forum and on others. I've implied nothing -I've merely told the truth as I know it.
So, on behalf of Mike and Dick -and perhaps other yet unnamed brewery workers I know of whose rights have been treated with a callous disregard -I ask that you be patient. My response to my union's threats and demands is yet forthcoming.
And to Roy and Gerry at the hall -and I'm sure you're reading this -the gloves are coming off (a little boxing metaphor in tribute to my friend and union brother, Dick Findlay).
I suspect that the statements are true. In defamation suits, truth is a defence. If the statements are true and can be proven by way of
evidence to be true, I wouldn't worry about the union's threats and I would ignore their demands.
I would like to ask the Brewery Workers Union leaders how the union members feel about their
union dues being used to sue a disability activists?
I doubt that the members even know and if they
did they would not approve.
Maybe it will become an election issue??
I just read the lawyer's letter. If in fact the statements can be proven to be true do you really think that the union wants to risk their dirty laundry being aired publicly in court? Once the
union institutes legal proceeds, all the material filed
with the court is public information and can be posted on a website such as MFD. Therefore, if
the statements are proven to be true, it will be
a brutal embarrassment for the union. Better for
the union to leave it alone.
P'Tachk! Censorship is for the weak and timid!
I haven't had a chance yet to read neither Hughes' letters, nor the letter from the union's lawyer.
But I notice in this string someone said that it is the "former representatives of the union" who want him banned. Was there an election in the local that saw these reps defeated? If so, could they just be seeking to take out their loss on someone?
In any case, I think this lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, has no business what so ever demanding that the moderators of this site ban anyone.
If anyone feels sullied by anything anyone wrote on this site, then they should request that they be allowed to respond to the comments by way of a guest letter or article, or something similar (and, to be fair, the site should agree).
Demanding this site take action against one of its subscribing members for the benefit of someone that member is in dispute with is unethical and authoritarian. It's just an intimidation ploy with clearly no intent to resolve the dispute.
So Now It's My Turn...
Well, as those of you who are following this saga closely are aware, a number of edits to some of my posts have been made by MfD's administrators, as well as some changes by me to the text of my piece on the Union's former business agent and NDP's wannabe nominee Chuck Puchmayr, whom hereafter shall be known by me as Charlie Pantsonfire.
These revisions etc. have been made solely to placate Tony Glavin, lawyer for the Brewery Workers' Union Local 300.
Readers should know I bear no resentment to the MfD administrators for their seemingly capitulation to Mr. Glavin -in fact, I applaud them for replacing the so-called 'offensive' material with links to Mr. Glavin's own threatening missives.
So get comfortable and settle in for a long read. And now on to the business of replying to the many responses to this thread:
posted by news:
quote:
Hughes has been fighting a prolonged - ten year - battle for workplace justice after being fired while disabled from his job at Labatt Brewery in Vancouver in 1995.
In fact, the Labatt Brewery where I was employed is located in New Westminster, B.C.
posted by news:
quote:
Along the way, he befriended and picked up the causes of other disabled brewery workers, Dick Findlay and Mike Nunes...
Mike's last name is properly spelt NUNAS. Happy now Mike? -really he never complained, but I am a stickler for detail.
posted by yankeebythewater:
quote:
I would be interested to know if the dues paying membership of local 300 understands where the dues is going/how it is being spent?
I would have to answer an unequivocal, no. The Brewery Workers' Union has no web site of its own for the dissemination of this type of information regards the use of its members' dues. I have long suspected this was part of a deliberate strategy by the Union's executive to keep the membership in the dark as to decisions and actions made on their behalf.
A case in point: At a Union meeting I attended last September, union president Roy Graham REFUSED to comment on the matter of the "Flegel/Puchmayr" settlement of my grievances with Labatt, ostensibly because it was the subject of my Section 12 Complaint to the LRB.
I say Roy Graham's NON-response was pure chicken-shit. There was nothing preventing him from commenting on or allowing discussion of the Union's business in a meeting literally designed for that very purpose.
He was not being asked to comment publicly on the Union's actions. He was being asked to reveal to the membership assembled before him what the extent of the Union's deal with Labatt was -and moreover what was the likely ramifications and effect of that deal on the membership.
Nonetheless, in answer to yankeebythewater, the membership is gradually beginning to grasp the full import of that which I have been saying about the "Flegel/Puchmayr" deal: namely, that it was a stab in the back to the membership. And this matter of the union's lawyer's heavy-handedness is beginning to find itself on plant bulletin boards.
posted by brotherwolf2:
quote:
Why do union leaders feel more comfortable hiding like cowards behind lawyers?...Where there is smoke there is fire and I personally find it very hard to believe this law firm's tactics are not simply a polished public extention of the union described in LB's original posts.
Why indeed? Possibly because they ARE cowards, bw2. Yours is a very perceptive take on the Brewery Workers' Union.
posted by Susan Roth:
quote:
I feel for Nick Hughes, Dick Findlay and Mike Nunas. I wish I could help these people in some way. Does anyone have any ideas?
posted by gbuddy:
quote:
You have already helped just by expressing your interest.
And you can do even more by e-mailing Labatt, Molson and the Brewery Workers' Union strongly enunciating your feelings and, in the words of yankeebythewater:
quote:
...tell all your friends, relations, neighbors, tell folks at your workplace. Pass it on to other websites you frequent.
posted by Bill Pearson:
quote:
If any of the statements are libelous or defamatory the site has an obligation under its own rules to remove them.
Unfortunately, Mr Glavin made no effort to refute the allegations and simply told mfd to remove them
And one must never forget that Mr. Glavin, in his role as legal representative only does as he's INSTRUCTED by his client the Brewery Workers' Union. It's really president Roy Graham and business agent Gerry Bergunder who are calling the shots here, and as such I welcome their respective responses to my posts on MfD. In so doing, these two could save the Union a considerable amount of the membership's money, money that's currently going into the pockets of the Union's lawyers.
Some might construe this threat of legal action as an act of cowardice on the part of these union 'leaders' -in fact, some already have (see bw2's post, above). I'm personally disgusted with this misuse of the membership's dwindling funds.
posted by Duffman:
quote:
In my view a boycott would be unfair to the members of this local. 147 of them already expect to be laid off in 3 months when the Labatt New Westminster brewery is closed. The local union membership may not even be aware of the threatened legal actions.
Spoken like a true brewery worker Duffman, my brother.
I too, have long held off calling for a boycott of Labatt's products (which include Blue, 50 Ale, Kokanee and Budweiser, to name a few).
However, you should know that these poor unfortunates at Labatt's New Westminster are set to walk away when their jobs soon end with a share of a reputed $5.5 MILLION dollars in severance and early retirement money. Perhaps if only the Union had gone to bat for me and for Nunas to include us in this windfall, then I might be inclined to agree that a boycott of Labatt's beer was unproductive. But the sad reality is the Union once again turned its back on us.
In a related sidenote, it should be noted that Nunas was the ONLY employee terminated in Labatt's mid-nineties downsizing initiative NOT TO RECEIVE A SEVERANCE PAYMENT -the Union simply failed to negotiate one on his behalf.
Much the same can be said with repect to Molson's mistreatment of Dick Findlay -Molson's fired Dick without cause and while he was disabled and the Brewery Workers' Union allowed it to happen.
Irrespective of whether the membership is aware or not of their union's actions, it has become increasingly clear to me at least, that allegiance to one's union brothers and sisters is a reciprocal matter.
It is the Union (and by proxy its members) that has consistently turned its back on us, not the other way round -and with that in mind, I would be in full support of a boycott of both Molson's and Labatt's beer, at least until the matters we've raised have been addressed and put right.
posted by ISDU:
quote:
Labatt right now is run by Interbrew. Damn Belgians. Sue me you Belgian fucks!!
Not exactly so, ISDU.
Earlier last year Interbrew merged with Brazilian AmBev (makers of Pepsi -for those who think young). I believe they're now called InterBev and the merger resulted in Interbrew controlling operations in Europe (and perhaps Africa?) while the AmBev people now operate plants in both North and South America.
I too, have been known to say "Fuck Belgium". You see, my father serving in the British Army during the Second World War, risked his life on more than one occasion in the defense and liberation of the Belgian people. He literally killed Nazi soldiers in that endeavour, and I know he'd be appalled at the way this Belgian-based multinational has treated his youngest son. I'm convinced the majority of Belgian people would share that sentiment.
On a sidenote: over the years from time to time I've planted myself outside Labatt's main gate in protest and in the dissemination of information to the employees and to the general public.
On occasion I would cynically point out to passersby the giant Canadian flag that flies over Labatt's and remark to them: "that flag -you know, it's just for show -it doesn't seem to mean a damn thing 'round here anymore".
posted by gbuddy:
quote:
If the entire rank-and-file membership knew how their own dues were being routinely used against current and former members they would soon put a stop to it.
If only that was so, gbuddy. But speaking from personal experience I would have to disagree. Put it down to apathy, indifference or possibly fear of retribution -but I've seen little in the way of support and nothing that amounts to outrage from the rank-and-file with respect to the conduct of my union's spending of the membership's union dues.
And whereas many members have confided to me privately that they're aware that there wrong was done to me, and to Findlay and Nunas -I've yet to see a single member stand up and demand of the Union's leadership that these matters be put right!
With respect to Dick Findlay (then president -now business agent) Gerry Bergunder DID write to Molson in April 2001, stating that "Local 300 felt that (Findlay) should have been provided with a disability pension" as he was under Molson's own medical advisor's care and instructed not to return to work at the time of his termination. Bergunder stated that it would be in the best interest for the parties involved to schedule a meeting to discuss a possible settlement to Findlay's case, "the alternative being to schedule an arbitration to hear the matter."
However, soon after Molson's negative response to Bergunder's letter the matter was inexplicably dropped. By late 2000 the Union was refusing to even talk to Findlay, ostensibly because the Union claimed he was no longer a member of Local 300. Findlay had been stripped of his membership with no indication as to when, why or how!
posted by Klingon:
quote:
..I notice in this string someone said that it is the "former representatives of the union" who want him banned. Was there an election in the local that saw these reps defeated?
This was a mistaken reference found as an original heading to this thread's story, and one I had the MfD administrators correct.
This is not a reference to elected officials of the Union at all, but to the Union's representative law firm Fiorillo Glavin Gordon. These folks were hired by Charlie Pantsonfire when he took office as the Union's business agent in 2001.
Prior to that the Union was represented by Victory Square Law Office which was predecessed I believe, by the firm Baigent Jackson Blair.
David Blair, who represented the Union in the matter of my two grievances is a senior partner in Victory Square, while Margeurite Jackson, who represented Findlay for the Union in his aborted arbitration is currently an arbitrator here in B.C.
Whew!! Well, that's enough for now. I'll get around to responding to Mr. Glavin's allegations of defamation next time. Keep the faith, people.
quote:
posted by Labatt Buster:
Whew!! Well, that's enough for now. I'll get around to responding to Mr. Glavin's allegations of defamation next time. Keep the faith, people. [/QB]
Personally, I wouldn't give Gavin and gang the satisfaction of responding. The only thing I would respond to is a statement of claim by way of a
statement of defence. Other than that, I can find
more important things to do with my time than
acknowledge a bunch of bullies.
posted by Sheila:
quote:
Personally, I wouldn't give Gavin (sic) and gang the satisfaction of responding.
I hear what you're saying, Sheila and I can appreciate the sentiment. But my motivation in reponding to their allegations has little to do with giving these "bullies", as you so rightly describe Mr. Glavin and his clients, any satisfaction.
I'm far more interested in bringing the truth of my mistreatment to light -and that of my friends Nunas and Findlay. That and my union's deplorable conduct in allowing such mistreatment to go unchallenged for so long.
posted by Sheila:
quote:
Once the
union institutes legal proceeds, all the material filed with the court is public information and can be posted on a website such as MFD.
Well actually, it is I who have instituted a proceeding with the December/03 filing of my DFR Complaint to the LRB (decision still pending).
It's long been my understanding that the Complaint and Response and Reply as well as all the accompanying documentation, once filed are considered to be in the public domain. Anyone may view them, I've been advised. So what would you like to see first? There are literally binders full of documents. A HUGE scan job!
I know the lengthy Table of Contents accompanying my Section 12 application is available somewhere on this web forum. It's a story unto itself.
Labatt's Buster
I wasn't referring to any proceeding you've instituted.
Since the union has not instituted proceedings
in the court as yet, if they did, it would become
public record. So even if the offending material was
remove from a website, material in the court records
that the union may percieve to be offensive and
embarrassing could be posted because it's public
record. The union (union reps) could end up possibly
doing more damage to themselves by suing.
Before they sue, people should consider whether bruised egos are worth spending $50 thousand of the members' money on. In most cases, the courts have ruled that brused egos are worth between $50 and $2,000. That ain't a lot of return on a $50 thousand investment.
Union officials are political animals. They have to have Rhino-like skins to survive. All too often when the guys with the thick skins turn to the hired guns to beat their opponents with the legal system, in my opinion, sometimes it could very well be more about vengance than true injury.
For example, Cliffore Evans, former UFCW Canada Director and Uncle of present-day UFCW Canada Director, Mike Fraser, once said:
quote:
...Certainly there has been and always will be political conflicts and differences of opinion within unions. You have to understand that union leaders operate in an adversarial system and so are conditioned to dealing with conflict. The line of work doesn't attract people who have weak convictions or who are afraid to speak their minds....
Brother Cliff embraced the brewery and distillery workers and welcomed most of them into the venerable UFCW. Are those who did not come to the UFCW's bosom, less conditioned to dealing with conflict? I'm sure those who didn't run to the warmth of the UFCW nest too would not have been people who have weak convictions or who are afraid t speak their minds.
What then is all this talk of suing Labatt Buster?
A union leader with real conviction would take the matter to the general membership in a mail referendum and ask if they are willing to spend tens of thousands to crush a working man.
No reason why you can't post materials related to a proceeding before a tax-payer funded agency (just my way of saying an LRB or other agency).
It wouldn't be the first time that such materials have been posted here. Here's the lowdown on Blasdell vs. UFCW a famous and still ongoing DFR in Ontario.
Looking over this feature (Secret Deals Done Dirt Cheap) I've gotta wonder what the Brewery Winery and Distillery Workers Union Local 300 is pissing and moaning about. Compared to the depth and scathingness of criticism that's been levelled against other mainstream union institutions (that's what I call these so-called "associations of workers"), they've gotten off pretty light so far. Oh well, maybe they want further attention. Guess we'll see.
posted by sheila:
quote:
So even if the offending material was removed from a website, material in the court records that the union may perceive to be offensive and embarrassing could be posted because it's public record. The union (union reps) could end up possibly doing more damage to themselves by suing.
You're probably correct in your assessment, Sheila.
But the point I was making was that, as a result of my instituting proceedings against the Union, a great deal of the type of "embarrassing" material to which you refer is ALREADY part of the public record.
I'm referring to probably hundreds of pages of evidence that, when viewed in the proper context, add up to a resounding condemnation of a union that I maintain has for far too long allowed more than its share of its members to slip through the cracks -and some of its neediest members at that.
I hold one man in particular largely accountable for my perceived abrogation by the union of its duty to protect its members: that man is a former business agent, Rick Sutherland.
A Local 300 History Lesson
Rick Sutherland has been a player in Local 300 and particularly Labatt politics for more than 25 years of his more than three decades of being a brewery worker. He spent some 15 years or so working out of the union's hiring hall/office during which time a number of Local 300 members suffered untold indignities as a result of his disregard for their collective bargaining rights. Dick Findlay, Mike Nunas and me are but three of his casualties.
His union seniority lies one name (i.e. position) behind mine. As fate would have it, he and I started in the industry on the same date in March 1974 -although under remarkably different circumstances, I'm advised.
Currently Mr. Sutherland sits on the Union's executive board as the Union's Secretary Treasurer.
The membership has long been aware of instances where members' grievances were simply discarded by Rick Sutherland -or not even written in the first place, and resulting in the termination of an employee. Mr. Sutherland and the Union have been chastised repeatedly by the membership for his perceived disregard for their mistreatment by their employers.
And I believe Mr. Sutherland's record shows unequivocally that, as in my personal case, and that of Findlay's and Nunas', time and time again, dispute after dispute, the employer has consistently come out ahead -be it Molson, be it Labatt. I don't think I'm alone in my assessment that under Rick Sutherland's aegis the Brewery Workers' Union has suffered setback after setback with little respite for its members.
In my view, the union has for too long been reeling like a punch-drunk fighter from the incessant blows inflicted on it by Labatt and Molson.
But even when the Union has appeared to be winning a round (as evidenced by the heavily favourable December 1999 "Second" Taylor arbitration award in the matter of my two grievances), the result has been disastrous for the membership and for the member in question (i.e. me).
The scheduled closure of Labatt's New Westminster plant is only the most recent (and possibly catastrophic) turn of events suffered by Local 300's membership to date.
My Duty to Speak Out
As a thirty year member of Local 300, I maintain I have the right to comment on my union's conduct and that of its officers, both past and present, as it pertains to any and all such members affected by the decisions of the union's leaders -and moreover, the right to assess blame where I see it.
More importantly, I have a duty to those ill-affected members of my union, to speak out on their behalf. If this makes me out to be a self-appointed conscience for Local 300, well then, so be it -because someone in my union has to assume that role. And though I may suffer from chronic pain and seemingly permanent dysfunction in the muscles of my torso, I'll continue to bear that load.
Believe me Sheila, there's much already in the "public record" Rick Sutherland and the Brewery Workers' Union fear to have examined in the cold, glare of the public spotlight. I'm not convinced Mr. Glavin (who is still relatively new to the scene) is even aware of the extent of the damage that's been done to the membership as a result of Rick Sutherland's misfeasance and the support Sutherland has received from certain members over the years -or perhaps he is, who knows?
The Rick Sutherland Interview - Care for Some Crocodile Tears in your Rye and Seven?
Below is a link to a story and interview with Rick Sutherland as reported in the New Westminster Record following Labatt's announcement of the closing its New Westminster plant last September. Mr. Sutherland is quoted extensively in the story, whining about how his "life is turned upside down" by this seemingly down turn in his fortune.
However, Mr. Sutherland's lamentations are truly pathetic when juxtaposed with the numerous members whose own fortunes and reputations were largely dependent on Rick Sutherland to protect and to salvage -members like Dick Findlay and I whose lives were truly "turned upside down".
http://www.royalcityrecord.com/issues04/092104/news/092104nn2.html
Labatt's Buster
You are correct. Because legal proceeding was
instituted against the union, embarrassing material
has already been posted on the net. Material the
union cannot have removed because it is public
record and any statements made in the material is
consider priviledge no matter how embarrassing and/or offensive the union may view it. Therefore, if the union were to file suit in regards to the supposed defamatory statements, the statements would be repeated in the material filed with the court. Not only would the supposed defamatory statements be repeated in the material filed with the court, you can post the material because it's
public.
The union leaders have too many skelton's in
their closets that can be used as ammo against them in court. I don't think, at least in this case,
that they have any business threatening anyone.
Even if they win, they lose. And if you lose, you win. My rational behind that is that even if they
were to be successful, the potential damage that
could be done to them in court would out weigh
any they might obtain. On the other hand it you lost, you would still win because of the damage you would inflicted on them in court.
Litigation is war. When legal proceedings are instituted it's like a declaration of war. Sometimes when we know that we can't win or were not being allowed to succeed, the next best thing to is inflict as much damage as possible on your opponent so that they think twice about messing with you again.
You make sure that when the battle is over you can
at least walk way with the satisfaction that you
inflicted as much pain and suffering on your
opponent (union) as your opponent (union) inflicted on you.
posted by sheila:
quote:
Sometimes when we know that we can't win or we're not being allowed to succeed, the next best thing to is inflict as much damage as possible on your opponent so that they think twice about messing with you again.
You make sure that when the battle is over you can
at least walk way with the satisfaction that you
inflicted as much pain and suffering on your
opponent (union) as your opponent (union) inflicted on you.
My goodness, I hope I never have to face you in divorce court, Sheila. I'm guessing hair pulling and eye gauging is not out of the question here, either. But you're probably correct in this respect: it's likely best to fight fire with fire.
As well, it's occurred to me that my adversaries have a great deal more to lose in all this than I will ever have.
"When you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose...." - Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone -
posted by weiser:
quote:
Before they sue, people should consider whether bruised egos are worth spending $50 thousand of the members' money on. In most cases, the courts have ruled that bruised egos are worth between $50 and $2,000. That ain't a lot of return on a $50 thousand investment.
Union officials are political animals. They have to have Rhino-like skins to survive. All too often when the guys with the thick skins turn to the hired guns to beat their opponents with the legal system, in my opinion, sometimes it could very well be more about vengance than true injury.
There's undoubtedly much truth in what you say, weiser.
Plus it's always a lot easier when you're throwing around someone else's money -i.e. when it's not coming directly out of your own pocket.
However, I maintain the real motivation for the Brewery Workers' Union's attempt to muzzle someone like me stems from the very real fear of having the extent of its own liability to me exposed and ultimately a finding made.
In my view, it was for that reason that the Union settled my grievances with Labatt in such a surreptitious manner, and why Roy Graham continues to keep the membership in the dark regards same. And it was for that same reason my union agreed to the nullification of my winning arbitration award.
It's the sad reality for any grievor who presents with a disability and claims entitlement to disability benefits -there is the issue of liability for those benefits.
And where there's liability, the one thing a grievor can count on is a circling of the wagons and/or a run for high ground by all the parties likely on the hook for that liability. This unfortunately, includes the grievor's own union.
Thus, a union member in such a position is likely to find not only his employer and his employer's insurer doing everything in their power to attempt to duck the issue of their liability to him -he faces an even greater daunting task of having his own union's liability determined.
That at least, has been my experience.
In my case, Labatt was found to have broken numerous provisions of the collective agreement and was likely to have done so with respect to other disabled employees at Labatt before me (including but not limited to my friend Mike Nunas) for the better part of three decades prior to the filing of my grievances.
That speaks to the extent and depth of the Union's liability.
And yet, Labatt has not been required by the Union to pay any penalty, whatsoever for its longstanding misadministration of Labatt employees' claim for disability benefits. I can only conclude that this is because of the very real likelihood that the Union would likewise share in the blame for its part in allowing Labatt's continued and prolonged abuse of its employees.
I maintain that conflict of interest has been the biggest major obstacle for me in my decade-long fight for justice.
The bottom line is this: Rick Sutherland for decades had wrongly interpreted a key provision of the collective agreement with respect to eligibility determination -at Labatt's as well as at Molson's and at other plants with identical collective agreement language -all of course, to the great detriment of countless injured and disabled Local 300 members.
Ever since a determination was made by Arbitrator Colin Taylor in December 1999 regards this misinterpretation, the Union has been involved in the suppression of this information from ever coming to the attention of its members.
But Rick Sutherland was wrong, he had been wrong for years and was shown to be wrong. He has yet to demonstrate the courage to come clean with the membership with respect to an error of great magnitude. It appears the one thing Rick Sutherland might have a problem with, it's in admitting his own infallability.
The membership of Local 300 -they've been had. And I'm prepared to keep talking about it until they realize just how badly they've been had -and to whom the responsibility for the Union's greatest blunder rightly belongs.
also posted by weiser:
quote:
A union leader with real conviction would take the matter to the general membership in a mail referendum and ask if they are willing to spend tens of thousands to crush a working man.
Make that, "a still disabledworking man", weiser my friend.
also posted by weiser:
quote:
...Certainly there has been and always will be political conflicts and differences of opinion within unions. You have to understand that union leaders operate in an adversarial system...
As well, it should be understood that my relationship with my union is an admittedly "adversarial" one -it has been since the filing of my DFR some 13 months ago.
Should I be required to offer my union and its officers a feigned obsequiousness?
From my perspective it would be hypocritical to do so and moreover, it would be wrong to stand by in impassive silence, particularly in the face of Local 300's longstanding persecution of my friend Dick Findlay.
quote:
posted by Labatt Buster:
[QB]posted by sheila: [QUOTE]Sometimes when we know that we can't win or we're not being allowed to succeed, the next best thing to is inflict as much damage as possible on your opponent so that they think twice about messing with you again.
You make sure that when the battle is over you can
at least walk way with the satisfaction that you
inflicted as much pain and suffering on your
opponent (union) as your opponent (union) inflicted on you.
My goodness, I hope I never have to face you in divorce court, Sheila. I'm guessing hair pulling and eye gauging is not out of the question here, either. But you're probably correct in this respect: it's likely best to fight fire with fire.
Labatt's Buster actually I consider myself a fair
and reasonable person even in a dispute. But the
fact of the matter is that you're dealing with
individuals (union reps) who are not fair and reasonable. They're not interested in resolving
the matter fairly. They are only interested in escaping accountabllity and to do that, escape
accountability they will use every dirty underhanded tactic to undermine your ability to
obtain a remedy for their treacherous acts. When
they escape accountability it means that they have
continued to successfully screw you out of your
rights.
They have absolutely no sympathy for you and the pain and suffering that they have caused you. They
don't care. Unless they show signs of wanting to
resolve the dispute in a fair and equitable manner, you show them as much sympathy as they have shown you, which is zero.