Court Dumps UFCW Gag Order Demand
Court Dumps UFCW Gag Order Demand: "No Talk" Agreement Null and Void
A long campaign by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union to muzzle - forever - one of its former employees has ended in a crushing defeat for the union that calls itself "Your Voice at Work".
A decision issued yesterday by the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a request by the UFCW International Union for a permanent injunction which, if granted, would prevent former UFCW International Representative Hugh Finnamore, from ever speaking about the union publicly again.
In requesting the injunction, the UFCW relied upon a number of clauses in a grievance settlement that Finnamore signed in 1995. The settlement brought to an end a wrongful dismissal grievance he filed earlier that year and a number of lawsuits that he filed prior to his termination regarding suspicious transactions involving a UFCW local union's Education and Training Fund. Finnamore filed the lawsuits after his efforts to alert senior UFCW officials about his concerns in relation to the transactions fell flat.
Five years later Finnamore began writing about union reform in the major media, the UFCW commenced a lawsuit alleging, among other things, a breach of the 1995 agreement.
Yesterday's Supreme Court decision found that the 1995 agreement was dead even before the lawsuit was launched. What killed it? A peevish letter to Finnamore in May 2001 from current UFCW Canada Director Michael Fraser.
Apart from setting out the Court's decision, the judgment also provides chilling details about the events leading up to and following Finnamore's dismissal and the activities that prompted the UFCW to seek the extensive gag order in 2001.
Reasons for Judgment in UFCW International v. Finnamore et al
More about UFCW v. Finnamore on MFD:
I was just rereading these threads (after having read through the trial transcript) and found my comments from back in 03...how telling they were:
quote:
When i first started visiting MFD, i read volumes. I wanted to see what the site was really about. I was stunned as i read allegations of election fraud, backroom deals and manipulations beyond compare.
Something didn't compute. I had been talking and listening to the Canadian officers for years, and the stories they told were of unbridled success. While i had spent a lifetime sorting out both sides of an issue, i knew the variances couldn't be this great.
Someone was lieing. I always felt the truth was a good thing. I asked members to be honest with me when dealing with an issue. Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't. The funny thing was, we usually got there, one way or the other.
This lawsuit against HJ was remarkable to witness. Apparently, the boys had had enough, and they were calling him out. Those of us who have challenged the structure before, recognise how difficult it is to get them to respond. Their best weapon is to ignore and shun those who demand answers. For some reason, they feel they are above it all.
Not so after this decision. All will be held up to the light of day. Mainstreamers will have to put up or shut up. It is strange to see them pursue this, but given Hugh's anticipation over the ordeal, i have a strange feeling i know where the truth lies.
It has been stated, "the truth will set you free." One can only imagine, after the trial, who will be floating and who will be sinking. Should be a great show, and once and for all, end the question of who's lieing and who is telling the truth.
Congrats Hugh on the vindication; but something still doesn't compute and i would hope you would comment or respond. You charged them (whitlock et al) with a number of acts that were in violation of the by-laws and perhaps even federal statutes. In kind, they charged you with fraud, embezzlement and other ugly stuff.
Were their charges against you more trumped up efforts to substantiate the termination? All of the interactions you and i have had have been straight up and i always found you to be a morally sound fellow...so what gives...what is the rest of the story.
One last thing, as a member of the UFCW at the time of this lawsuit, i don't remember giving this attorney my approval of him suing you. Seems to me they brought this suit against you on behalf of all the 1.4 million members; how arrogant is that?
I found substantial improprieties regarding disbursements of local union funds. The president of that local bought a $1 million building and used my name to do so. His term of office had expired well over a year before I complained, and no elections were forthcoming. I could go on.
I reported these things to the International and the shit hit the fan. It was then that I realized that I had to do something. I was kicked out of the office and had my belongings seized. I sued for their return. I sued for an audit of the fund.
I was shipped to Alberta and kept there for three months with next to nothing to do. When they realized that I kinda liked Calgary, they made me move the the Howard Johnson in Edmonton. I spent a month reading newspapers on Jasper Avenue and wandering around the West Edmonton Mall because there was little else for me to do. I was then shipped to Nova Scotia. I was visited by Doug O'Halloran and asked what it would take to back off. I said "Gib's head on a platter might be a good start." He smirked and left town. Abour an hour later I got a call to buy a one-way ticket to Montreal. I was to meet Tom Kukovica and Watts at the Dor Val Hilton. I did and when I met Kukovica, I was told I was fired.
Were the allegations trumped up? You bet. Their allegations are cause for termination with no notice and no pay. However, they paid me a whack of dough, as you'll see in the decision, and O'Halloran paid me many thousands more delivered in a brown paper bag. In return, I gave him the plastic garbage bag that I fished from the Local's garbage dumpster. The local promptly bought a shredder and O'Halloran and his pal spent the night shredding.
You'll notice that the court decision didn't deal with a lot of the other substantive arguments. Some of them might leave the decision open to appeal. By limiting it to Mike's stupid letter, the decision will stand.
This story ain't over yet. The CCWIPP shit is chapter two. Lawyers are holding a whack of evidence. Stay tuned.
Oh and BTW, Watts knows what's best for you, so there was really no need to ask. Dority gave him the right to represent all UFCW members a couple of weeks before he high-tailed it out of DC.
I must say that I am very happy for Hugh and absolutely thrilled at this outcome.
As a colleague of his, I have followed with a sense of growing revulsion the UFCW's campaign to silence him from the time that it began in late 2000.
The demand for a permanent injunction that would restrain him from, among other things, "contacting UFCW members" (which would include indirect contact through media articles and Internet postings) was only a part of it.
The tactics that have been employed against him by the UFCW outside of the judicial arena during the past 5 years or so have been truly galling.
When I first met Hugh (online) in the fall of 2000 and became familiar with his story, I was struck by the parallels between his experiences and those of Jeffrey Wygand, the tobacco industry executive whose departure-from-the-fold was the subject of the the 1999 film The Insider (a really excellent movie and one that I would highly recommend to anyone who is - or is anticipating becoming - a consciencious objector to institutional corruption).
As time passed, however, I would be surprised again and again at the depths to which officials of this union were prepared to stoop to shut him up. I won't go into the details but suffice it to say that it's been dirty and personal.
For these reasons, the Court's decision is a particularly welcome development. Not only does it end the end an especially vindicative effort to impose enormous restrictions on his civil liberties but the decision is, in itself, a sort of poetic justice.
It sets out in detail the events that led up to his termination and events that led up to the demand for the gag order. (Anyone reading the sequence of events can't but conclude that he was fired, on the basis of a bunch of bogus allegations, after raising serious issues related to financial irregularities involving a local training and education fund). It does so in a document that will be endure for generations to come - a legal judgment that will be reported in law journals and relied upon in other court cases. This information seems to be exactly what the UFCW did not want released by Finnamore - ever. Now it is out there forever. Good on them.
What makes the victory even sweeter is that they have themselves to thank for it all. The petulant, childish letter from Michael Fraser (which essentially translates into "The deal's off because we want to smear you") speaks volumes about the motivations and mindset of the UFCW leadership (can someone please explain what is a "tissue of factiods"?). Peevish, arrogant, vindictive, not very bright are just a few descriptors that come to mind.
It is really an awful thing to have to live for a number of years with the possibility that your democratic rights will be permanently suspended because a bunch of vindictive shmoes, with nearly unlimited resources, want it that way.
The successful end to Hugh's courtroom drama is an inspiration to the rest of us and proof positive that the people can triumph over the institution, the good guys can win, the underdogs can come out on top and that, the resources we do have can be all we really need.
Thanks Hugh. It's a great day for free speech.
"tissue of factoids" is a result too much time spent watching CNN and possible brain damage. Hilarious.
What's the story on the Peter Warren audio? It says that it was posted at MFD. I'm assuming that it was removed due to this case.
So when do I get my fix?
quote:
posted by press:
What's the story on the Peter Warren audio? It says that it was posted at MFD. I'm assuming that it was removed due to this case.
So when do I get my fix?
We're going to dig it up Press. It was posted early in 2001 (long before any of the lawsuits - against Finnamore or against MFD) were filed. It was taken down, if I recall correctly, because it was a big sound file that stretched our resources.
It was a good interview though and well worth revisiting.
Thanks for the response Hugh, but after years in the trenches i've come to understand there are two sides to every story. I think it only fitting we invite the "other side" to come to MFD and let it all hang out.
After all, that idiot letter written by Fraser (do you think he actually put pen to paper, or was there an attorney that wrote it for him?) said they were going to put the boots to you...or whatever that graphic discription was of beating you into submission.
So here it is boys, i am inviting you to show your intestinal fortitude (balls) plunk your big old butts in a chair with the keyboard blazin and give us the straight skinny on this bastardly Finnamore character. No more mister nice guy, give us the dope; just because he exposed your sneaky fucking ways and dirty ass dealings should be reason enough for you to get even...cause given the ruling by the judge, it sure looks like ya all got bitch slapped pretty good.
"Tissue of factoids"...Indeed. Do tell Mike, what the fuck were you talking about? I would encourage you as a high muckity muck with the international you either leave the writing to Danier or stick to terms that won't make you look like a putz.
Feels like I'm reading the final chapter of a book.
UFCW
The finalDAZE
Congrats Hugh
quote:
Finnamore agrees to withdraw from the election of officers of UFCW Local 777 effective October 27, 1995.
Looks like they were afraid that he might get elected to office and once he did that, he'd have full access to the books.
When you have access to the books, you get to see where the money went.
quote:
posted by sleK:
Hugh Finnamore on the Peter Warren show (windows media)
I just finished listening to the informative and entertaining Warren show with Finnamore guesting. And throughout the whole thing, and now as I type... I'm feeling pissed off and cheated. Cheated in the sense that this discussion is the type of thing that some assholes try (tried) their best to silence... on my behalf. I'll take this over that stupid UFCW Wal-mart video anyday.
My vote goes to having it permanently attached to the front page (I'll donate). Fuck those that have issues with the content. Force them to look in the mirror and see how butt-ugly they are.
Do any of you think that the UFCW will now comply with his Demand for Discovery of Documents?
quote:
Do any of you think that the UFCW will now comply with his Demand for Discovery of Documents?
Yeah, when pigs fly coach.
Congrats HJ and thanks for the visual.
The word out here is that poor Mike was so agrivated by the lack of respect that he had no option but to tell Finnamore what for.
That aside, "Tissue of Factoid" is now our favourite phrase of the day.
quote:
That aside, "Tissue of Factoid" is now our favourite phrase of the day.
I'm reluctant to use the term. I'm never sure when to use the toilet tissue factoid tense or when to use the kleenex tissue factoid tense - it's very confusing.
You know the more I read this thread (win) the more optimistic I become. It's a small step for man and a giant kick in the ass for the perpetrators.
quote:
posted by siggy:
I'm reluctant to use the term. I'm never sure when to use the toilet tissue factoid tense or when to use the kleenex tissue factoid tense - it's very confusing.
Watch yourself siggy. First remember that 'Kleenex' is copyrighted and you don't need an anal lawyer from Kimberly-Clark coming after you. Deal with those anal UFCW ones first. Hehe... I said 'anal' and 'UFCW' together! Yup, the boys are getting the runs. Get 'em 3-ply! Nothing but the best for the good guys.
Lovely imagery.
In order to clear up MFD readers' confusion (except for Mikey- his confusion might be a genetic flaw) about the 'tissue of factoids' statement, let's study it (at least the factoid part)...
one factoid definition
quote:
factoid -- An invented fact that is taken to be true because of its appearance in print. Through persistent misuse, a new meaning is taking over: a brief news item that is factual but usually trivial. Either avoid the word or be sure to convey which meaning is intended.
definition and history of factoid
So Mike was influenced by a combination of CNN and probably the only book he has ever read in his life.
quote:
A 'factlet' is a fact that is tiny and trivial, and also correct.
Go ahead Mike. My gift to you. When you get around to updating that director's welcome and depressing pic... be the first to use FACTLET. We've given you the clear definition. Redeem yourself!!
Thanks press, I hereby retract the word kleenex.
Question: would a tissue of factoid be bigger or smaller than a factlet?
quote:
posted by siggy:
Question: would a tissue of factoid be bigger or smaller than a factlet?
Well obviously the cotton-swab of factlets is smaller in size than a piece of tissue of factoids...
but it's sturdier and packs more wipe.
I think the cotton swab factlet is in the same family as the cottonball factoid. The cottonball factoid and tissue of factoid are interchangeable but only with the one ply. Anyone know how many swabs in a tissue of factoid?
quote:
posted by siggy:
Anyone know how many swabs in a tissue of factoid?
Is that one of those philosophical questions? Like how many angels can dance on the head of pin? Is this that on a pinhead?
Oh well, I must say that I've been out scouring supermarket shelves for the past few days but there doesn't seem to be any factoid tissue to be found. I think I'll call Loblaws corporate office tomorrow and ask if they're expecting a shipment any time soon. Wonder if they'll transfer my call to UFCW Canada headquarters. Maybe I'll get to speak to Team Factoid. Wouldn't that be an honour? I hear their moto is "Go easy on us. We're bustin' out all over."
I should stop before I get carried away. There's just so much comedic potential in this.
Seriously, HJF's big win is such good news on so many levels. I'm still jumping up and down.
quote:
posted by siggy:
I Anyone know how many swabs in a tissue of factoid?
Have no idea! However, one may want to ask that question to any union president.
Imagine the tissue a union president or an executive member uses?
Snot nose and shit!
quote:
Is that one of those philosophical questions?
You say philosophical I say fillasockable, let's call the whole thing odd. I'm still grappling with the fact my esteemed ufcw canadian director mikey thought up "tissue of factoids" and then put it in writing.
quote:
We have for some time felt released from the 1995 agreement
because of your public violations of it. The so-called facts you have
relied on are not facts. They are a tissue of factoids. They are wrong
and false, and have been obsessively intended by you to have a
maximum negative effect in undermining the character, credit and
reputation of the UFCW.
I can't imagine anyone who has done as much "to undermine the character, credit and reputation of the UFCW" as Factoid Boy himself. His pissy letter really says it all doesn't it? Oh the half-witted arrogance of the Mr. Fraser. It's reminiscent of other not-so-great leaders of our era. I think I will send Mikey a copy of My Pet Goat.
