At 09:30 hours on March 31st, 2008, the Federal Court of Appeal Canada commenced the hearing into Canadian National Railway’s (CN) Judicial Review Application.
As most of you know CN filed a complaint against the General Chairpersons to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) claiming that the strike notice was invalid and any strike by the membership would also be invalid.
The UTU International supported CN’s complaint. CN sought considerable remedies against the General Chairpersons but strangely no damages or relief against the UTU International.
As you are no doubt aware on February 19th, 2007, the CIRB rejected the position of CN and the UTU International saying that the conduct and decisions of the General Chairpersons were in compliance with the Canada Labour Code; AT ALL TIMES.
The Court Hearing
The Respondents (the General Chairpersons) were represented by M. Church of the Law firm of Caley/Wray (Rex Beatty and many other UTU GCA representatives were in attendance in support of the named Respondents).
The Applicant CN Rail sent its two most Senior Counsel. The UTU International sent two Legal Counsel.
Mr. Church raised a preliminary matter advising the Justices that, in the opinion of the Respondents, the issue before the Court was now “moot”, this given everything that happened after the CIRB ruled on February 19th including the Final Offer Selection Process (FOS) which was ruled in favour of CN. As you know CN and the UTU International kept your GCA’s out of the process despite their efforts to help and participate in such. We argued that there were no good reasons to continue with CN’s fight against the Canadian CN - GCAs any further.
The point; why was CN and the UTU International so insistent on continuing this case against us (especially when considering the cost to do so).
The Decision
The Court, in a unanimous decision, after deliberating for only 20 minutes, ruled from the bench in our favour.
The Application for Judicial Review from CN Rail was dismissed by the Court.
Other Comments
More to follow once I return to Sault Ste. Marie – I will keep you posted.
Rex Beatty
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
THINGS TO COME
I will be leaving early tomorrow morning (March 30th) for Toronto to attend the Judicial Review on Monday. As earlier stated, I will hopefully have a post after the presentatations are made to the Court.
In addition, Guy Scarrow will be in Cleveland representing GO-105 in regards to the appeal against UTU President Futhey (April 1st). I have a copy of the "written" brief that Guy will be presenting to the UTU Board of Directors and I will post once the argument is made.
Further, with respect to my personal complaint against CN Rail, I have submitted additional arguments given the lates activities of both CN and the UTU International. It is my intent to post this information upon my return from Toronto.
Please keep posted.
Rex Beatty
In addition, Guy Scarrow will be in Cleveland representing GO-105 in regards to the appeal against UTU President Futhey (April 1st). I have a copy of the "written" brief that Guy will be presenting to the UTU Board of Directors and I will post once the argument is made.
Further, with respect to my personal complaint against CN Rail, I have submitted additional arguments given the lates activities of both CN and the UTU International. It is my intent to post this information upon my return from Toronto.
Please keep posted.
Rex Beatty
Thursday, March 27, 2008
RESPONSE TO EMAILS
I have received a number of emails since establishing my blog and have attempted to respond to each and every one.
Having said this, I was recently advised that, although a "notification" of a reply from me was received by the sender, no text was displayed.
For anyone that has emailed this site and did not receive a "text" response, please accept my apology.
Anyone who did not recieve a "text" response from me please advise by sending another email.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
Having said this, I was recently advised that, although a "notification" of a reply from me was received by the sender, no text was displayed.
For anyone that has emailed this site and did not receive a "text" response, please accept my apology.
Anyone who did not recieve a "text" response from me please advise by sending another email.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
UPDATE: MARCH 31ST – JUDICIAL REVIEW – DECISION OF THE CIRB – LEGAL STRIKE
I will be traveling to Toronto shortly to attend the hearing on CN Rail’s Judicial Review application, this to be heard on March 31st.
As you may be aware on February 19th, 2007, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) ruled that the strike initiated by the former Union Negotiating Team, resulting from a 96% membership strike mandate, was legal under the Canada Labour Code (the Board’s written decision was issued March 2nd, 2007).
CN Rail subsequently appealed the decision of the CIRB by way of a Judicial Review (JR) application.
The positions of all parties have been previously sent to the “Court” by way of “factums”. The Court will now address the issue(s) raised by the parties.
My view and summary of the respective parties’ positions are;
1. The Respondents (the General Chairpersons – and the Canadian Membership) will be represented by M. Church of CaleyWray. – The position of the Respondents is to have the “Court” dismiss CN Rail’s (and the UTU International’s) arguments – in other words, the Respondents position is to persuade the “Court” to let the CIRB decision stand.
2. CN Rail will be represented by their Counsel – essentially requesting that the “Court” take issue with the CIRB decision – in other words, CN Rail’s position is to have the “Court” dismiss the decision of the CIRB.
The UTU International, represented by Brian Shell, - will, as an Intervener – request the “Court” to take issue with the CIRB decision – in other words, as with CN Rail, the UTU International’s position is to have the “Courts” dismiss the decision of the CIRB.
FURTHER UPDATES:
It is my intentions to immediately post the results of the hearing March 31st, if the decision is rendered on that day.
I expect that the hearing will take most of the day so any posts will most likely not be available until later in the evening of March 31st.
Rex Beatty
As you may be aware on February 19th, 2007, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) ruled that the strike initiated by the former Union Negotiating Team, resulting from a 96% membership strike mandate, was legal under the Canada Labour Code (the Board’s written decision was issued March 2nd, 2007).
CN Rail subsequently appealed the decision of the CIRB by way of a Judicial Review (JR) application.
The positions of all parties have been previously sent to the “Court” by way of “factums”. The Court will now address the issue(s) raised by the parties.
My view and summary of the respective parties’ positions are;
1. The Respondents (the General Chairpersons – and the Canadian Membership) will be represented by M. Church of CaleyWray. – The position of the Respondents is to have the “Court” dismiss CN Rail’s (and the UTU International’s) arguments – in other words, the Respondents position is to persuade the “Court” to let the CIRB decision stand.
2. CN Rail will be represented by their Counsel – essentially requesting that the “Court” take issue with the CIRB decision – in other words, CN Rail’s position is to have the “Court” dismiss the decision of the CIRB.
The UTU International, represented by Brian Shell, - will, as an Intervener – request the “Court” to take issue with the CIRB decision – in other words, as with CN Rail, the UTU International’s position is to have the “Courts” dismiss the decision of the CIRB.
FURTHER UPDATES:
It is my intentions to immediately post the results of the hearing March 31st, if the decision is rendered on that day.
I expect that the hearing will take most of the day so any posts will most likely not be available until later in the evening of March 31st.
Rex Beatty
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
VIDEO OF THE CANADIANS AT THE UTU CONVENTION
I have just now received a copy of a "disk" that contains the video of the Canadians at the UTU International Convention (August 2007). The video is some 2 hours and 20 minutes long and it is obvious that it took a great deal of time and energy to put it together. I am waiting for authorization to post and give credit to the "main" person who took the time and energy to make it happen.
It is my intent, if at all possible, to have the whole video available for view on this site. I am getting mixed advice as to whether or not it is possible. If anybody has any suggestions on how to make this happen please email this site at;
http://www.fortheworkers@hotmail.com
Please keep posted.
Rex Beatty
It is my intent, if at all possible, to have the whole video available for view on this site. I am getting mixed advice as to whether or not it is possible. If anybody has any suggestions on how to make this happen please email this site at;
http://www.fortheworkers@hotmail.com
Please keep posted.
Rex Beatty
Thursday, March 20, 2008
RIGHT TO REFUSE – A CASE STUDY
PLEASE NOTE: THE RIGHT TO REFUSE UNSAFE WORK IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT UNDER THE CODE AND EACH CASE IS DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERITS. THE FOLLOWING IS PROVIDED FOR INORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
_______________________________________________________________________
The following is a synopsis of a decision of the “Canada Appeals Office on Occupational Health and Safety”;
The appeal was made in regards to a decision rendered by HSO Helen Kosola on April 2nd, 2003 following the employee’s refusal to work.
The work refusal (a CP Rail Crew) was based on the concern of being involved in an accident while being transported by taxi in inclement weather conditions from Thunder Bay Ontario to Ignace Ontario, a distance of some 235 km.
It was the Train Crew’s view that traveling by taxi, under the weather conditions present, put them in peril.
THE INITIAL DECISION:
In her decision to reject the position of the Train Crew, HSO Helen Kosola, the investigation safety officer, at the time, relied, in part, on the following;
“A public highway is not a work place under the control of an employer.
The employer does not control the weather conditions to which an employee may be exposed.
The Ontario Provincial Police have the authority to close the highway under extreme weather conditions.
Environment Canada described the weather in Thunder Bay at the time of the refusal as, partial fog depositing ice.
There was no weather advisory from the OPP cautioning against travel.
Weather conditions in Thunder Bay at the time of the investigation were cloudy with some clear breaks.
The employer consults with Environment Canada weather watch before making a decision to dispatch a crew.
Information gathered that day by the employer was that the highway was open and weather conditions would not preclude travel by car
If necessary, employees are able to make radio contact en route.
The taxi driver had eighteen months experience as a taxi driver.
The taxi company uses more experienced drivers as well as newer vehicles to do the highway runs. The taxi Company takes into consideration the number of hours the driver has already been on shift.”
THE APPEAL:
The Train Crew, represented by Mr. Mike Church (of the law firm of CaleyWray) appealed the decision of HSO Helen Kosola.
Mr. Church (in referencing various jurisprudence) argued among other things, that the safety Officer did not take into consideration that any potential hazard or condition or future activity can constitute danger and,
The safety Officer did not find a CP official policy on the transportation of employees during various weather conditions.
Mr. Church held that;
“while the risk of being injured in an accident is present anytime an employee travels by car, that risk is normally low. However, when a car is required to travel through inclement weather, the risk of an accident is significantly increased. Inclement weather may include freezing rain, dense fog, or heavy snow”
THE DECISION:
Based on the testimony of the two employees the appeals Officer found that;
“the employees were traveling by taxi on an unlit road;
the headlights on the taxi were improperly aligned, therefore reducing visibility;
because of the fog and improper alignment of the taxi’s headlights they could not see the median line;
there was very heavy fog and freezing rain present;
visibility was impaired to the point of being reduced to 20 to 30 feet or less;
there was a near collision with a transport truck and the taxi; and finally,
because of the poor visibility, the taxi driver had difficulty to orient himself and find a safe place to turn around”
As a result of “these facts” the appeals Officer determined;
“the danger can be prospective to the extent that the hazard or condition or activity is capable of coming into being, not as a mere possibility but as a reasonable one, and that the action is reasonably expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard can be corrected or the activity altered.”
On that basis the appeals Officer stated;
“a potential hazard could reasonably happen, the hazard being that of a traffic accident and
the employee could reasonably be exposed to it as the employees are present in the vehicle being driven in the inclement weather;
It could reasonably be expected that this hazard (a traffic accident), would cause injury or illness to the employee; and finally,
It is reasonable to believe that the injury or illness would occur before the hazard or condition could be corrected or the activity altered.”
The appeals Officer therefore concluded;
“CP employees are required to travel by road in inclement weather conditions exposing them to the potential hazard of an accident which can reasonably be expected to cause injury before the conditions are corrected or the activity altered.”
In reaching the above conclusion the appeals Officer issued the following directives to CP;
“Therefore, you are HEREBY DIRECTED, pursuant to paragraph 145(2)(a) of the Code, to immediately take measures to correct the hazard, condition or alter the activity that constitutes a danger.
You are HEREBY FUTHER DIRECTED, pursuant to paragraph 145(2)(b) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, to immediately cease to have employees travel by road during inclement weather conditions, until this direction has been complied with. The employer is to report to health and safety officer Kosola or another health and safety officer when he is in compliance with this direction.”
MY VIEW:
As earlier stated the right to refuse is an individual right under the Code and each case must be viewed on its own merits.
The above case clearly accepts the principle that;
The right to refuse unsafe work is not restricted to “present” danger but may also include reasonable expectations that there is a future risk of “danger” in regards to the employer’s work directives; this includes being directed by the employer to taxi in inclement weather.
Rex Beatty
_______________________________________________________________________
The following is a synopsis of a decision of the “Canada Appeals Office on Occupational Health and Safety”;
The appeal was made in regards to a decision rendered by HSO Helen Kosola on April 2nd, 2003 following the employee’s refusal to work.
The work refusal (a CP Rail Crew) was based on the concern of being involved in an accident while being transported by taxi in inclement weather conditions from Thunder Bay Ontario to Ignace Ontario, a distance of some 235 km.
It was the Train Crew’s view that traveling by taxi, under the weather conditions present, put them in peril.
THE INITIAL DECISION:
In her decision to reject the position of the Train Crew, HSO Helen Kosola, the investigation safety officer, at the time, relied, in part, on the following;
“A public highway is not a work place under the control of an employer.
The employer does not control the weather conditions to which an employee may be exposed.
The Ontario Provincial Police have the authority to close the highway under extreme weather conditions.
Environment Canada described the weather in Thunder Bay at the time of the refusal as, partial fog depositing ice.
There was no weather advisory from the OPP cautioning against travel.
Weather conditions in Thunder Bay at the time of the investigation were cloudy with some clear breaks.
The employer consults with Environment Canada weather watch before making a decision to dispatch a crew.
Information gathered that day by the employer was that the highway was open and weather conditions would not preclude travel by car
If necessary, employees are able to make radio contact en route.
The taxi driver had eighteen months experience as a taxi driver.
The taxi company uses more experienced drivers as well as newer vehicles to do the highway runs. The taxi Company takes into consideration the number of hours the driver has already been on shift.”
THE APPEAL:
The Train Crew, represented by Mr. Mike Church (of the law firm of CaleyWray) appealed the decision of HSO Helen Kosola.
Mr. Church (in referencing various jurisprudence) argued among other things, that the safety Officer did not take into consideration that any potential hazard or condition or future activity can constitute danger and,
The safety Officer did not find a CP official policy on the transportation of employees during various weather conditions.
Mr. Church held that;
“while the risk of being injured in an accident is present anytime an employee travels by car, that risk is normally low. However, when a car is required to travel through inclement weather, the risk of an accident is significantly increased. Inclement weather may include freezing rain, dense fog, or heavy snow”
THE DECISION:
Based on the testimony of the two employees the appeals Officer found that;
“the employees were traveling by taxi on an unlit road;
the headlights on the taxi were improperly aligned, therefore reducing visibility;
because of the fog and improper alignment of the taxi’s headlights they could not see the median line;
there was very heavy fog and freezing rain present;
visibility was impaired to the point of being reduced to 20 to 30 feet or less;
there was a near collision with a transport truck and the taxi; and finally,
because of the poor visibility, the taxi driver had difficulty to orient himself and find a safe place to turn around”
As a result of “these facts” the appeals Officer determined;
“the danger can be prospective to the extent that the hazard or condition or activity is capable of coming into being, not as a mere possibility but as a reasonable one, and that the action is reasonably expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard can be corrected or the activity altered.”
On that basis the appeals Officer stated;
“a potential hazard could reasonably happen, the hazard being that of a traffic accident and
the employee could reasonably be exposed to it as the employees are present in the vehicle being driven in the inclement weather;
It could reasonably be expected that this hazard (a traffic accident), would cause injury or illness to the employee; and finally,
It is reasonable to believe that the injury or illness would occur before the hazard or condition could be corrected or the activity altered.”
The appeals Officer therefore concluded;
“CP employees are required to travel by road in inclement weather conditions exposing them to the potential hazard of an accident which can reasonably be expected to cause injury before the conditions are corrected or the activity altered.”
In reaching the above conclusion the appeals Officer issued the following directives to CP;
“Therefore, you are HEREBY DIRECTED, pursuant to paragraph 145(2)(a) of the Code, to immediately take measures to correct the hazard, condition or alter the activity that constitutes a danger.
You are HEREBY FUTHER DIRECTED, pursuant to paragraph 145(2)(b) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, to immediately cease to have employees travel by road during inclement weather conditions, until this direction has been complied with. The employer is to report to health and safety officer Kosola or another health and safety officer when he is in compliance with this direction.”
MY VIEW:
As earlier stated the right to refuse is an individual right under the Code and each case must be viewed on its own merits.
The above case clearly accepts the principle that;
The right to refuse unsafe work is not restricted to “present” danger but may also include reasonable expectations that there is a future risk of “danger” in regards to the employer’s work directives; this includes being directed by the employer to taxi in inclement weather.
Rex Beatty
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
TCRC MARCH 14TH SUBMISSION TO THE CIRB
As to my earlier post, please be advised that RunningTrades.com has posted the TCRC March 14th, letter to the CIRB.
You can view this letter at;
http://www.runningtrades.com/
Rex Beatty
You can view this letter at;
http://www.runningtrades.com/
Rex Beatty
VIDEO OF MIKE MELYMICK AT THE UTU CONVENTION
By accessing the following internet address you can view Mr. Meylmick and listen to his speeches as presented at the UTU Convention in August of 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYvfD3AXRXE
Rex Beatty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYvfD3AXRXE
Rex Beatty
CN PENSION NEWS
As many of you may be aware a number of Unions are advancing grievances to ad hoc arbitration, this to resovle the outstanding issues affecting our members (early pension etc.).
The UTU, as a result of grievances filed by the former General Chairs, will be at the table and part of the process.
As I was a previously involved in the filing of grievances and on the pension committee, Guy Ethier has asked for my assistance and participation as we proceed to resolve these extremely important matters.
At present the parties will be meeting before the Arbitrator on April 7th (in Montreal) to address certain preliminary matters. Depending on the decision at this meeting (and failing resolution on the substantive matters), we anticipate that dates will be set for arbitration.
As more information becomes available I will advise all concerned.
Rex Beatty
The UTU, as a result of grievances filed by the former General Chairs, will be at the table and part of the process.
As I was a previously involved in the filing of grievances and on the pension committee, Guy Ethier has asked for my assistance and participation as we proceed to resolve these extremely important matters.
At present the parties will be meeting before the Arbitrator on April 7th (in Montreal) to address certain preliminary matters. Depending on the decision at this meeting (and failing resolution on the substantive matters), we anticipate that dates will be set for arbitration.
As more information becomes available I will advise all concerned.
Rex Beatty
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
UPCOMING POSTS
In the very near future I intend to post the following;
1. As earlier indicated, a synopsis of a decision concerning a work refusal, under Part 2 – Section 128 – of the Code, with respect to deadheading by taxi/crew bus in adverse weather conditions.
2. A submission which is anticipated to be filed by certain General Chairpersons to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).
3. Submissions to the CIRB by the TCRC (dated March 14th, 2008) with respect to the representational vote as ordered by the CIRB on December 27th, 2007.
Keep posted for the above and other posts.
Rex Beatty
1. As earlier indicated, a synopsis of a decision concerning a work refusal, under Part 2 – Section 128 – of the Code, with respect to deadheading by taxi/crew bus in adverse weather conditions.
2. A submission which is anticipated to be filed by certain General Chairpersons to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).
3. Submissions to the CIRB by the TCRC (dated March 14th, 2008) with respect to the representational vote as ordered by the CIRB on December 27th, 2007.
Keep posted for the above and other posts.
Rex Beatty
FRONT PAGE COUNTER ACTIVATED
Please note that I have placed a "counter" on the front page to show the hits to this blog (thanks to information emailed to me by a viewer). There is now no need to go into my profile for this purpose.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
Sunday, March 16, 2008
VIDEO - CANADIANS AT THE UTU CONVENTION
It is my understanding that the video of the UTU Convention in Florida has been reduced from the 5 day session to 2 hours and 20 minutes, this to reflect only those portions relating to the Canadians and the Canadian issues.
I think it would be extremely educational for everyone to see this material, so if correct (it does exist) I will try and obtain a copy for this site.
Having said this, I have been advised that it would be extremely difficult to have the full 2 hours and 20 minutes put on at once (any thoughts Andy?). If this is the case I will see if I can, over time, put it all on in portions.
Keep posted for updates.
Rex Beatty
I think it would be extremely educational for everyone to see this material, so if correct (it does exist) I will try and obtain a copy for this site.
Having said this, I have been advised that it would be extremely difficult to have the full 2 hours and 20 minutes put on at once (any thoughts Andy?). If this is the case I will see if I can, over time, put it all on in portions.
Keep posted for updates.
Rex Beatty
Saturday, March 15, 2008
REPEATED REMINDER
When viewing this site please access my "profile" each time so that I may track the hits (the counter is automatic when the profile is accessed).
As a reminder, the Email address to the site (regarding my posts) is;
fortheworkers@hotmail.com
Please note that I will periodically be posting this message.
Rex Beatty
As a reminder, the Email address to the site (regarding my posts) is;
fortheworkers@hotmail.com
Please note that I will periodically be posting this message.
Rex Beatty
Friday, March 14, 2008
THE CONTINUED ATTACKS AGAINST THE CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP
Very shortly the Canadian Membership will learn that Mr. Garth Bates (the present Senior UTU Officer in Canada) will be charged with his Office as UTU Canadian VP.
As many of you may be aware, Garth Bates and Glenn King, agreed to fill the positions of Canadian VP and Alternate VP when the undersigned and Rollie Hackl were denied such positions (this after being voted to such by the Canadian Caucus in Florida). As a result, Garth (and Glenn) had targets on their backs.
Well it didn’t take long, it is now my understanding that Mike Mylmick has filed charges against Garth to the UTU International, in part, for Garth's support of my position at the CIRB, this with respect to my complaint against CN Rail which was initially heard by the Board on February 8th, 2008.
A hearing where the UTU International was represented by Brian Shell and his assistant (to point, Mike Mylmick was not in attendance).
In any event it is likely the charges against Garth will be heard by the UTU Executive Board in April. I predict, unless there is an outcry from the Canadian membership or intervention by the CIRB, Garth will be removed from his Office after the UTU alleges that “fair and impartial” hearing "upheld" the charges thereby requiring Garth's removal (this based on my experience before the same UTU Executive Board).
Garth, if you read this, my sympathy goes out to you and your family and I am truly sorry that your support for me has caused such despicable action to be perpetuated against you. Garth I truly believe the Canadian membership will see these charges for what they are truly are – self-serving and the continued “scorched earth” policy.
What next? Well there has been no alternate Canadian VP to replace Garth (should he be removed). As you may know, Garth stepped into the position of Canadian VP after Glenn King had to vacate.
The General Chairpersons (and others) in Canada, along with Garth, recommended Nelson Beveridge (from Montreal) to fill the position of Alternate VP. Even though history will show that the International has always accepted the recommendations of the Canadians it has not done so as the date of this post (I predict that they won’t this time).
It is my view that the UTU International, in April at the sitting of the UTU Board of Directors, will appoint Robert Sharpe, Kevin Goring or Mike Mylmick etc. (you get the picture).
Rex Beatty
As many of you may be aware, Garth Bates and Glenn King, agreed to fill the positions of Canadian VP and Alternate VP when the undersigned and Rollie Hackl were denied such positions (this after being voted to such by the Canadian Caucus in Florida). As a result, Garth (and Glenn) had targets on their backs.
Well it didn’t take long, it is now my understanding that Mike Mylmick has filed charges against Garth to the UTU International, in part, for Garth's support of my position at the CIRB, this with respect to my complaint against CN Rail which was initially heard by the Board on February 8th, 2008.
A hearing where the UTU International was represented by Brian Shell and his assistant (to point, Mike Mylmick was not in attendance).
In any event it is likely the charges against Garth will be heard by the UTU Executive Board in April. I predict, unless there is an outcry from the Canadian membership or intervention by the CIRB, Garth will be removed from his Office after the UTU alleges that “fair and impartial” hearing "upheld" the charges thereby requiring Garth's removal (this based on my experience before the same UTU Executive Board).
Garth, if you read this, my sympathy goes out to you and your family and I am truly sorry that your support for me has caused such despicable action to be perpetuated against you. Garth I truly believe the Canadian membership will see these charges for what they are truly are – self-serving and the continued “scorched earth” policy.
What next? Well there has been no alternate Canadian VP to replace Garth (should he be removed). As you may know, Garth stepped into the position of Canadian VP after Glenn King had to vacate.
The General Chairpersons (and others) in Canada, along with Garth, recommended Nelson Beveridge (from Montreal) to fill the position of Alternate VP. Even though history will show that the International has always accepted the recommendations of the Canadians it has not done so as the date of this post (I predict that they won’t this time).
It is my view that the UTU International, in April at the sitting of the UTU Board of Directors, will appoint Robert Sharpe, Kevin Goring or Mike Mylmick etc. (you get the picture).
Rex Beatty
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
CHARGES AGAINST UTU PRESIDENT M. FUTHEY TO BE HEARD APRIL 1ST, 2008
BACK-GROUND:
As many of you may be aware, General Chairperson, Guy Ethier, appointed the undersigned as an accredited representative under Article 82 of the Collective Agreement 4.16.
Although CN received notification from Guy Ethier about the appointment the Company refused to recognize the undersigned as an accredited representative. Rather then comply with Article 85 of the Collective Agreement (interpretations) CN Rail seeked the position of the UTU International President.
The President advised that such appointment would be in violation of the UTU Constitution (the undersigned was not a UTU member).
Grievance(s) were filed against CN Rail (violation of Article 82, 85 and a remedy grievance). Additionally an appeal was filed against the UTU President. The essence of the internal appeal was that the President violated Section 37 of the Canada Labour Code (duty of fair represenation) and two, that a Collective Agreement is a binding document under the Canada Labour Code and it cannot be trumped by an internal Union document. In other words, the UTU President was in violation of Canadian Law (the Canada Labour Code).
HEARING DATE:
The General Chairperson was advised that the appeal against the UTU President will be heard on April 1st, 2008, by the UTU Board of Directors.
Rex Beatty
AS A REMINDER, PLEASE REVIEW MY PROFILE AS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN TRACK THE NUMBER OF HITS (THIS WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT KEEPING THE BLOG IS WORTH WHILE) THANKS, REX
As many of you may be aware, General Chairperson, Guy Ethier, appointed the undersigned as an accredited representative under Article 82 of the Collective Agreement 4.16.
Although CN received notification from Guy Ethier about the appointment the Company refused to recognize the undersigned as an accredited representative. Rather then comply with Article 85 of the Collective Agreement (interpretations) CN Rail seeked the position of the UTU International President.
The President advised that such appointment would be in violation of the UTU Constitution (the undersigned was not a UTU member).
Grievance(s) were filed against CN Rail (violation of Article 82, 85 and a remedy grievance). Additionally an appeal was filed against the UTU President. The essence of the internal appeal was that the President violated Section 37 of the Canada Labour Code (duty of fair represenation) and two, that a Collective Agreement is a binding document under the Canada Labour Code and it cannot be trumped by an internal Union document. In other words, the UTU President was in violation of Canadian Law (the Canada Labour Code).
HEARING DATE:
The General Chairperson was advised that the appeal against the UTU President will be heard on April 1st, 2008, by the UTU Board of Directors.
Rex Beatty
AS A REMINDER, PLEASE REVIEW MY PROFILE AS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN TRACK THE NUMBER OF HITS (THIS WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT KEEPING THE BLOG IS WORTH WHILE) THANKS, REX
FORMER GENERAL CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-GENERAL CHAIRPERSON RETAINED
On March 11th, 2008, General Chairperson of GO-105, Mr. Guy Ethier, advised the UTU International President that he had retained the services of the former General Chairperson, Rex Beatty, and the former Vice-General Chairpersons, Jim Robbins and Gary Anderson, on a “as required” basis.
The actions of the General Chairperson are consistent with the “approved” GCA GO-105 Bylaws (approved by former UTU President Boyd) which allows the General Chairperson to retain, as required, both clerical and legal assistance.
The General Chairperson said that he took the action to retain these services for the benefit of the members of the bargaining unit, this given the experience of the individuals involved.
Rex Beatty
The actions of the General Chairperson are consistent with the “approved” GCA GO-105 Bylaws (approved by former UTU President Boyd) which allows the General Chairperson to retain, as required, both clerical and legal assistance.
The General Chairperson said that he took the action to retain these services for the benefit of the members of the bargaining unit, this given the experience of the individuals involved.
Rex Beatty
Sunday, March 9, 2008
FEDERAL PANEL CRITICIZES CN’S “CULTURE OF FEAR”
As reported by the Canadian Press
Ottawa – A panel reviewing Canada’s railway safety is especially critical of Canadian National Railway for its “culture of fear and discipline” in the railway’s safety management plan.
The review, which was launched in December 2006, following several serious rail accidents said “CN Rail’s strict adherence to a rules-based approach focused on disciplinary actions when mistakes were made.
CN has instilled a “culture of fear and discipline” and is counter to an effective safety management system” the report said. “CN needs to acknowledge this openly and take concrete steps to improve.”
Ottawa – A panel reviewing Canada’s railway safety is especially critical of Canadian National Railway for its “culture of fear and discipline” in the railway’s safety management plan.
The review, which was launched in December 2006, following several serious rail accidents said “CN Rail’s strict adherence to a rules-based approach focused on disciplinary actions when mistakes were made.
CN has instilled a “culture of fear and discipline” and is counter to an effective safety management system” the report said. “CN needs to acknowledge this openly and take concrete steps to improve.”
Saturday, March 8, 2008
ARTICLE 51 “REST” – TIED UP EN-ROUTE
During the negotiations of Article 51 the Company (with Union input) provided a list of questions and answers as to application. The letter is referred to as the “January 15th, 1986 letter” and has been memorialized at arbitration.
Therein the following question was asked;
“Q. If Trainmen are replaced and there is sufficient time to deadhead them either to the point for which ordered or to the home terminal (such point to be at the discretion of the Company) before rest booked is due to commence, can they be provided accommodations?
A. No. Trainmen will generally be provided accommodations only in one of two situation: first, if they are not replaced and are, therefore, required to handle the train to the objective terminal when the rest period has expired: and, second when they are replaced but cannot be deadheaded to the point where they will be required by the time rest booked is due to commence.”
My View:
When crews (who gave rest notice) are being replaced or are not required to operate their train once rest has expired, must be deadheaded to the objective terminal if there is sufficient time to do so before rest is due to commence. It is not the Company’s option to hold employee’s (e.g. for punishment for booking rest) in accommodations en-route in these circumstances if the employee can be moved to the destination terminal.
In such case it would be a violation of the Collective Agreement and, in my view, the Remedy Provision may be applicable (a “blatant violation”).
Rex Beatty
Therein the following question was asked;
“Q. If Trainmen are replaced and there is sufficient time to deadhead them either to the point for which ordered or to the home terminal (such point to be at the discretion of the Company) before rest booked is due to commence, can they be provided accommodations?
A. No. Trainmen will generally be provided accommodations only in one of two situation: first, if they are not replaced and are, therefore, required to handle the train to the objective terminal when the rest period has expired: and, second when they are replaced but cannot be deadheaded to the point where they will be required by the time rest booked is due to commence.”
My View:
When crews (who gave rest notice) are being replaced or are not required to operate their train once rest has expired, must be deadheaded to the objective terminal if there is sufficient time to do so before rest is due to commence. It is not the Company’s option to hold employee’s (e.g. for punishment for booking rest) in accommodations en-route in these circumstances if the employee can be moved to the destination terminal.
In such case it would be a violation of the Collective Agreement and, in my view, the Remedy Provision may be applicable (a “blatant violation”).
Rex Beatty
ARTICLE 51 “REST” – TIED UP EN-ROUTE
During the negotiations of Article 51 the Company provided a list of questions and answers as application. The letter is referred to as the “January 15th, 1986” and has been memorialized at arbitration.
Therein the following questioned was asked;
“Q. If Trainmen are replaced and there is sufficient time to deadhead them either to the point for which ordered or to the home terminal (such point to be at the discretion of the Company) before rest booked is due to commence, can they be provided accommodations?
A. No. Trainmen will generally be provided accommodations only in one of two situation: first, if they are not replaced and are, therefore, required to handle the train to the objective terminal when the rest period has expired: and, second when they are replaced but cannot be deadheaded to the point where they will be required by the time rest booked is due to commence.”
My View:
When crews (who gave rest notice) are being replaced or are not required to operate their train once rest has expired, must be deadheaded to the objective terminal if there is sufficient time to do so before rest is due to commence. It is not the Company’s option to hold employee’s (e.g. for punishment for booking rest) in accommodations en-route in these circumstances if the employee can be moved to the destination terminal.
In such case it would be a violation of the Collective Agreement and, in my view, the Remedy Provision may be applicable (if it was a “blatant violation”).
Rex Beatty
Therein the following questioned was asked;
“Q. If Trainmen are replaced and there is sufficient time to deadhead them either to the point for which ordered or to the home terminal (such point to be at the discretion of the Company) before rest booked is due to commence, can they be provided accommodations?
A. No. Trainmen will generally be provided accommodations only in one of two situation: first, if they are not replaced and are, therefore, required to handle the train to the objective terminal when the rest period has expired: and, second when they are replaced but cannot be deadheaded to the point where they will be required by the time rest booked is due to commence.”
My View:
When crews (who gave rest notice) are being replaced or are not required to operate their train once rest has expired, must be deadheaded to the objective terminal if there is sufficient time to do so before rest is due to commence. It is not the Company’s option to hold employee’s (e.g. for punishment for booking rest) in accommodations en-route in these circumstances if the employee can be moved to the destination terminal.
In such case it would be a violation of the Collective Agreement and, in my view, the Remedy Provision may be applicable (if it was a “blatant violation”).
Rex Beatty
Friday, March 7, 2008
UP COMING POSTS
As a result of questions received regarding Article 51 (Rest - Agreement 4.16)I will shortly post my veiws on the Company's assumed right to "tie" employees up en-route" (Road Service).
I will also be giving my views on "employee rights" when directed to proceed by Deadhead (other than by Train - e.g. Taxi) in adverse weather conditions.
Keep posted.
Rex Beatty
I will also be giving my views on "employee rights" when directed to proceed by Deadhead (other than by Train - e.g. Taxi) in adverse weather conditions.
Keep posted.
Rex Beatty
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Email Address Correction
The correct email address (which has now been corrected on my previous post) is;
fortheworkers@hotmail.com
Sorry for an inconvenience.
Rex Beatty
fortheworkers@hotmail.com
Sorry for an inconvenience.
Rex Beatty
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Email address "For the Workers" Blog Site
As to my earlier post, the dedicated email address for this Blog is;
fortheworkers@hotmail.com
To reiterate, this is an email address dedicated to this site. It is not my personal email address. Emails will be reviewed and responded to based on content (relevance to this site), volume of emials received and time committment to respond.
Best Regards,
Rex Beatty
fortheworkers@hotmail.com
To reiterate, this is an email address dedicated to this site. It is not my personal email address. Emails will be reviewed and responded to based on content (relevance to this site), volume of emials received and time committment to respond.
Best Regards,
Rex Beatty
ARTICLE 51 – REST PROVISIONS – COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 4.16
During a recent trip to Belleville I was made aware of the Company’s application of the Rest Provisions contained in Article 51 (Rest). There were two specific issues presented to me;
1. The Company’s interpretation of an “unforeseen circumstance”;
2. Requiring employees to perform service at the destination terminal beyond the time rest is due to commence, this as a result of arriving at the “outer switch” before such rest was due to commence..
As many of you may be aware Article 51 has been the focus of many arbitration awards, a decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board and arbitrations awards filed with the Federal Court of Canada. I will reference some of the decisions/orders and thereafter express my views.
Additionally, I will make available a “flow chart” that was created by the Central UTU Office when I was the active General Chairperson to summarize the application of Article 51. The flow chart was produced for a specific arbitration on Article 51. Please review my next post to obtain this sites' email address.
Although it is my personal position that the information provided to me indicates a blatant violation of Article 51 by the Company viewers are reminded that they are not to take matters into their own hands (resort to self-help action).
The accepted standard of “do now grieve later is still applicable”, this except for the application of the Federal Canada Labour Code – Step 2 – The Right to Refuse Unsafe Work (an individual right based on a specific situation).
As to how to “deal” with the alleged blatant violations I will, at the completion of each overview, provide my thoughts.
Here we go;
1. Unforeseen Circumstances (Yard and Road);
“Ad Hoc Arbitration – M. Picher Arbitrator – date of decision August 13th, 2004”
The Arbitrator, as a result of a grievance filed by UTU Central Region, stated the following;
“On September 28th, 2003, Yard Employee, J. Brant is said to by the Union to have given proper notice of his desire to book rest under the provisions of Article 51 of Collective Agreement 4.16, with such rest to commence at 2100 hours of the same day. The Grievor was held “on duty” until 2200 the same day, 1 hour, beyond the time rest booked was due to commence.
The Arbitrator finds that it is the Company’s responsibility to have Yard Employees “off duty” by the time rest booked is due to commence and confirms the requirements of Article 51.3 which provide that Yard Employees may book rest after nine hours on duty, where the employee has given the designated officer two hours’ notice of his or her desire to book rest…
…This applies in all cases, except where circumstances beyond the Company’s control make this impossible. A number of such circumstances are contained in the sub-paragraph.
And, while such circumstances are not necessarily limited only to the examples cited, the Company cannot rely on situations which do no affects its ability to comply with this requirement as a reason not to relieve trainmen by the time rest booked is due to commence…
…The Arbitrator directs the Company to cease and desist from violating Article 51. The Arbitrator further directs the Company to comply with the provisions of Article 51…” (emphasis added)
My view;
Clearly the Company has been directed to have employees “off duty” by the time rest booked is due to commence, the application of Article 51 applies equally to Road and Yard service.
Unforeseen circumstances do not relieve the Company of responsibility to comply with Article 51 unless such circumstances make it “impossible” to do so.
For example, the Company could not rely upon train failure (derailment or otherwise) where such failure does not prevent them from having the employee in and “off duty” at terminals or at accommodations (Road Service – en-route) by the time rest booked is due to commence.
2. Rest Road – Outer Switch;
“Ad hoc arbitration – M. Picher Arbitrator – Decision August 13th, 2004”
The Arbitrator, as a result of a grievance filed by UTU Central Region, stated the following;
“On October 9th, 2003, Conductor W. Namik gave proper notice of his desire to book rest under the provisions of Article 51 of Collective Agreement 4.16, with such rest to commence at 13:15 hours of the same day. Conductor Namik reached the outer switch of his objective terminal prior to the time rest booked was due to commence but was subsequently directed by the Company to remain on duty an additional 50 minutes beyond the time rest booked was due to commence, to perform work….
…The Arbitrator finds the company violated Article 51 of Agreement 4.16 in the circumstances of this case…
…As provided in a January 15, 1986 internal document clarifying the application of Article 51 (the “1986 implementation) and quoted in CROA 3280:
“”It is incumbent upon the Company to ensure that trainman, who give proper notice of the desire to book rest, are relieved of duty either at a location where accommodations can be provided or at the home terminal or away-from-home terminal by the time rest booked is due to commence, and even then, as soon as possible. In order to make the necessary arrangements to fulfill this requirement, a minimum of three hours’ notice is required””
…The RTC supervisor must make a bona fide and informed assessment of whether the employee should reasonably be able to make it to his or her objective terminal and complete the yarding of his or her train by the time rest booked is due to commence..
…Where the RTC dispatcher or supervisor makes a good faith assessment abut the crew’s ability to reach the objective terminal and to yard the relevant train by the time rest booked is due to commence, the Company will not be hold in violation of the collective agreement merely because that assessment proves inaccurate or where the employee in question does not make a good faith effort to complete his or her assignment consistent with the RTC’s assessment.
For purposes of clarity, it is not sufficient for the Company to merely attempt to have the employee to the outer switch by the time rest booked is due to commence: rather, the supervisor’s or dispatcher’s assessment must include the time it should take for the employee to yard his or her train at the objective terminal.
In making the initial assessment, the Company must include a reasonable estimate of the time that will be needed for yarding the employee’s train. It must ensure as far as reasonably possible, that the employee will be “in and off duty” before his or here scheduled rest begins. If that cannot reasonably be done, arrangements must be made for relief of the employee at the time his or her booked rest is due to commence…
…Once the employee commences yarding his or her train the employee must complete yarding the train before going off duty on rest…
…The Arbitrator, in making such findings and determination, orders and directs the Company to cease and desist from violating Article 51. The Arbitrator further orders and directs the Company to comply with the provisions of Article 51…”
My View;
The Company cannot just rely on a train reaching the “outer switch” in order to breach the time rest is due to commence. The Company would be in violation of the Collective Agreement if it can reasonably be demonstrated that the Company did not attempt to have employees in and “off duty” by the time rest booked is due to commence, taking in the time required to yard the train.
Additional Information:
1. Federal Court of Canada;
On November the Federal Court of Canada certified the filing of the above noted arbitration decisions. Such filing has the effect of making the arbitrators decisions the decisions of the Court. Any breach of these decisions can be advance to the Courts for resolution.
2. The C.I.R.B;
On March 24th, 2005, the CIRB issued a decision that included the blatant violations of Article 51 by the Company. The CIRB, among other things, stated the following;
“(a) declares that the employer has violated section 94(1) of the Code’s provisions as alleged in the union’s complaint with respect to the repeated violations of sections 41 and 51 of the collective agreement;
(b) directs the employer to cease and desist from violating the collective agreement with respect to these provisions;
(c) orders the employer to develop and conduct information and training sessions of all managers and supervisors charged with the interpretation and application of the collective agreements on the proper application of these provisions of the collective agreements;…”
My Conclusion:
It is my personal belief that the Company has and continues to violate Article 51. The options to address these violations are;
Proceed to the Federal Court of Canada for breach of its decisions;
Proceed to the CIRB for breach of its’ orders;
Proceed to arbitration under the Remedy Provision for breach of the continued blatant violation of the Rest Provisions.
I will provide my insight to the General Chairperson as to how he should proceed in addressing these matters.
Best Regards,
Rex Beatty
1. The Company’s interpretation of an “unforeseen circumstance”;
2. Requiring employees to perform service at the destination terminal beyond the time rest is due to commence, this as a result of arriving at the “outer switch” before such rest was due to commence..
As many of you may be aware Article 51 has been the focus of many arbitration awards, a decision by the Canada Industrial Relations Board and arbitrations awards filed with the Federal Court of Canada. I will reference some of the decisions/orders and thereafter express my views.
Additionally, I will make available a “flow chart” that was created by the Central UTU Office when I was the active General Chairperson to summarize the application of Article 51. The flow chart was produced for a specific arbitration on Article 51. Please review my next post to obtain this sites' email address.
Although it is my personal position that the information provided to me indicates a blatant violation of Article 51 by the Company viewers are reminded that they are not to take matters into their own hands (resort to self-help action).
The accepted standard of “do now grieve later is still applicable”, this except for the application of the Federal Canada Labour Code – Step 2 – The Right to Refuse Unsafe Work (an individual right based on a specific situation).
As to how to “deal” with the alleged blatant violations I will, at the completion of each overview, provide my thoughts.
Here we go;
1. Unforeseen Circumstances (Yard and Road);
“Ad Hoc Arbitration – M. Picher Arbitrator – date of decision August 13th, 2004”
The Arbitrator, as a result of a grievance filed by UTU Central Region, stated the following;
“On September 28th, 2003, Yard Employee, J. Brant is said to by the Union to have given proper notice of his desire to book rest under the provisions of Article 51 of Collective Agreement 4.16, with such rest to commence at 2100 hours of the same day. The Grievor was held “on duty” until 2200 the same day, 1 hour, beyond the time rest booked was due to commence.
The Arbitrator finds that it is the Company’s responsibility to have Yard Employees “off duty” by the time rest booked is due to commence and confirms the requirements of Article 51.3 which provide that Yard Employees may book rest after nine hours on duty, where the employee has given the designated officer two hours’ notice of his or her desire to book rest…
…This applies in all cases, except where circumstances beyond the Company’s control make this impossible. A number of such circumstances are contained in the sub-paragraph.
And, while such circumstances are not necessarily limited only to the examples cited, the Company cannot rely on situations which do no affects its ability to comply with this requirement as a reason not to relieve trainmen by the time rest booked is due to commence…
…The Arbitrator directs the Company to cease and desist from violating Article 51. The Arbitrator further directs the Company to comply with the provisions of Article 51…” (emphasis added)
My view;
Clearly the Company has been directed to have employees “off duty” by the time rest booked is due to commence, the application of Article 51 applies equally to Road and Yard service.
Unforeseen circumstances do not relieve the Company of responsibility to comply with Article 51 unless such circumstances make it “impossible” to do so.
For example, the Company could not rely upon train failure (derailment or otherwise) where such failure does not prevent them from having the employee in and “off duty” at terminals or at accommodations (Road Service – en-route) by the time rest booked is due to commence.
2. Rest Road – Outer Switch;
“Ad hoc arbitration – M. Picher Arbitrator – Decision August 13th, 2004”
The Arbitrator, as a result of a grievance filed by UTU Central Region, stated the following;
“On October 9th, 2003, Conductor W. Namik gave proper notice of his desire to book rest under the provisions of Article 51 of Collective Agreement 4.16, with such rest to commence at 13:15 hours of the same day. Conductor Namik reached the outer switch of his objective terminal prior to the time rest booked was due to commence but was subsequently directed by the Company to remain on duty an additional 50 minutes beyond the time rest booked was due to commence, to perform work….
…The Arbitrator finds the company violated Article 51 of Agreement 4.16 in the circumstances of this case…
…As provided in a January 15, 1986 internal document clarifying the application of Article 51 (the “1986 implementation) and quoted in CROA 3280:
“”It is incumbent upon the Company to ensure that trainman, who give proper notice of the desire to book rest, are relieved of duty either at a location where accommodations can be provided or at the home terminal or away-from-home terminal by the time rest booked is due to commence, and even then, as soon as possible. In order to make the necessary arrangements to fulfill this requirement, a minimum of three hours’ notice is required””
…The RTC supervisor must make a bona fide and informed assessment of whether the employee should reasonably be able to make it to his or her objective terminal and complete the yarding of his or her train by the time rest booked is due to commence..
…Where the RTC dispatcher or supervisor makes a good faith assessment abut the crew’s ability to reach the objective terminal and to yard the relevant train by the time rest booked is due to commence, the Company will not be hold in violation of the collective agreement merely because that assessment proves inaccurate or where the employee in question does not make a good faith effort to complete his or her assignment consistent with the RTC’s assessment.
For purposes of clarity, it is not sufficient for the Company to merely attempt to have the employee to the outer switch by the time rest booked is due to commence: rather, the supervisor’s or dispatcher’s assessment must include the time it should take for the employee to yard his or her train at the objective terminal.
In making the initial assessment, the Company must include a reasonable estimate of the time that will be needed for yarding the employee’s train. It must ensure as far as reasonably possible, that the employee will be “in and off duty” before his or here scheduled rest begins. If that cannot reasonably be done, arrangements must be made for relief of the employee at the time his or her booked rest is due to commence…
…Once the employee commences yarding his or her train the employee must complete yarding the train before going off duty on rest…
…The Arbitrator, in making such findings and determination, orders and directs the Company to cease and desist from violating Article 51. The Arbitrator further orders and directs the Company to comply with the provisions of Article 51…”
My View;
The Company cannot just rely on a train reaching the “outer switch” in order to breach the time rest is due to commence. The Company would be in violation of the Collective Agreement if it can reasonably be demonstrated that the Company did not attempt to have employees in and “off duty” by the time rest booked is due to commence, taking in the time required to yard the train.
Additional Information:
1. Federal Court of Canada;
On November the Federal Court of Canada certified the filing of the above noted arbitration decisions. Such filing has the effect of making the arbitrators decisions the decisions of the Court. Any breach of these decisions can be advance to the Courts for resolution.
2. The C.I.R.B;
On March 24th, 2005, the CIRB issued a decision that included the blatant violations of Article 51 by the Company. The CIRB, among other things, stated the following;
“(a) declares that the employer has violated section 94(1) of the Code’s provisions as alleged in the union’s complaint with respect to the repeated violations of sections 41 and 51 of the collective agreement;
(b) directs the employer to cease and desist from violating the collective agreement with respect to these provisions;
(c) orders the employer to develop and conduct information and training sessions of all managers and supervisors charged with the interpretation and application of the collective agreements on the proper application of these provisions of the collective agreements;…”
My Conclusion:
It is my personal belief that the Company has and continues to violate Article 51. The options to address these violations are;
Proceed to the Federal Court of Canada for breach of its decisions;
Proceed to the CIRB for breach of its’ orders;
Proceed to arbitration under the Remedy Provision for breach of the continued blatant violation of the Rest Provisions.
I will provide my insight to the General Chairperson as to how he should proceed in addressing these matters.
Best Regards,
Rex Beatty
Monday, March 3, 2008
Tracking of site "hits"
My site does not have a "viewer numbers" tracking ability. I would appreciate it that everytime you view this site that you link to my "personal profile". It is my understanding that by doing so it will show how many "hits" the site has received. The "hits" are important to decide whether or not to keep the site up and running.
Appreicate you assistance.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
Appreicate you assistance.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
Site improvements update
March 4th, 2008
As this site evolves I expect to provide the following;
A dedicated email address specifically for this site. The address will be used to provide, upon specific individual (email) request, any documentation that is in my possession to which I may be relying upon to advance a specific point(s) of view.
The dedicated email address will also serve as a means of a “question and answer” mechanism based on the information I post. Relevant questions/answers that are of a general interest may subsequently be posted for viewing.
I will attempt to provide information that will assist in dealing with work related problems. For example, I was just in Belleville, Ontario, and was advised of the Company’s application of Article 51 of the 4.16 Agreement (rest provisions). You can expect my views and positions on this matter in the very near future.
Information concerning grievance progression (e.g. Arbitration) will be provided.
Once the dedicated email address is up and running I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements of my site. Please keep in mind that the email address provided was created ONLY for this blog, it is not my personal email address. With respect, please keep in mind that any emails sent that are not related to this site and the information posted will not be responded to or acted upon.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
As this site evolves I expect to provide the following;
A dedicated email address specifically for this site. The address will be used to provide, upon specific individual (email) request, any documentation that is in my possession to which I may be relying upon to advance a specific point(s) of view.
The dedicated email address will also serve as a means of a “question and answer” mechanism based on the information I post. Relevant questions/answers that are of a general interest may subsequently be posted for viewing.
I will attempt to provide information that will assist in dealing with work related problems. For example, I was just in Belleville, Ontario, and was advised of the Company’s application of Article 51 of the 4.16 Agreement (rest provisions). You can expect my views and positions on this matter in the very near future.
Information concerning grievance progression (e.g. Arbitration) will be provided.
Once the dedicated email address is up and running I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements of my site. Please keep in mind that the email address provided was created ONLY for this blog, it is not my personal email address. With respect, please keep in mind that any emails sent that are not related to this site and the information posted will not be responded to or acted upon.
Thanks,
Rex Beatty
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB)
Presently there are a number of cases before the CIRB.
1. An appeal against the UTU regarding the removal of the former General Chairs and Vice-General Chairs (the former Canadian UTU negotiating team).
2. A complaint against CN Rail by Rex Beatty (former General Chairperson).
3. Representation vote between the UTU and the TCRC (Teamsters Canada Rail Conference).
As to the 1st two issues the Board has made it clear that while these matters are being heard there is to be no reporting of evidence presented. The reasons behind this decision are;
a) To ensure the process is not compromised by having those witnesses, who have yet to give evidence, be made aware of previous witness testimony and therefore be influenced by such testimony.
b) To protect the integrity of the process.
c) To allow the Board to do their job without outside interference.
For what its worth, I totally agree with the Board's directives. Please keep in mind that these hearings are open to the public and the above directives are to be observed by everyone in attendance.
Having stated the above it is appropriate (in my view) to advise that the Board recently heard submissions on item one (1) which were completed on Friday February 29th/08. The Complainants have essentially now completed examinations of their witnesses. The next set of hearings will commence at the end of May 2008 where it is anticipated that the UTU will present its case.
On the second (2nd) issue, the matter involving Rex Beatty (complainant) and CN Rail (respondent), preliminary issues are presently before the Board as a result of a "case management meeting" (how to proceed with the complaint). A decision is expected soon.
I have no new information on the UTU/TCRC vote.
Finally, I understand that their are many other issues affecting employees at CN Rail. The purpose of my blog is to keep in touch with my former members by way of information (not necessarily the information content itself).
I have been repeatedly advised that the my former members feel that they are "in the dark" about what is happening with many ongoing issues. I hope, in a small way, that this blog keeps people informed and that it reinforces the unity that I experienced while I was the General Chairperson. I say this as I fully expect that the situation will get better and it is important that we move forward with a common unified goal (effective and responsbile representation for the Canadian membership).
Please keep the faith.
Rex Beatty
1. An appeal against the UTU regarding the removal of the former General Chairs and Vice-General Chairs (the former Canadian UTU negotiating team).
2. A complaint against CN Rail by Rex Beatty (former General Chairperson).
3. Representation vote between the UTU and the TCRC (Teamsters Canada Rail Conference).
As to the 1st two issues the Board has made it clear that while these matters are being heard there is to be no reporting of evidence presented. The reasons behind this decision are;
a) To ensure the process is not compromised by having those witnesses, who have yet to give evidence, be made aware of previous witness testimony and therefore be influenced by such testimony.
b) To protect the integrity of the process.
c) To allow the Board to do their job without outside interference.
For what its worth, I totally agree with the Board's directives. Please keep in mind that these hearings are open to the public and the above directives are to be observed by everyone in attendance.
Having stated the above it is appropriate (in my view) to advise that the Board recently heard submissions on item one (1) which were completed on Friday February 29th/08. The Complainants have essentially now completed examinations of their witnesses. The next set of hearings will commence at the end of May 2008 where it is anticipated that the UTU will present its case.
On the second (2nd) issue, the matter involving Rex Beatty (complainant) and CN Rail (respondent), preliminary issues are presently before the Board as a result of a "case management meeting" (how to proceed with the complaint). A decision is expected soon.
I have no new information on the UTU/TCRC vote.
Finally, I understand that their are many other issues affecting employees at CN Rail. The purpose of my blog is to keep in touch with my former members by way of information (not necessarily the information content itself).
I have been repeatedly advised that the my former members feel that they are "in the dark" about what is happening with many ongoing issues. I hope, in a small way, that this blog keeps people informed and that it reinforces the unity that I experienced while I was the General Chairperson. I say this as I fully expect that the situation will get better and it is important that we move forward with a common unified goal (effective and responsbile representation for the Canadian membership).
Please keep the faith.
Rex Beatty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
