POST #1 – CIRB HACKEL ET AL VS THE UTU – AN OVERVIEW

Although there was much testimony (over a period of 18 months) I have decided to commence my first two posts by a reviewing, in brief, the summation of each party.

Thereafter I will go through the evidence as it relates to the reality of the situation. I believe by doing it this way viewers will be able to keep in context the many events which motivated the Deposed and the UTU to take the action they did and how it impacted on the protection of the Canadian membership.

Preamble

To best understand the arguments presented to the CIRB (by both parties) in final summation I have framed the situation as follows;

Within the “Labour Universe” there are two “worlds”

The “world” of the Bargaining Agent (UTU).
The “world” of the Canada Labour Code (The Deposed).

(1) In spite of or (2) in consideration of the reality of what has transpired over the past number of years (which the viewers can decide) the parties framed their respective positions so as to convince the CIRB in which “world” it should review and dispose of the complaint.

In short, if the CIRB finds that at all times the UTU was within its “legal” authority (its world), it will unlikely find in favour of the deposed.

Conversely, if the CIRB finds that the UTU violated the “Code” it will more than likely find in favour of the deposed.

The UTU “World” and Summation

A Bargaining Agent (Union) receives a “bargaining certificate” from the CIRB to be (in Canada) the sole representative of a “bargaining unit” (Members). In granting such a certificate the Union is obligated to conduct itself consistent with the Canada Labour Code (Code).

A Union has a “contract” with its members called a “constitution”. The Union constitution must conform to the “Code”.

It is this “world” that the UTU submits is applicable in the circumstances. The UTU submits that its position is truthful and the CIRB should rely upon it to dismiss the application of the deposed. In other words, the CIRB has no jurisdiction to find in favour of the deposed much less provide the requested relief by the deposed.

The UTU submitted that the deposed are “liars” and “traitors” who “flagrantly” violated Article 85 of the UTU constitution by conducting a strike against CN Rail (without seeking the mandatory assistance of the President) and, as such, the Union was free to take disciplinary action, no matter how severe.

The UTU submitted that at no time did it consider the allegations of dual unionism or monetary impropriety when determining disciplinary action (removal from Office and membership) rather such action was only as the direct result of the violation of Article 85.

The UTU claims that the “customized” process of summarily removing the deposed from Office and Membership on February 19, 2007, without trial, was within the authority of the President. The UTU further submits that an appeal of the deposed, without the UTU having to “prove” the guilt of the deposed was, again, within the authority of the President as provided in the “Savings Clause” of the constitution – Article 38.

The UTU argues that it had to create the unique and unprecedented customized process as Article 74 (trials) of the constitution could not be relied upon to get the desired results as the Local Chairpersons (members of the GCA) were in league with the deposed. Further, because the President could not bring charges against the deposed he had to formalize a process in which he could bring charges and the desired result (removal from Office and Membership).

The UTU asks that the CIRB to dismiss the application of the deposed.

PART 2 – THE DEPOSED SUMMATION NEXT – PLEASE KEEP POSTED.

Rex Beatty