As many of you are aware running trades employees at CN Rail have consistently complained about CN Managers performing their work.
The recent announcements that some Managers are seeking leave to initiate a “class action” law suit against CN Rail, could, if successful, demonstrate what many of you have alleged for some time, Managers doing Bargaining Unit Work in violation of the Canada Labour Code.
In consideration of the above I wish the CN Managers success as they move forward to address the issue of “unpaid overtime”.
Any Manager seeking information on the above initiative should view the following web site;
http://www.unpaidovertime.ca/.
Rex Beatty
Monday, April 14, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
VIDEO OF THE UTU CONVENTION – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On March 18th, 2008, I received the DVDs of the UTU Convention from former General Chairperson, Barry Henry. I would like to personally thank everyone who was involved in editing the DVDs to only the Canadian content. I would especially like to thank Greg Gordon of Kamloops (Local 691).
I would also like to thank Barry Henry (former Gen. Ch.), Larry Olson (former President and VP), Mike Hone (former VP) and Guy Scarrow (former VP) for their continued support of the deposed General Chairpersons, Vice-General Chairpersons and to the Canadian membership.
THANK YOU!!!!
In addition to receiving the DVDs from Barry I also received a cover letter. With permission from Barry I have quoted, below, a portion of his letter which I think is relevant and of interest to the Canadian UTU membership.
Finally, if there is any Local Chairperson from my former GCA that wishes to have a copy of the DVDs (Canadian content) please contact Guy Ethier and we will attempt to provide a copy to each of you.
Rex Beatty
Barry Henry’s Cover Letter, in part;
“The UTU provided Delegates with a 5 disk set of the entire convention. Not many of us wanted to watch a very prolonged and expensive night of praise for paul thompson. For that reason we watched the entire convention and laid out the times that were relevant regarding our Sister and Brother’s appeals before the Delegates as well as the motion regarding Canadian autonomy and elections of our Officers by the People for the People.
Brother Greg Gordon, a Member of Local 691 in Kamloops, British Columbia volunteered his time and expertise to put this video together…
…There were several occasions where our Leaders were mocked, shouted down and treated in a most shabby manner. And, that was from the floor. It is our understanding that secord had security remove our Leaders from the foyer outside the Convention Hall.
When the Delegate from Kamloops, he being one of the 16 wearing a silly hat during Silly Hat Week, started naming all of the Delegates he, and the other silly hatters wanted removed from the convention, that little guy, who was never really elected to any position at any convention, namely paul thompson, should have immediately ruled him out of order and silenced his microphone. But no thompson relied on some guy who was his Parliamentarian, and who obviously does not have a grasp of proper procedure and allowed the crap to continue.
This writer served this Union long enough to recall how we, as Canadians, lobbied and fought at several UTU Conventions in order to gain Canadian autonomy. In other words, we, as Proud Canadians, would vote for our own International Leaders. But, the Delegate from Jasper who sat on the Constitution Committee, urged all delegates to remove that right from the Canadians. He did this at the behest of secord….
…There is but on word that would properly describe this un-Canadian action by these self-serving servants of secord and, that word is SHAME!...
…To the many Delegates who stood up for Justice, including both Canadians and Americans, we salute you! It is just unfortunate that there are not more like them.
May we suggest that, if you have the expertise at the Local level, that you arrange to make more copies available and distribute them to the Membership that you represent.
Better yet, why not call a Special Meeting and share the experience together…”
END
I would also like to thank Barry Henry (former Gen. Ch.), Larry Olson (former President and VP), Mike Hone (former VP) and Guy Scarrow (former VP) for their continued support of the deposed General Chairpersons, Vice-General Chairpersons and to the Canadian membership.
THANK YOU!!!!
In addition to receiving the DVDs from Barry I also received a cover letter. With permission from Barry I have quoted, below, a portion of his letter which I think is relevant and of interest to the Canadian UTU membership.
Finally, if there is any Local Chairperson from my former GCA that wishes to have a copy of the DVDs (Canadian content) please contact Guy Ethier and we will attempt to provide a copy to each of you.
Rex Beatty
Barry Henry’s Cover Letter, in part;
“The UTU provided Delegates with a 5 disk set of the entire convention. Not many of us wanted to watch a very prolonged and expensive night of praise for paul thompson. For that reason we watched the entire convention and laid out the times that were relevant regarding our Sister and Brother’s appeals before the Delegates as well as the motion regarding Canadian autonomy and elections of our Officers by the People for the People.
Brother Greg Gordon, a Member of Local 691 in Kamloops, British Columbia volunteered his time and expertise to put this video together…
…There were several occasions where our Leaders were mocked, shouted down and treated in a most shabby manner. And, that was from the floor. It is our understanding that secord had security remove our Leaders from the foyer outside the Convention Hall.
When the Delegate from Kamloops, he being one of the 16 wearing a silly hat during Silly Hat Week, started naming all of the Delegates he, and the other silly hatters wanted removed from the convention, that little guy, who was never really elected to any position at any convention, namely paul thompson, should have immediately ruled him out of order and silenced his microphone. But no thompson relied on some guy who was his Parliamentarian, and who obviously does not have a grasp of proper procedure and allowed the crap to continue.
This writer served this Union long enough to recall how we, as Canadians, lobbied and fought at several UTU Conventions in order to gain Canadian autonomy. In other words, we, as Proud Canadians, would vote for our own International Leaders. But, the Delegate from Jasper who sat on the Constitution Committee, urged all delegates to remove that right from the Canadians. He did this at the behest of secord….
…There is but on word that would properly describe this un-Canadian action by these self-serving servants of secord and, that word is SHAME!...
…To the many Delegates who stood up for Justice, including both Canadians and Americans, we salute you! It is just unfortunate that there are not more like them.
May we suggest that, if you have the expertise at the Local level, that you arrange to make more copies available and distribute them to the Membership that you represent.
Better yet, why not call a Special Meeting and share the experience together…”
END
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CN PENSION – MEDIATION/ARBITRATION UPDATE
On specific request from the General Chairpersons the undersigned assisted in the mediation/arbitration process with respect to the dispute(s) involving the CN Pension Plan.
The following is the agreed to release from the Unions.
Rex Beatty
“The Unions (CAW, UTU, TCRC and the IBEW) met with CN Rail and Mediator/Arbitrator M. Picher on Monday, April 7th, 2008, in an effort to mediate a settlement regarding the CN Pension. The one day that was scheduled did not allow time to fully explore the issues to the satisfaction of the Mediator/Arbitrator therefore April 24th, 2008, will be utilized to allow for additional mediation.
Failing resolution, the parties have agreed to begin the Arbitration process on April 25th, 2008, for final and binding resolution.
More information will be provided after our next session”
The following is the agreed to release from the Unions.
Rex Beatty
“The Unions (CAW, UTU, TCRC and the IBEW) met with CN Rail and Mediator/Arbitrator M. Picher on Monday, April 7th, 2008, in an effort to mediate a settlement regarding the CN Pension. The one day that was scheduled did not allow time to fully explore the issues to the satisfaction of the Mediator/Arbitrator therefore April 24th, 2008, will be utilized to allow for additional mediation.
Failing resolution, the parties have agreed to begin the Arbitration process on April 25th, 2008, for final and binding resolution.
More information will be provided after our next session”
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
FEDERAL APPEAL COURT CANADA – A REVIEW
NOTE: Please be advised that the following is my personal comments and opinions on my observation as to what transpired at the hearing.
INTRODUCTION:
The hearing into CN Rail’s Application for review of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) decision of February 19th, 2007 (legality of the strike at CN) commenced at 09:30 hours.
CN Rail was represented by two Lawyers and the UTU International was represented by two Lawyers. Both of these parties were arguing, on behalf of their clients, that CN Rail’s Application should be allowed.
Mike Church represented the Respondents.
THE HEARING:
Mike Church, as a preliminary matter, first spoke indicating to the three Justices that CN Rail’s Application should be dismissed as the issue was now “moot”, this given the back to work legislation.
Mike gave a brief overview of the legislation and advised that the legislation also included any other bargaining agent that may replace the UTU (referring to the UTU/TCRC representational vote).
NOTE: If the preliminary issue was allowed CN Rail’s Application would be dismissed and the decision of the CIRB would remain.
CN RAIL:
CN agreed that the issue was moot but that the Court, to prevent reoccurrence, needed to answer the question “who could issue a strike notice?” CN argued that to wait for a “live” case could result in a wrong decision by the CIRB and therefore creating liabilities.
One Judge stated that each situation has its own set of circumstances. The Judge stated, for example, that it could be the General Chairpersons this time and maybe somebody else at another time.
CN argued that only the Trade Union could issue the strike notice (as in the Code) and a ruling by the Court in this case would help future Labour Relations. CN, on being questioned by the Judge, acknowledged that there was no problem in the past on who issued the strike notice.
The Chief Judge questioned as to why not clearly address who could issue a strike notice in the UTU Constitution? CN stated that it was not part of that process.
The Judge suggested that the statutory requirement in the present case (according to the CIRB) had been met and that any dispute was an internal one within the UTU.
THE UTU INTERNATIONAL (UTU):
The UTU also agreed that the matter was moot but argued that only the Bargaining Agent could authorize a strike and that CN was aware that the UTU did not issue a strike notice nor did the General Chairpersons have authority to issue a strike notice.
One Judge reminded the UTU that the Code did not say Bargaining Agent but rather “Trade Union”. The UTU tried to argue that it was one in the same and referenced only part of the Code in support of that position. The Judge quickly reminded the UTU that the Code said more and thereafter proceeded to quote to the UTU the relevant portions of the provision (much to the dismay of the UTU).
The UTU could not provide an adequate response.
The UTU thereafter argued that there was no dispute in the UTU Constitution as to who had the authority to issue a strike notice and that was the UTU President.
One Judge said “well apparently there is a dispute” and went on to reference the word “may” as contained in Article 85 of the UTU Constitution.
The UTU International, again, was unable to adequately respond.
The Chief Judge stated, “You have had close to 2 years to change the UTU Constitution to make it perfectly clear that only the President could issue a strike notice, if that is what the membership wanted. Why wasn’t this done?”
The UTU responded by saying; “My client is not of the view it needed to be done”.
The Judge then asked “If that was so and President Approval was required how would CN know when the General Chairpersons filed the notice that they did or didn’t have the President’s approval?” The UTU responded “they could ask us”.
The UTU also commented on the decision of the CIRB to order a representational vote between the UTU and the TCRC (as referenced by Mike Church). The UTU said that it was not convinced that the CIRB decision to order a vote was correct and that a vote would necessarily take place.
The UTU stated that the CIRB was required to be certain that enough “cards” were signed by the “correct” employees in order to direct a proper representational vote. The UTU stated that it is reviewing the signed “cards” and may take issue with the correctness of the CIRB’s decision to order a representational vote.
The Justices advised the parties that they had enough information to address the preliminary issue raised by Mike Church and adjourned at 10:20 to deliberate.
COURT DECISION:
In less than 20 minutes the Justices returned and ruled in favour of Mike Church and the Respondent’s and dismissed CN Rail’s Application.
The CIRB decision stands undisturbed. The strike was legal.
POTENTIAL FURTHER AFPEAL:
The next step, if CN (with the support of the UTU International) decides to appeal the decision of the Court, is to go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It should be noted that it is not an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. CN must get “leave” to appeal. In other words it must get permission to ask if it can apply to appeal and even if it did get permission to apply (which is extremely doubtful) it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court of Canada would hear the case.
However, CN Rail has the resources to try and appeal and the UTU International has your dues (at present) to assist CN so we’ll just have to wait and see.
MY COMMENTS;
It is important to note that the UTU International has lost every single case that was required to be decided by an independent Tribunal or Court with respect to the matters relating to the issuing of a strike notice by the General Chairpersons on behalf of the Canadian membership.
The actions of the UTU clearly demonstrated its total disregarded for the reality that it exists for the membership not the other way around and certainly not for CN Rail.
The decision of the General Chairpersons to issue a strike notice, in order to get a collective agreement, was legal under the Code as was authorized by 97% of the Canadian membership.
Given the presentations at the hearing on behalf of the UTU it is clearly evident that the UTU is using every tactic it can to delay any representational vote in order to collect as much of the Canadian dues as possible without providing representation as required by Section 37 of the Code.
The UTU International is continuing its “scorched earth policy” and is willing to use Canadian dues to pay incredible (and wasteful) legal costs to perpetuate the delay. It is my belief that they think the collecting of the dues from the Canadians is greater than their legal costs. I predict they will continue unless the Section 37 Complaint to the CIRB by the General Chairpersons corrects the situation or the vote ordered by the CIRB takes place.
At the same time the UTU International is proceeding to cut representational costs in Canada such as removing funding for the Canadian Railway Arbitration (CROA) – more on this in a later post.
I must say, however, when I review my notes, that the Court proceedings was somewhat unfair to CN and the UTU International given that they only sent a combined total of 4 Lawyers to take on Mike Church (lessons learned). Maybe John Armstrong, Robert Sharpe, Paul Thompson and Clint Miller should have considered using Mike Church during the Final Offer Selection Process.
Oh, I forgot, they were requested to do so but rejected that idea.
Rex Beatty
INTRODUCTION:
The hearing into CN Rail’s Application for review of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) decision of February 19th, 2007 (legality of the strike at CN) commenced at 09:30 hours.
CN Rail was represented by two Lawyers and the UTU International was represented by two Lawyers. Both of these parties were arguing, on behalf of their clients, that CN Rail’s Application should be allowed.
Mike Church represented the Respondents.
THE HEARING:
Mike Church, as a preliminary matter, first spoke indicating to the three Justices that CN Rail’s Application should be dismissed as the issue was now “moot”, this given the back to work legislation.
Mike gave a brief overview of the legislation and advised that the legislation also included any other bargaining agent that may replace the UTU (referring to the UTU/TCRC representational vote).
NOTE: If the preliminary issue was allowed CN Rail’s Application would be dismissed and the decision of the CIRB would remain.
CN RAIL:
CN agreed that the issue was moot but that the Court, to prevent reoccurrence, needed to answer the question “who could issue a strike notice?” CN argued that to wait for a “live” case could result in a wrong decision by the CIRB and therefore creating liabilities.
One Judge stated that each situation has its own set of circumstances. The Judge stated, for example, that it could be the General Chairpersons this time and maybe somebody else at another time.
CN argued that only the Trade Union could issue the strike notice (as in the Code) and a ruling by the Court in this case would help future Labour Relations. CN, on being questioned by the Judge, acknowledged that there was no problem in the past on who issued the strike notice.
The Chief Judge questioned as to why not clearly address who could issue a strike notice in the UTU Constitution? CN stated that it was not part of that process.
The Judge suggested that the statutory requirement in the present case (according to the CIRB) had been met and that any dispute was an internal one within the UTU.
THE UTU INTERNATIONAL (UTU):
The UTU also agreed that the matter was moot but argued that only the Bargaining Agent could authorize a strike and that CN was aware that the UTU did not issue a strike notice nor did the General Chairpersons have authority to issue a strike notice.
One Judge reminded the UTU that the Code did not say Bargaining Agent but rather “Trade Union”. The UTU tried to argue that it was one in the same and referenced only part of the Code in support of that position. The Judge quickly reminded the UTU that the Code said more and thereafter proceeded to quote to the UTU the relevant portions of the provision (much to the dismay of the UTU).
The UTU could not provide an adequate response.
The UTU thereafter argued that there was no dispute in the UTU Constitution as to who had the authority to issue a strike notice and that was the UTU President.
One Judge said “well apparently there is a dispute” and went on to reference the word “may” as contained in Article 85 of the UTU Constitution.
The UTU International, again, was unable to adequately respond.
The Chief Judge stated, “You have had close to 2 years to change the UTU Constitution to make it perfectly clear that only the President could issue a strike notice, if that is what the membership wanted. Why wasn’t this done?”
The UTU responded by saying; “My client is not of the view it needed to be done”.
The Judge then asked “If that was so and President Approval was required how would CN know when the General Chairpersons filed the notice that they did or didn’t have the President’s approval?” The UTU responded “they could ask us”.
The UTU also commented on the decision of the CIRB to order a representational vote between the UTU and the TCRC (as referenced by Mike Church). The UTU said that it was not convinced that the CIRB decision to order a vote was correct and that a vote would necessarily take place.
The UTU stated that the CIRB was required to be certain that enough “cards” were signed by the “correct” employees in order to direct a proper representational vote. The UTU stated that it is reviewing the signed “cards” and may take issue with the correctness of the CIRB’s decision to order a representational vote.
The Justices advised the parties that they had enough information to address the preliminary issue raised by Mike Church and adjourned at 10:20 to deliberate.
COURT DECISION:
In less than 20 minutes the Justices returned and ruled in favour of Mike Church and the Respondent’s and dismissed CN Rail’s Application.
The CIRB decision stands undisturbed. The strike was legal.
POTENTIAL FURTHER AFPEAL:
The next step, if CN (with the support of the UTU International) decides to appeal the decision of the Court, is to go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It should be noted that it is not an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. CN must get “leave” to appeal. In other words it must get permission to ask if it can apply to appeal and even if it did get permission to apply (which is extremely doubtful) it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court of Canada would hear the case.
However, CN Rail has the resources to try and appeal and the UTU International has your dues (at present) to assist CN so we’ll just have to wait and see.
MY COMMENTS;
It is important to note that the UTU International has lost every single case that was required to be decided by an independent Tribunal or Court with respect to the matters relating to the issuing of a strike notice by the General Chairpersons on behalf of the Canadian membership.
The actions of the UTU clearly demonstrated its total disregarded for the reality that it exists for the membership not the other way around and certainly not for CN Rail.
The decision of the General Chairpersons to issue a strike notice, in order to get a collective agreement, was legal under the Code as was authorized by 97% of the Canadian membership.
Given the presentations at the hearing on behalf of the UTU it is clearly evident that the UTU is using every tactic it can to delay any representational vote in order to collect as much of the Canadian dues as possible without providing representation as required by Section 37 of the Code.
The UTU International is continuing its “scorched earth policy” and is willing to use Canadian dues to pay incredible (and wasteful) legal costs to perpetuate the delay. It is my belief that they think the collecting of the dues from the Canadians is greater than their legal costs. I predict they will continue unless the Section 37 Complaint to the CIRB by the General Chairpersons corrects the situation or the vote ordered by the CIRB takes place.
At the same time the UTU International is proceeding to cut representational costs in Canada such as removing funding for the Canadian Railway Arbitration (CROA) – more on this in a later post.
I must say, however, when I review my notes, that the Court proceedings was somewhat unfair to CN and the UTU International given that they only sent a combined total of 4 Lawyers to take on Mike Church (lessons learned). Maybe John Armstrong, Robert Sharpe, Paul Thompson and Clint Miller should have considered using Mike Church during the Final Offer Selection Process.
Oh, I forgot, they were requested to do so but rejected that idea.
Rex Beatty
Saturday, April 5, 2008
UPCOMING POSTS
As most of you will note, I have yet to post my review of what transpired at the Federal Court of Appeal Canada during CN Rail's Judicial Review Application hearing (which was dismissed). I have, over the last couple of days, been preparing to travel to Montreal (leaving early tomorrow morning) as requested, to assist in pension matters and have not yet found the time to make my post available.
Having said that, I expect to post my review this coming Tuesday. I believe many of you will find it interesting in light of the position the UTU International advanced, which supported CN Rail.
There are many other matters which I am presently tracking down. For example, I have been informed that the UTU International has advised the General Committees of Adjustment that the UTU will no longer pay for the UTU participation in CROA (Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration). It is my understanding that the UTU International has advised the GCAs that they will have to pick up the cost if they wish to remain in CROA. I will attempt to get further information for posting and whether or not the UTU International will be lowering the dues of the Canadian membership as a result of their decision.
Please keep posted.
Rex Beatty
Having said that, I expect to post my review this coming Tuesday. I believe many of you will find it interesting in light of the position the UTU International advanced, which supported CN Rail.
There are many other matters which I am presently tracking down. For example, I have been informed that the UTU International has advised the General Committees of Adjustment that the UTU will no longer pay for the UTU participation in CROA (Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration). It is my understanding that the UTU International has advised the GCAs that they will have to pick up the cost if they wish to remain in CROA. I will attempt to get further information for posting and whether or not the UTU International will be lowering the dues of the Canadian membership as a result of their decision.
Please keep posted.
Rex Beatty
Friday, April 4, 2008
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE FEDERAL COUT OF APPEAL CANADA
The Federal Court of Appeal Canada has released its written decision with respect to CN Rail's application for Judicial Reveiw of the Canada Industrial Relations Board's decision of February 19th, 2007 (legality of the strike at CN Rail).
I am unable to post the decision as it is in PDF file format (quite frankly don't how to post it in this format - any help would be appreciated).
It is my understanding that the written decision will, very shortly, be available for viewing and comment at;
runningtrades.com
Rex Beatty
I am unable to post the decision as it is in PDF file format (quite frankly don't how to post it in this format - any help would be appreciated).
It is my understanding that the written decision will, very shortly, be available for viewing and comment at;
runningtrades.com
Rex Beatty
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
APPEAL OF PRESIDENT FUTHEY
Although the decision of the UTU Board of Directors has been determined with respect to the appeal of General Chairperson, Guy Ethier, as argued by former VP Guy Scarrow, I have been asked if I would remove my post until the written decision has been released.
Given the nature of the request and the indvidual making the request, I have decided to temporatily remove the post.
Rex Beatty
Given the nature of the request and the indvidual making the request, I have decided to temporatily remove the post.
Rex Beatty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
