Hey everyone. I got some time to do the latest update to the board software, but it meant that all the old modifications and styles wouldn't work anymore. So, here you have the newest iteration of LabourTalk. Please let me know by Private Message if you run into any issues with the new styling. Some new features on the board are:

  • Latest HTML5 Responsive Styling - You can now see a new, more modern styling on the board. Along with this, you can resize the browser to see the board change with it. The board is now functional on all sizes of screens, including your cell phone, table and desktop/laptop.
  • Post Sharing - Although you could previously, the new layout means the sharing icons are more visible on the lower right hand corner of each post. Click your favourite social media outlet to share the desired post with them.
  • Multiple Themes - Previously there was only one theme in an attempt to lower the workload when modifications were put in place. Fortunately, the new modification system is much simpler to implement and we now have multiple colour options for you to enjoy. You can change these from your User Control Panel under the Board Settings heading.
  • Announcements - Announcements can now be posted here (where you're seeing this one) and, in most cases, can be dismissed. To dismiss them, please click the "X" in the top right corner of this box.
  • Collapsing Categories - Categories, such as News & Announcements or Welcome (below), can be collapsed to clear up some of the clutter. This state should be maintained as long as you're logged in.

We hope you like the changes!

People who cross are going to get fired

Help dispel some rumours about unions or companies in the this sector.
boob
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:26 am

Postby boob » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:57 am

it funny when they talk about buying the BS they don't look at how it has been heaped on them and they suck it up without question. I don't buy anything unless I am well informed about what I am buying and I want it. You can't buy union bs it is forced upon you.



alec
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
Posts: 878
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Ottawa/Calgary/Kelowna

Postby alec » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:36 pm

And it all makes me feel very very sleepy (yawn)......

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


TWwho?

qualityresults
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:55 pm

FYI

Postby qualityresults » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:08 am

Courts have upheld fines and in some cities the fines can be as high as 25,000.00 Total.

http://www.psac.com/COMM/UPDATE/Vol14-2/14-2-e.htm#7
Court upheld fines imposed to scabs

In a ruling rendered on January 15, 2002, the Small Claims Court of Alberta forced one member who had crossed a picket line during the January 1999 National Energy Board strike, to pay the fine that was imposed by the Local.

The Court decision in favour of the PSAC indicates that the union has the right to collect fines imposed when a member is contravening the Constitution, in this case strike breaking.

After 92% of the members voted for strike action, PSAC members at the National Energy Board went on strike on January 13, 1999. The strike ended on March 22. Eight members decided not to respect the strike action and crossed picket lines.

On March 15, 1999, the Local advised the eight scabs that it intended to take disciplinary action for having crossed picket lines in contravention of s.25(5)(n) of the PSAC Constitution. They were duly charged on April 23 and a hearing date was set for May 5, 1999. The scabs did not attend the May 5 hearing. Fines were imposed on the members and they were duly advised. Finally, the disciplinary action was approved by the PSAC and the scabs were advised by letter dated October 29 of the discipline, fine and their right to appeal. No appeals were filed.

On November 15, 2000, the Local reminded the scabs of the fine and the need to pay it. Some scabs made arrangements with the Local. One scab had left her employment with the NEB. No payment was received or arrangements concluded for four of the scabs. On February 13, 2001, a court proceeding was initiated before the Small Claims Court of Alberta to recoup the money owed to the PSAC.

It was the first time the PSAC had attempted to impose fines on members through the Courts. The matter was scheduled for hearing on January 15, 2002. In December 2001, one of the four members settled out-of-court. Our claim against one of the three remaining members was dropped because of insufficient proof and a first case was heard.

The Court recognized the right of the union to have its Constitution respected by its members. The Court also recognized that the union had offered the scabs an appeal process that they choose not to use. Finally, the Court ordered the payment of the fine. Upon hearing that the Court had found in the PSAC's favour, the other scab settled the matter voluntarily with the PSAC.

So for those that think the fines can not be upheld, you may be required to rethink that strategy.

As for not being able to get other union jobs, many unions will not allow you to be a member once you have had your membership removed by a tribunal.

They frown very much on this action and a lot of trades are closed shops.



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:17 am

that link is the only "proof" anyone has ever found to support this union claim, no case number is given and legal types who have searched court records have found no evidence of this case. also your claim of up to 25000 is not shown by this post or any other evidence.

25000 is also (to the best of my knowledge) above the limit for small claims court and would therefore DEFINITELY have set a precedent if it had ever been collected.

further to this you cannot compare 8 members crossing a picket line when a valid strike mandate was in effect to well over 3000 members crossing a picket line when no valid strike vote had taken place.

no court on this continent would even consider upholding these kangaroo court "fines"



qualityresults
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:55 pm

Postby qualityresults » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:55 am

This is a case related to Alberta, therefor is very relative, and 25000.00 is the total amount that can be enforced in a small claims court in major cities in Alberta and at this point if you are inside you have made at least half that.

The fine the court upheld was for the total amount of all gross earnings (which includes the taxes and deductions paid out) during the labour dispute.

Small claims cases are not part of the normal public record. And orders as this is, would not be reported in the same way that full court cases are.

In this case there would be a few questions asked of the union and the judge would only issue an order of enforcement allowing a collections action to be enforced.

The constitution of the TWU meets all of the requirements for an enforcement order.



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:38 am

first of all, there is no difference between the small claims law in "major cities" and the rest of the province, second there is no statment in that article about the amount of the fine, if you have other information related to this case please post it, but to say that it is for the total of all gross earnings is highly unlikely.

all the union has ever been able to find regarding fines is one case that was reported NOWHERE other than a union's website for a single person out of a total of 8 crossing a picket line after a valid strike vote... (also another poster has reported in another thread that this particular order was overturned on appeal...)

to start with the situation bears absolutely no resemblence whatsoever to the TWU strike. secondly there is no evidence that this ever happened or that the order was upheald on appeal. third the TWU constitution limits fines to a total maximum of 1000 per person. fourth the court system would never allow itself to be tied up with over 3 THOUSAND cases....

you just keep on believing those fines will happen, and we'll just keep on laughing all the way to the bank.



qualityresults
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:55 pm

fines

Postby qualityresults » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:56 am

Maybe you should check out the maximum small claims level in Edmonton and Calgary you may be shocked.
This is from the Alberta Small Claims Court site:

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/go.aspx?tabid=410

Provincial Court Civil
Civil Court hears all civil claims, subject to Provincial Statutory restrictions. The court is limited to claims of less than $25,000 subject to some restrictions.

Oh and what did I find out about BC

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/civil/sm ... /index.htm

Small Claims Court

Small claims court is a court of law, but it's not designed for lawyers. It's meant to be a "do-it-yourself" kind of court, where ordinary people can handle their own cases, whichever side they're on.

Small claims court is a place where people can go to settle their differences in cases worth anywhere up to $25,000.

Constitution Article XVIII Section C part 1

The penalty for a finding of guilty of any charge, "the trial board may impose a penalty of expulsion, suspension, fine (not to exceed 1000.00) or special remedialaction appropriat to cure the offenceor other penalty appropriate to the offence or any combination thereof"

The constitution states charge, if you have been charged 100 times then you are availble to be fined 100 times the above, if you are found guilty. Each charge is heard individually.

Guess you were Wrong! Sorry!

By the way Jurisprudence only requires one case but let me explain if you know how to use quick law you might find a few more.
:lol:



User avatar
Ash
Site Wannabe Administrator
Site Wannabe Administrator
Posts: 1604
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby Ash » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:17 am

Early in the strike (within the first month or so) it was shown that the PSAC decision had been overturned. Can't remember which thread it was in though.


Ash

"Shop smart. Shop S-Mart."

green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:21 am

the constitution also says that all charges of a similar nature will be lumped together in to one charge with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1000 TOTAL... so unless they want to hold 100 trial boards for one person who crossed 100 times... (and with over 3000 people to try (and increasing by the day) those trial boards could be busy for a VERY long time....

plus, when you find a case of a fine that was actually upheald even through appeal... let us know... we're still waiting...



User avatar
Admin1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:06 am
Location: Some where in Canada.
Contact:

Postby Admin1 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:24 am

Oh and what did we find out from the lawyer that is listed at the top of the forum in General Discussion

We found out that the TWU is register under the Trade union Act.

4. (1) Nothing in this Act enables any court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of any agreement

(a) between members of a trade union, as such, concerning the conditions on which any members of the trade union shall, or shall not, sell their goods, transact business, employ or be employed;

(b) for the payment by any person of any subscription or penalty to a trade union;

(c) for the application of the funds of a trade union

(i) to provide benefits to members,

(ii) to furnish contributions to any employer or workman, who is not a member of the trade union, in consideration of the employer or workman acting in conformity with the rules or resolutions of the trade union, or

(iii) to discharge any fine imposed on any person by sentence of a court of justice;

(d) made between one trade union and another; or

(e) to secure by bond or suretyship the performance of any of the agreements mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).

Agreements not unlawful
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to constitute as unlawful any of the agreements mentioned in subsection (1).

R.S., 1985, c. T-14, s. 4; 2001, c. 4, s. 124(E).

Application of certain Acts
5. (1) No Act in force in Canada providing for the constitution and incorporation of charitable, benevolent or provident institutions applies to trade unions.

Idem
(2) This Act does not apply to any trade union not registered under this Act.

R.S., c. T-11, s. 5.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/T-14/106447.html



green1
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Calgary Alberta
Contact:

Postby green1 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:35 am

thanks admin... I keep forgetting about that bit... I guess there are so many reasons the fines could never possibly happen that it's hard to keep track of all of them... it only takes one reason to stop them, and I can think of a half dozen off the top of my head at any time... remembering all of them is just too much work... :)

so, quality... "not having a good morning?" ;)



User avatar
drvette
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:39 am
Location: Burnaby

Postby drvette » Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:23 pm

This is my 3rd labour stoppage with BCTEL/TELUS and the TWU has threatened every time that there would be fines. Never has happened as far as I can recall. Just a threat.

The only the thing they will take away is the $1000 gift they give each member upon retirement.

BIG DEAL!!!



jlmg
Rookie Poster
Rookie Poster
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:05 pm

Postby jlmg » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:43 pm

This is my first post but I have to say something

As for the fines you are right it is a $ 1000 maximum

As for being fired the Union can not tell TELUS who to fire

As for being banned from every Union job...do you think TELUS asks the TWU what they think of someone before they are hired, Not a chance the Union has no say who gets hired or fired as much as they wish they did



wonderer
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:58 am

Postby wonderer » Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:54 pm

Just heard this week that several TWU members who crossed in Red Deer met with a lawyer concerning their fines/trials and were told by their lawyer to start saving their money and that he would help out by not charging them anything for consulting him. Has anyone heard of anything similar happening anywhere else?


The wonderer

rallyman1122
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:35 pm

Postby rallyman1122 » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:45 pm

Just heard this week that several TWU members who crossed in Red Deer met with a lawyer concerning their fines/trials and were told by their lawyer to start saving their money and that he would help out by not charging them anything for consulting him. Has anyone heard of anything similar happening anywhere else?
Jeez, the rumours just keep on coming. Just waiting for my letter. Oh, that's right, the local did not notify me within the correct period so they can go and kiss my a**!




Return to “Rumour Mill”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests