Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: Request for Intervention in the Teamsters Local 362 2020 election
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON JUNE 2, 2020 to L Crayton and Gary Witlen
President Hoffa/Mr.Witlen
We have prepared and included the following complaint regarding the most recent actions of Teamsters Local 362, the Trustee for Teamsters Local 362 and the election officer for the upcoming election for Teamsters Local 362 for you to review, along with all of our other complaints and we look forward to a proper review and decision.
For an election to be valid and be respected by the Members, the Membership and all its candidates must have faith in the process. It must be totally transparent so that the voters are confident their vote will matter. If an election appears to be tainted, or the Member feels distrust and/or defrauded in any way, infighting will occur to the future detriment of the Union and its Members, regardless of who they support.
On March 23, 2020 the election supervisor mailed out the notice of nomination to all members with the election details. In this notice which is attached, the dates to request a replacement ballot and the dates of mailing are as follows:
On April 16, 2020, only posted online and emailed to those who attended the nomination meeting, the dates were changed again:
The reasons for the stated changes were for the availability of the chartered accounting firm from Ottawa of which we were only aware of their appointment on April 16, 2020 as part of the notice. And it should be noted the ballots were not actually sent until May 4, 2020.
On May 28, 2020, we received an email with a letter attached, yet again changing the election date:
Constant changing of the goalposts by the election officer, Douglas Finnson, including the actions of the members of the slate that appears to be backed by Teamsters Local 362 are unacceptable, and are bordering on fraudulent. An intervention is required so that the process is fair and transparent for the benefit of all Members of Local 362.
362 Members First slate
Byron Gero
Lawrence Jacques
Erin Goldie
Christine Ryan
Ihtesham Sikander
Amanda Scott
Jimmy Williamson
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: This is an official election complaint
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MAY 29, 2020 TO G Witlen and L Crayton
The 362 Members First slate is filing this complaint based upon the actions of the election supervisor, Douglas Finnson.
On March 23, 2020 the election supervisor mailed out the notice of nomination to all members with the election details. In this notice, which is attached, the date to request a replacement ballot and the date of mailing are as follows:
On April 16, 2020 only posted online and emailed to those who attended the nomination meeting, the date of the mailout was on or about May 1, 2020 with the new date for requesting replacement ballots being May 28, 2020 and the count now to be held on June 11, 2020. The reasons for the stated changes were for the availability of the chartered accounting firm from Ottawa of which we were only aware of their appointment on April 16, 2020 as part of the notice. And, it should be noted, the ballots were not actually sent until May 4, 2020.
Yesterday, Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 3:37 pm, well after the deadline for requesting another ballot, the election supervisor has, yet again, for some reason unknown to us, decided to extend the deadline to June 4, 2020. There’s a new date for counting of the ballots, June 18, 2020, yet again changing the election date.
As we have stated earlier, for an election to be valid, the Membership and all of the candidates must have faith in the process. The constant changing of the goal posts in this election by Douglas Finnson and the gymnastics we have seen him perform on every issue brought forward so that the slate that is backed by Teamsters 362 can attempt to be elected.
We object to the change in the date for the count and the count should go ahead on June 11, 2020 regardless.
We object to having any ballots which have been requested after May 28, 2020 being included and counted in this election.
Due to the actions of the election supervisor, who is clearly biased, we submit all of our protests to the IBT for their decision.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
362 Members First slate
Byron Gero
Lawrence Jacques
Erin Goldie
Christine Ryan
Ihtesham Sikander
Amanda Scott
Jimmy Williamson
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: Election Complaint
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MAY 29, 2020 to DOUGLAS FINNSON
Brother Finnson
Earlier this week, Bernie Haggarty, Richard Brown and Richard Prouty made a trip to Fort McMurray and stayed overnight. They were campaigning at Diversified Transportation at 8:30 a.m. on May 26, 2020, all the while on the payroll of Teamsters Union Local 362. None of these agents had any business at Diversified. They represent no one there. No meetings were contemplated and none occurred.
Calgary is a known hotspot for COVID-19. There is still a serious pandemic in that area. Yet these individuals chose to travel to Fort McMurray, risking that Diversified Transportation operation. Bernie Haggarty and Richard Brown should be immediately disqualified from the election for using Union resources, which is not allowed in the election rules.
Sincerely and fraternally,
362 Members First slate
Byron Gero
Lawrence Jacques
Erin Goldie
Christine Ryan
Ihtesham Sikander
Amanda Scott
Jimmy Williamson
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: Official Election Complaint
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MAY 26, 2020 to DOUGLAS FINNSON
Brother Finnson:
The Local 362 Members First Slate files the following complaint regarding the actions of the Teamsters Union Local 362, the Trustee of Local 362 and the election supervisor of the Local 362 Election.
We have been contacted by the election supervisor where he has indicated that he has a complaint or multiple complaints filed regarding a text that was sent out. We have never been provided with a copy of any complaints and we have not been privy to any of the details.
The 362 Members First Slate sent out one text and one text only at 9:17 p.m. on Friday May 8/20. In approximately 56 minutes there was a post which we do believe was posted on a blog maintained by the Local Union and was subsequently then posted on the Local Union’s website and appeared almost simultaneously on the opposing slate’s Facebook page along with identical commentary. And it should be noted that this took place very late that Friday evening, well after office hours (copy attached).
The contents of the Local Union post Blog and web post make a statement regarding our text that would have the reader believe that a theft of data, being the cell numbers, had occurred and others and our slate were somehow involved together. The content of the notice posted by the Union goes on to say that the opposing slate “As this text sent by the opposing slate as a campaign ploy”. Although the English and grammar are lacking it would appear the other slate is in fact the Union slate and is backed by the Union. The notice posted goes on to solicit election complaints and for those to be sent to you!
On the following day, we received your notification of a complaint Saturday May 9/20; surprising, as they obviously contacted you at home.
When we spoke on May 24/20 you had no knowledge of the notice or its contents or that it was posted on the Local Unions’s website regarding the text of May 9/20. We find this very confusing for a number of reasons. Along with being the election supervisor, you are also the Temporary Trustee of Local 362. We would expect that, if the Local was alleging a privacy breach, you would have been notified. We do also find it very suspicious that, within 56 minutes of us sending a text, the Local Union has investigated and confirmed the Local Union’s confidential phone list had been hijacked and it must be the other slate as a campaign ploy.
The use of Union resources is prohibited in an election the Local Union has permitted of which you are currently in charge of, to use Union resources in this campaign apparently for the benefit of one slate. We also wish to make you aware that you have staff members who have injected themselves into the campaign for partisan purposes during work hours which as well is a violation. This has all happened while you have been charged with running a fair election which this looks like it's anything but and we believe you may be blind to the antics of the other slate.
For the actions that are listed above that were committed by Local 362 and by the members of the opposing slate you, as the trustee overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Union.and you, as the election officer, have no choice but to disqualify Chance Hrycun, Richard Brown and Bernie Haggarty from the election for their actions and misuse of Teamsters resources for their own election purposes.
Sincerely and fraternally,
362 Members First slate
Byron Gero
Lawrence Jacques
Erin Goldie
Christine Ryan
Ihtesham Sikander
Amanda Scott
Jimmy Williamson
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: Election Protest/PIPA complaint
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MAY 13, 2020 to DOUGLAS FINNSON
Brother Finnson:
This is an official Election Protest and this is also a complaint under PIPA.
On Saturday May 2/20, Mr. Chance Hrycun posted a seven-minute video on the Facebook page for the Members First 2020 slate. The content of the video attempts to draw a relationship between 362 Members First Slate and former employees of Local 362.
However, if you follow the narrative provided by Mr. Hrycun in front of the blackboard, he discusses the following as it relates to the candidates on our slate:
He discusses the number of grievances filed or not filed by candidates on the opposing slate. He also makes a point of indicating who has attended Local Union meetings. The facts he has presented are considered personal information according to the current privacy regulations contained in PIPA. The number of grievances filed along with the number of times someone attends union meetings could only have come from the Union’s own records which now have been released by a Union employee.
With today's connected world, the information regarding employment and union activities could be used to deny the identified person future or current employment opportunities along with other disadvantages.
The disclosure of the private information has been framed in such a way as to potentially cause them hardship, disdain or to otherwise injure that person in a multitude of different ways.
This is a serious breach and we request a full investigation with all of the responsible persons at Local 362 to be held to account. We will also be requesting a public apology and possibly other damages and, depending upon the investigation, we reserve the right to request the disqualification of the complete slate for the use of the Union's resources.
Fraternally and sincerely,
Byron Gero
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: This is an official Election Protest
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MAY 9, 2020 to DOUGLAS FINNSON
Brother Finnson
It has come to our attention that employees of the local union that are currently campaigning for election in the Teamsters Local 362 Haggarty, Brown and Hrycun along with certain business agents are using the resources of the local union for partisan purposes in the ongoing election.
The allegations are as follows:
On Monday May 4/20 Haggarty, Brown and Hrycun were in Fort McMurray Alberta campaigning for the election. The campaigning was taking place on the service road near Highway 63, also at the Clean Harbors camp, Abram’s Landing and at a strip mall in Thickwood. The candidates traveled from the Calgary and Edmonton areas in the vehicles that are provided by the local union with all fuel and operating costs paid for by the local union. The use of the union’s vehicles, which are assets of the local union, is not permitted by the constitution and the election rules.
On Wednesday May 6/20 Chance Hrycun, who is not the business agent for UPS, contacted Troy Wright, the senior shop steward at UPS Edmonton, by telephone for the sole purpose of requesting Mr. Wright to attend an election rally being held that evening and to advise him that they will provide access to the campaign facebook page for their slate. Mr. Hrycun used the telephone that is provided and paid for by Teamsters 362 to contact Mr. Wright and possibly others for election purposes. The use of union resources is not permitted by candidates.
On Thursday May 7/20 Both Hrycun and Haggarty presented themselves at CFL in Edmonton whereby they were driving the union vehicle to accomplish their campaigning. Such use of the union’s assets is not permissible to campaign and is a violation of the constitution and election rules.
Haggarty, Brown and Hrycun are using union resources in their campaign which is not permissible. We are requesting the disqualification of the candidates and a notice to be posted to the membership outlining the violations.
We are requesting you to investigate this matter and immediately reply.
Fraternally and sincerely,
Byron Gero
on behalf of the 362 Members First slate
SUBJECT: Election Protest
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MAY 9, 2020 to DOUGLAS FINNSON
Brother Finnson
This is an official election protest regarding the actions of both Bernard Haggarty and Richard Brown who are running for current 2020 election in the Teamsters 362 election.
On May 7/20, the motion picture members received in the mail a document from the Members first 2020 slate; a copy is attached. In the document that was sent to the members, Mr. Haggarty details their many exploits and also describes how, in 2018, they announced their intent to run as candidates in 2019. As we know, the 2019 election was delayed due to the trusteeship. However, currently, we are having that delayed election.
In November of 2018, Mr. Brown and Mr. Haggarty scheduled a meeting of specific shop stewards where they refer to themselves as the United Calgary Shop Stewards. It is my understanding that this meeting took place in the lunchroom of Jack Cooper Transport.
After this meeting, the local union commenced an action at the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) against Jack Cooper Transport. The purpose of the action, as I understand it, was an unfair labour practice complaint for interfering with the administration of a trade union by allowing Brown and Haggarty to use the lunchroom for campaign purposes. Jack Cooper Transport argued they were not aware of the real reason for the meeting and had been duped (my words). I believe the case was settled with an apology to the union.
At the January 2019 General Meeting in Edmonton, Haggarty raised a concern as to why the local union had proceeded with an action against Jack Cooper Transport and what were its costs. This should be contained in the minutes.
The CIRB case with Jack Cooper Transport clearly shows that Brown and Haggarty took something of value from the employer and their letter to the movie members also clearly shows they had announced their candidacy and have continued to campaign since that date for the election that is ongoing.
The use of an employer’s resource is a violation of Article II, Section 2(a) and Article XIX, Section 7(b)(1) and 7(b)(5) of the IBT Constitution, and possibly other articles.
Although this election does not take place in the United States the IBT, in its election rules, states the following, so we believe this does apply:
Section 401(g) of the Landrum-Griffin Act provides that: No moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessment, or similar levy, and no moneys of an employer shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to the provisions of this title. Such moneys of a labor organization may be utilized for notices, factual 7 of 19 statements of issues not involving candidates, and other expenses necessary for the holding of an election. (Emphasis added) The prohibitions contained in this section have been interpreted to extend beyond direct cash contributions from employers and cash expenditures from union funds. They also apply to services and property utilized to support any candidate for office.
The Department of Labor interprets these restrictions very broadly. Consequently, all candidates should be advised to inform their supporters that acceptance of even a minimal amount of money or assistance from an employer or the Union could cause the election results to be challenged and set aside.
To further back up my claim of violation of the election rules and constitution, attached is an email dated May 9/20 (three pages) from Laurie Meaney on behalf of Ray Meaney. This email provides proof that the meeting had indeed taken place at Jack Cooper Transport with shop stewards from Calgary.
As both Haggarty and Brown have violated the rules of the election and the constitution, we request that they be disqualified and they be required to reimburse both Jack Cooper Transport and Teamsters 362 the legal fees that were paid due to their actions.
Fraternally and Sincerely,
Byron Gero - on behalf of 362 Members First slate
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: This is an official complaint from the 362 Members First Slate.
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON APRIL 18, 2020 to Douglas Finnson, Gary Witlen and L Crayton
The 362 Members First Slate has just become aware of a closed (private) Facebook group page being operated by the Haggarty slate or Chance Hrycun, a candidate for election on the slate. The title of the page begins with “General Teamsters Local 362 Election: Members First-2020”. By displaying the name of the Local Union in this fashion would make it appear to be a page that is sponsored or supported by the Local Union and nowhere does it officially declare it is a campaign site. The actions of the slate to confuse the membership is a violation of the rules as stated specifically below (page 7 of Guidelines For Conducting Local Union Elections):
“The logo of the International Union may be utilized on a candidate’s campaign literature, or on a website that is clearly identified as a campaign site, provided that no Union funds are used to reproduce the logo and the campaign material does not imply that the candidate(s) has been endorsed by the International Union, any of its officers, agents, or employees. Literature or websites bearing the International logo should not be disguised as official Union material or sites.”
Also, on the same Facebook page is an image of the Local Union 362 Kenworth; such image is not commercially available on any of the current web search engines and, in fact, is an exact image that was used within Local Union 362 for an earlier web page and would appear to have been provided by the Local union. The website it originated from was the previous Teamsters Local 362 website until mysteriously disappearing immediately prior to the election.
The actions of the Local Union 362 by providing the image for partisan purposes is also a violation of the rules and implies a degree of complicity with the slate as nominees for the Secretary Treasurer, President and Vice President are current employees. And it should also be said that two of the employees on this slate were rehired by the Trustee after being terminated by an earlier administration.
The slate declaration form that we provided on April 14, 2020 at the conclusion of the nomination meeting which the Trustee signed clearly states the name of our slate and now it would appear the other slate has suspiciously acquired a slate name that mirrors ours. We would be remiss in not bringing this forward that it appears that the Local Union may be sharing information to affect the election.
The 362 Members First Slate is requesting the slate being headed by Mr. Haggarty be instructed to cease and desist from displaying the images of the Local Union 362 Kenworth; also to cease and desist from describing themselves in any manner which could have the members draw any conclusions that they represent General Teamsters Local 362 or that it is an official Teamsters Local 362 site or being endorsed by the IBT in any manner. We also reserve the right to seek further remedies once we have ascertained the damages which we have suffered regarding the apparent sharing of information and other items by the Local Union to the opposing slate.
We think the actions of the Business Agent Chance Hrycun and members of his slate, Bernie Haggarty and Richard Brown, promising to visit members’ worksites on personal time is something that would not be afforded to the members of our slate and that, by taking this action, they are abusing their positions as Business Agents for Local Union 362. We would also request that you furnish us with the contact list that they have access to, that they are promising to make use of for their personal election campaign reasons.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Byron Gero
Tainted by Suspicion
SUBJECT: Eligibility to Office - Mr. Bernie Haggarty & Mr. Richard Brown
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON APRIL 16, 2020 TO DOUGLAS FINNSON
Dear Brother Finnson:
Kindly accept this letter as my written complaint and request for intervention from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters regarding the acceptance and eligibility of nomination to office of General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362 by the above captioned employees of the Local Union.
On April 13, 2020 and/or again on April 14, 2020, Mr. Bernie Haggarty and Mr. Richard Brown accepted nominations to office during the scheduled nomination meetings held at Teamsters Local 362’s Edmonton and Calgary offices. Both these individuals fail to meet eligibility requirements as outlined in the International Constitution.
Article II, Section 4(a)(1) states the following:
To be eligible for election to any office in a Local Union, a member must be in continuous good standing in the Local Union in which he is a member and in which he is seeking office, and actively employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of such Local Union, for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said office, and must be eligible to hold the office if elected.
Both Haggarty’s and Brown’s employment as Business Agents with Teamsters Local 362 was terminated in 2018 by the previous administration. Haggarty pursued a Statement of Claim with Local 362; however, he was re-hired under a cloud of suspicion by the previous Trustee of Local 362. Similarly, Brown was re-hired as well, despite having challenged his termination through charges filed at Joint Council 90, who found the previous administration’s decision to terminate was founded, despite granting a monetary award for Brown.
The absence of these individuals from the employment of Teamsters Local 362 and not being actively employed for a period of time (in the case of Haggarty, October and November 2018) and Brown, August and September 2018) with any employer having a bargaining relationship with Local 362, would support a decision that neither have remained “active in the craft” for a period of 24 consecutive months prior to the acceptance of the nominations in question.
To further clarify, Haggarty and Brown were at the time of their respective terminations in 2018 Business Agents employed by Teamsters Local 362. Currently, and at the time of their questionable acceptance of their respective nominations to hold office, they are both employed as Business Agents with Local 362; however, there were breaks in their employment that would make them ineligible.
It is clear that the question as to what “craft” is applicable to this dispute would be that of “Business Agent” of Teamsters Local 362 (i.e. the Employer) responsible for the enforcement of collective bargaining rights of its membership or in the alternative any employment at a Teamsters’ represented workplace. The decision by each of these individuals to pay monthly dues to the Local Union during the period of not being employed as Business Agents or employed by any Teamsters’ employer whatsoever has no bearing on interpretation of Article II, Section 4(a)(1).
Haggarty’s and Brown’s actions while not employed by Teamsters Local 362 were clearly premeditated to comply with Article X, Section 5; however. they were not actively employed for a period of 24 consecutive months as stated in Article II, Section 4(a)(1) and no amount of dues payment can change that fact.
I trust you will handle this matter promptly and in the best interest of the membership of General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362. It should be noted the previous administration was granted a stay to the Joint Council 90 order, further submitting an appeal to the General President in March of 2019 against the award, which to date has remained unanswered. As to whether Brown’s and Haggarty’s financial claims against their employer have been answered remains a mystery to me and the membership of Local 362.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Byron Gero