• authored by Scott Mcpherson
  • published Wed, Jan 2, 2002

It's sad when machne heads take undue credit...


Many UFCW members were adversely affected when Safeway designated store #198 in Maple Ridge a "new" store, rather than a "replacement" store, in the wake of Safeway #194's closure. Safeway's decision to call store #198 a "new" store resulted in many long-standing UFCW members having to leave their employment in the area, and saw the former store #194 UFCW members dispersed throughout the Lower Mainland contract area.

The UFCW proceeded to launch action against the company, and took the issue before an arbitrator, who announced his decision on December 19. Arbitrator David C. McPhillips stated in his ruling that "...from a collective agreement viewpoint, which is the one which we are concerned with here, Store #198 is far more like a replacement store than it is like a new store."

"The significance of the arbitrator's ruling," said Sundin, "is that it ultimately helps strengthen the seniority rights that our union and its members have fought to establish over many years. As a result of the arbitrator's ruling, many of the former store #194 union members will now be eligible to work in store #198."


[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 1:35am

Man I must have writen, and re-writen this post a hundred times. I write, then delete, then write, and then delete. To write the words I've spoken here tonight in my office would not be of any benefit to anyone.

Did I really read that right? Local 1518 spearheaded this? After all the crap David and I went through to get this joke of a union to declair 198 a replacement store. What Kay and Trish had to endour having worked in that store. All the hrs, effort and energy we put into that. Going to meetings union idiots tried to keep us out of. Talking to members about their rights under the labor code, going to the store, researching etc,etc,etc.

Brooke tried to dismiss it as the actions of sore losers whose recklessness was weakening the union for the benefit of the employers. Honestly folks, my anger about the truth of that statement can't ever be measured or articulated. Where does this guy get off?

I'm glad they finally got around to doing their job and our members who have been adversely effected by all of this can finally claim what's rightfully theirs. But when I think back to everything that actually happend last year surrounding this issue, it really burns me to read that crap writen above.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 6:10am

We need to know more about this story. From what you've told us so far Scott, I can sure understand your anger. For a union to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to file a grievance over something that sounds as serious as the company's actions in this case and then pat itself on the back when the grievance is successful, is pretty pathetic. I wonder how all the workers who were affected by this "management decision" feel about this big win?

If anything, I think this is a "win" for the reformers who kept pushing for the grievance to be filed in the first place. Let's hear more about their efforts. It will acknowledge what they did and be an inspiration to others who are being told to just sit quietly and let management do whatever it wants.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 7:00am

The fact that Local 1518 didn't do anything until after Kaye launched a Section 12 (duty of fair representation) with the LRB isn't lost on anyone.

Kaye showed courage by putting her name on the Section 12, and Dave and Scott showed fortitude and wisdom in pushing the machine heads until they did what they were paid to do.

One small step....

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 8:07am

Wow! what a sad commentary on the machine. Another example of the machine's missed opportunity to empower. Instead of using this win to demonstrate to the Power Source that their participation has impact and is ultimately what keeps the machine running, the machine chose instead to cover its' tracks, take all the credit and completely disregard the Power Source who's perseverance is the very reason these people will be able to return to their home store.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by Richard
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 8:33am

This was said in another forum, maybe it's better if the Local 1518 Machine Heads were to read it here:


The group will not prosper if the leader grabs the lion's share of the credit for the good work that has been done. ~ Lao Tzu

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 10:45am

Well after a good nights sleep I'm far less anoid by this. I remember Kim Balmer and Dawn Green at the meeting with those Safeway members (who by the way stuck up for David and I to be there). Kim did this whole "I'm pissed off but what good is that going to do" speach. It was great acting and his fake anger kinda cooled everyone there.

David thought it was funny how Kim turned that meeting around. I wans't laughing. This guy tries to make us look stupid by citing some Extra Food case that had nothing to do with the Safeway issue as the reason the union couldn't win a case to have the new store declaired a replacement store. Big talk with big words and that phony sound of wisdom and experience people swallow almost everytime.

I love this saying, if a pitcher is going to throw strikes, he's gotta risk his balls I know what it's like to have the union come in and say your going to lose everything if you don't take what the company is offering. I went through it in Alberta. I said then, and I still say today...shove your company and your job straight up your ass! not one step back!

Kay's willingness to risk her balls is why the UFCW went to arbitration. She is the person every single Safeway employee should thank. David and I asked a lot of people to put their names on that section 12. Kay had the balls to do it while the rest burried their collective heads in the sand just like the OFG employee's on the Island and in Nelson. Two bitter defeats we desperately tried to fight last summer that would have been successful if we had more members like Kay. learn from it for Christ sake!You have the real power, there is no stronger force in the universe when the power of many come together to form the power of one. We all gotta die sometime the only question is are we gonna live? and you can't do that if your always on your knees begging for mercy.

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 8:40pm


I know what it's like to have the union come in and say your going to lose everything if you don't take what the company is offering. I went through it in Alberta.

We seen it in B.C. too, don't forget B.C. in '96. It was '96 when the machine sent the messengers to the hot packed hotel rooms full of people, if we didn't take the concessions we would lose a hell of alot more. Remember August '96 I do! That is when I knew for sure the machine wasn't hauling for the Power Source!

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jan 2, 2002 11:46pm

what's the matter, you guys didn't like my title? I could always post what I really think of the guy..... %$#$$@@$$@@#$$@@$#!@#$$@@$#$@#$#@$#@$@$#@$ but who can understand all that?

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Jan 3, 2002 8:29am


what's the matter, you guys didn't like my title

I agree, it was a 'weis' move'.


$#$$@@$$@@#$$@@$#!@#$$@@$#$@#$#@$#@$@$#@$ but who can understand all that?

It actually speaks volumes!!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 3, 2002 3:36pm

I certainly hope that the union gets on with the implementation of this award quickly and avoids giving management the impression (wittingly or unwittingly) that it's willing to make deals that will allow the company to avoid having to bring the displaced workers back to this store.

I noticed in the article from Local 1518's web site that the union has asked the company for some meetings to talk about "transition issues". Maybe that's a nice way of say "implement the award" but it sure wouldn't surprise me if the company tried to avoid this (by playing "let's make a deal"). It's the kind of award that makes company labour relations people look bad and will cause a lot of headaches for corporate office types.

Members should make it clear to their reps that they expect full compliance with the arbitrator's decision and no deals.

  • posted by eagle_one
  • Fri, Jan 4, 2002 1:47am

I'm sorry, did you say "no deals"? boy remote that was a good one. Whew, now that I'm off the floor I want to tell you not to hold your breath. Lets make a deal is this unions favorite game.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Jan 4, 2002 6:52pm


MFD has learned that the company may be considering an "appeal". (There is no appeal procedure for arbitration rulings which can only be judicially reviewed for errors of law.

Who would benefit by spreading an untruth about a possible company appeal?

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 4, 2002 6:53pm

In regard to the news story, just to set matters straight, the BC LRB will hear an appeal, just as the Courts will, but under very narrow grounds:


Appeal jurisdiction of Labour Relations Board
99 (1) On application by a party affected by the decision or award of an arbitration board, the board may set aside the award, remit the matters referred to it back to the arbitration board, stay the proceedings before the arbitration board or substitute the decision or award of the board for the decision or award of the arbitration board, on the ground that

(a) a party to the arbitration has been or is likely to be denied a fair hearing, or

(b) the decision or award of the arbitration board is inconsistent with the principles expressed or implied in this Code or another Act dealing with labour relations.

(2) An application to the board under subsection (1) must be made in accordance with the regulations.

Appeal jurisdiction of Court of Appeal
100 On application by a party affected by a decision or award of an arbitration board, the Court of Appeal may review the decision or award if the basis of the decision or award is a matter or issue of the general law not included in section 99 (1).

Decision final
101 Except as provided in this Part, the decision or award of an arbitration board under this Code is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in a court on any grounds whatsoever, and proceedings by or before an arbitration board must not be restrained by injunction, prohibition or other process or proceeding in a court and are not removable by certiorari or otherwise into a court.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Jan 4, 2002 7:08pm

Loosely translated .. the odds are they will "cut the baby in half" ? Saves money, saves face, saves friendships!!

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 4, 2002 7:25pm

I think Safeway probably lost hands down, with no chance for a LRB assisted recovery. Hoooooever, if Safeway sweet talks the UFCW into "lets make a deal" then it's a mugs game.

Could you imagine winning the 6/49 and having the Lotto Corporation saying, "hey we might want to go to court on this, so let's make a deal, we'll give you half and we'll call it square. Would you say, "oh fer shure?"

Let's see what happens.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Jan 4, 2002 10:02pm


Could you imagine winning the 6/49



Let's see what happens.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Jan 5, 2002 1:42pm

Do you guys see what I'm talking about with regards to the game playing? How sick! They can't take the credit for it so they'll let Safeway off the hook. I wonder, did the 1518 executive try to get out of taking this to arbitration in the first place just because the MFD brought it forward? Is that leadership? Are the so called "leaders" of the UFCW willing to sacrafice the rights of their members just to win a political point? Office politics determines what they fight for and what they don't?

UFCW head Office: "hey if we fight that and win people might start to think these MFD guys really know what their doing, so we'd better just let the company have it's way"

Now I get it! the actions of the MFD are weakening the union because as long as we continue to bring things forward the current leadership will refuse to fight for those issues. It all makes sence now. Either they get to cherry pick the fights they want to fight and deal on the ones they want to deal on, or they won't fight at all. Is that right Brooke? Is that the kind of leadership you have to offer? What's your motto? "Success is always getting my way no matter who gets hurt"???

© 2022 Members for Democracy