Hey man, you're just great. A great person and the right circumstances can be a powerful force. Twelve people showing up is a huge coup. Usually people are just too intimidated to show, or they think that they would get thrown out and the police called. You've proved that it's okay and darned interesting too.
day In Court
wow what a day,All Loblaw employees can thank Harry Kopyto (a working mans hero) and Bill Mcnaught a former TTC driver and working mans advocate.These two people spent 10 hours at the labour Board today fighting our fight.The union had the lawyer, president, exec vice pres, another exec vice pres and another macine head and two articing lawyer.The company had the lawyer, Ex- Vice Roy Conliffe and and articling lawyer.We had good representation about twelve employees and ta reporter.The unions main explanation was "the company told us to".One of the last things that happened was the company lawyer said "we didnt compell the union to do anything,They chose to be a willing partner". What a development,where does the union go from there?There were many good arguments about how nobody has to ratify mid-term amendments or consult the members,what acrock of shit.The Vice chair gave a very difficult condescending look to the union lawyer when our lawyer said "what are the consequences of allowing this to stand" ie. negotiate today and ratify... amend tommorrow without a vote by members????
His look said to me ....why did you put me in this situation?the last question of the day was Why did the unions have different processes of ratification?Both of the lawyers looked and shrugged ...we dont know anything about the other locals...bunch of fools....like its not going to come out.It was a good day for working people,I feel enegized and supported....thanks to all who came..this is just the beginning
Friday Oct. 24 2003Toronto Star
Union breached labour law, panel told
Secretly agreed to wage concessions
Loblaws workers denied say on deal
DANA FLAVELLE
BUSINESS REPORTER
The union representing 15,000 employees of Loblaw Cos. Ltd. breached the Ontario Labour Relations Act when it secretly agreed to wage concessions at proposed new superstores without putting the deal to a general membership vote, a labour board hearing was told yesterday.
A dissident member of the union, Ben Blasdell, who manages the bakery department in a Collingwood Loblaws store, asked the Ontario Labour Relations Board panel to force the United Food and Commercial Workers Union to hold a ratification vote on the deal.
But Ian Anderson, the lawyer representing the union, said the board would be setting a dangerous precedent if it upheld Blasdell's request.
And Robert Kitchen, the lawyer for Loblaw, said the employer did everything by the book.
The hearing comes days before Loblaw opens the first of its new-format superstores in Ajax. Based on its Real Canadian Superstore format in western and eastern Canada, the new Ontario stores combine food with an expanded selection of general merchandise.
Loblaw sought union concessions at the new stores in response to increased competition from non-union rivals, such as Wal-Mart, Kitchen said.
"What the employer saw was a significant change in the marketplace ... dictated by the increasing presence of non-union competition and alternative formats, the leader and highest profile of which is Wal-Mart - though not exclusively Wal-Mart - with its noted reputation for its wonderful dealings with trade unions," Kitchen told the board yesterday.
Loblaw insisted the deal be negotiated in secret because of concerns competitors might learn about its strategic and real estate plans, and insisted the deal not be submitted to a general membership vote, he said.
Union leaders agreed to Loblaw's conditions because they felt they had no choice, Anderson told the board. The union believed it wouldn't have "successor rights," or the automatic right to represent employees in the new stores, if those stores opened under the Real Canadian Superstore banner, he said.
The union also believed Loblaw would open the stores with or without its consent, and the new stores would soon begin displacing the old ones, along with its members' jobs.
"To suggest this union should play some sort of game of chicken with the employer and risk the jobs of its members is irresponsible," Anderson said.
But Blasdell's legal representative, Harry Kopyto, said the union denied its members their democratic rights.
"This is not the first time an employer has extracted concessions by threatening to close stores or facilities. It happens all the time," he said, noting that few closings actually happen.
"What you do when you're competing with non-union stores is you go on an organizing drive. You don't go around making secret deals with employers," Kopyto said.
But Kevin Corporon, president of UFCW Local 1000A, which represents Loblaws workers, said he believes the union got the best deal possible for its members.
"If this deal is overturned by the board, there would be a revolt because a lot of them are getting a really good deal," he said outside the hearing.
Under the deal, employees at conventional stores continue to receive the old rates of pay and benefits, including the Christmas bonus and Sunday premiums. If their jobs are displaced by a new superstore, they have the option of transferring to another conventional store, taking early retirement or severance pay, or accepting a lump-sum payment to transfer. Pay rates at the new stores range from $10 an hour to slightly more than $20 an hour. At conventional stores, top wages range from $13.50 an hour to more than $22 an hour.
Joe Manchisi, a 30-year Loblaws employee, said that was not good enough.
Manchisi says he would be eligible for a $75,000 lump sum if he lost his job due to a superstore opening, but it wouldn't make up for the wage cut he would have to take.
"All we're asking for is our vote,'' Manchisi said outside the hearing. ``If the members vote for the deal, we'll live with it."
quote:
"If this deal is overturned by the board, there would be a revolt because a lot of them are getting a really good deal,"
Dear Mr. Corperon
Ninety seven people signed on to back Ben on this complaint perhaps you don't view this as a revolt but let me give you a fact, I have no doubt that number would be 1000 based on the feed back those of us involved have received.
Why was it not more?
Simply put fear of company reprisal.
You see although this complaint was made due to your actions, people refrained from signing because of the company not the Union so when you speak of a revolt be careful, if this turns into a Union-membership fight you may not come out on top,I have yet to hear anyone say I support this Union for this deal not even the ones being "forced" to take these "generous" severance packages.
P.S. as was said in the previous Star article by a member all we want is to have a say in " OUR " future only then can we live with the consequences, The time is now to start thinking about your members or one day you might wake up and have none.
Ben:
Please e-mail me an update on events at the labour board hearing. I was unable to stay past 4 pm yesterday and wonder what happened after I left. Also, is the hearing finished or just postponed? Did the vice-chair make a decision? There's nothing scheduled at the labour board on it for today.Thanks
Dana
Ben:
My direct e-mail address at The Star is dflavel@thestar.ca.
Cheers,
Dana
Congradulations bb! 
Sounds to me like you and your representatives kicked the union-management partners in the ass and made them look like a bunch of self-serving dorks.
From your posts in the various threads I am astounded by the emptiness of their responses to the issues, although it is heart-warming to hear the company say that the union didn't require any persuading (it just went right along for the ride).
I'm going to go out on a limb a bit and make a prediction: You won.
Have a great weekend.
i am not as confident as you Rv.they have some compelling arguments.ie,it is not specifally prohibited and cases saying that the union does not have to act in the members best interests,case where things were changed without input etc.But the big point here is the precedent...is it the direction the Board wants the ontario labour relations to take ...less democracy.There has not been a decision,and I think it will go to a full hearing.there has to be more information on the other locals and who proposed what and when was it proposed.
"Union leaders agreed to Loblaw's conditions because they felt they had no choice, Anderson told the board. The union believed it wouldn't have "successor rights," or the automatic right to represent employees in the new stores, if those stores opened under the Real Canadian Superstore banner, he said."
HMMMMMMM????????
Anyone remember this post?????
Dear Mr. Delio:
The RCSS accord, which does not affect any current employees, any current collective agreements, or any current retail or wholesale locations, was made in anticipation of what is believed by many to be the threat that Wal-Mart and other similar foreign discount combination retailers coming to Canada to set up operations that will almost certainly substantially undermine the business of the traditional retailers that have employed UFCW Canada members for decades. These traditional retailers could choose to do nothing, or respond to the anticipated threat.
In the case of one large system of employers, Loblaws, the choice is to respond by mounting retail operations that will compete head to head with Wal-Mart-like operations, rather than doing nothing. Loblaws could have either opened the future RCSS locations as non-union stores at whatever low rates of pay and benefits they could get
away with, or negotiated with the union that represents the majority of Loblaws employees to try to reach an agreement on the pay and benefits of future locations. Somewhat to our surprise, Loblaws chose the latter.
It has nothing to do with voluntary recognition for us. We believe that workers are always better off with union representation, whether we have to organize them from scratch, such as we are trying to do with Wal-Mart workers, or not. We know that we can do a better job for retail workers in these tough times than they could do for themselves, individually, without a union.
We hope that at whatever point in time Loblaws opens any new RCSS locations, that the employees at those locations will take a positive interest in their union so that we can all work together to improve the conditions for all future unionized RCSS workers.
Thanks for writing.
Yours truly,
UFCW Canada
per:
David W. Watts
DWW/mda
sent by Miriam DeAngelis Mdeangelis@ufcw.ca
,,,,kinda contradictory don't ya think????? 
Congratulations to all involved in this fight to find some democracy for the members.
I am an outsider of the the U.F.C.W. and food biz but a Unionist and I couldn't believe what I was reading when this no-vote agreement first came down.
Keep up the good fight........
Sorry BB but I have to disagree with you on their case of (stores being changed without input from the members) as being a good case.
As I recall it pointed to an A&P store being closed and a Food Basics being opened down the street,
If Loblaws where to close my store and open a No-Frills down the street that is a company decision where they have decided to open a new store under a completely different banner, talks with the membership about this I don't believe is expected other than what your choices are after your store closes.
The difference with that and our current case is they are closing Loblaws stores and opening "Loblaws" RCSS
One area where I think we won was during final remarks and the Union asked the board not to set a precedent by squashing this deal otherwise Unions might find it difficult to make amendments mid term from here on, they argued that Unions do this regularly in order to change wording that originally was put in incorrectly,(Who cares as long as it does not change the agreement)
Then in reply Mr. Kopyto asked that the board should squash this deal otherwise it would set the precedent for every company to sign six year deals that the memberships feel are good deals and then go back in a year later and completely gut the deal.
I think that no matter what the outcome, you still won bb. I doubt very much that Kevin and Roy ever dreamed they would be put in the position they're in right now. From your reports in the various threads, I do not hear of any compelling arguments being made. Changing an agreement in mid term to correct an error is not the same as changing an agreement in mid term to amend, remove or add a bunch of provisions that were never ratified. Sounds like a lot of grasping at straws. I'd like to hear from the UFCW how many other unions they know of that make secret mid-term amendments to their collective agreements. Or maybe all those unions could step forward and tell us how often they do this.
Come on everybody - all leaders of unions that do secret mid-term concessionary deals on their contracts and don't allow the members to ratify because the employer says it just won't have it, put your hands up. Nobody eh?
You're right in that the Board's decision will set a big precedent. If they rule that secret deals are OK, then they might as well acknowledge that union members are nothing but the property of businesses that call themselves unions.
If unions are supposed to be "associations of workers", then the OLRB cannot possibly rule that union leaders can make significant decisions without consulting their members and without allowing them to exercise their legal rights. If unions are something other than associations of workers, then we'd better figure out what the hell they are and why workers should be compelled to pay them dues or belong to them if they really exist to serve "private" interests that are often at odds with the interests of workers.
Questions and answers from Bens OLRB hearing.
Mr. Kopyto: If as the union states there was no ratification vote because the company did not want one then why where 22 union reps allowed to ratify it on the behalf of 15000 members.
Union: It was not a ratification but a mandate given to the President by the reps on behalf of the members after consultation.
Mr. Kopyto: How could the reps know how the members felt when we have already heard they were not allowed to speak to the members about this secret deal taking place.
if it was a mandate then the deal was already done, if not it was a ratification, the union is simply playing with words that no matter how you slice it the results are the same.
Personal note: Thank you Ben, Mr. Kopyto and yes I guess I should thank the union for being _______
OOPS better be careful I cant afford to be sued I'll let you fill in the blank.
quote:
Come on everybody - all leaders of unions that do secret mid-term concessionary deals on their contracts and don't allow the members to ratify because the employer says it just won't have it, put your hands up. Nobody eh?
It shouldn't ever happen... EVER. These guys know that, and i'm afraid they let the new members dangled in front of them be their deciding factor.
If this deal was okay, good or even neutral, they had an obligation to let members decide. It is the only democratic position they could take. Hell, even bad settlements have been ratified, so if they had done the promotion, i expect the members would have said yes.
What makes this so ugly is the employers telling the Union what they had to do, and then they did it. I've been accused of being a lot of things over the years, but i could never bring myself to jump thru hoops. Once members see their Union doing what the employer wants, they put themselves in the position where they lose all respect. I've never been opposed to working with an employer, but the members always have to be supportive and in agreement.
I am from local 633, Zehrs, south western Ontario. We just got our sweetheart deal two weeks ago. We were the last to get the deal and many of us are shocked and discourage by the deal. After 20 years with this company I cant believe what the future holds. Our local has only twelve stores, And the change will happen very quickly for us. Leamonton, Walker-road will open under the new banner within months,Essex, North Maple will follow next year. Stores to close under old banner West Minister, North Maple, Queen, West Grand, Essex and maybe Tilbury. With in a year we may have only 6 stores under the old contract. Last week one week after the deal was laid out they annouced the closing of West minister. What I and many of my peers would like to know is will the labour board case effect us in local 633/175 or not. If not what can we do down here to voice our opinions and stop this unfair deal?
quote:
Hell, even bad settlements have been ratified, so if they had done the promotion, i expect the members would have said yes.
They were probably thinking they had done a good enough job keeping members in the dark that they could bypass even a facade of decent representation and democracy. This is what happens when you become self bloated and stoopidly brazen, it blows up in your pig face.
local 1000a has called a membership meeting for November 11 2003 at the Howard Johnsons at keele and the 401.Be sure to attend, I think they coming out with threats about job loss.It is ironic at the hearing the union said it was impractible to consult and ratify because of the size of the union, now because of a little bit of dissension it is not so impractible.Is our leadership that brazen that they think this information wont come out.Our leaders have screwed up ,the best way to fix a mistake is ADMIT it.The more you perpetuate this lie ,the further from the truth you are.