Local 777's Secret Contract
Yesterday, MFD presented you with [ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: slek ]
proof of former UFCW Canadian Director Cliff Evans' involvement in negotiations for the unimpressive first collective agreement between Westfair Foods and UFCW Local 777. That agreement took effect in January 1989 for a period of four years. Tonight, we have another and more startling discovery in the odd history of this Local.
MFD has learned that in June 1989, with the ink barely dry on its first agreement, Local 777's President Gib Whitlock signed off a letter of understanding with Westfair agreeing almost 4 years in advance, to various items that would be included in the next agreement. This, despite the fact that negotiations were not due to begin until 1993.
The deal which was, to the best of our knowledge, never ratified by Local 777 members, but legally binding nonetheless, contained amendments to some eleven clauses among these provisions dealing with full/part-time hours ratios, scheduling, call ins and the scope of the bargaining unit. A clause requiring settlement of the contract by Final Offer Selection Arbitration was removed. Considerable language was agreed to regarding the distribution of wage increases and lump sum payments. The term of the collective agreement was decided - a four year deal to run from 1993 to 1997.
A copy of Local 777's secret deal, which we believe to be a true copy of the original, is available Here.
The fact that Local 777's President negotiated four years before the bargaining was to commence, significant amendments to a collective agreement without the approval or, seemingly, the knowledge of the members, is disturbing to say the least.
Why was this deal made in the first place?
What compelled Whitlock to enter into these negotiations?
Were the members consulted about the changes to which he agreed?
Why was the deal not presented to the members for ratification?
Were the 1993 negotiations largely a show put on for the members?
Isn't it the members who are to decide what changes the union is to seek through collective bargaining?
Local 777 members deserve some answers.
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]
Holyyyyyyyyy Cow. Hey, Lee and carlfraser, c'mon and defend this practice. Isn't it strange that Cliff Evans signs the first contract, Jim Smith signs the second contract and George Seminuk signs the third contract of Local 777's life? If Mr. Whitlock is so good a bargaining behind the scenes, why doesn't he bargain in public?
These presidents don't bargain in public, don't handle grievances, and in fact don't seem to do much other than travel and play golf, but they get paid six-figure salaries. I don't get it.
This is mind-boggling. I have to say that even I have never seen anything quite like this before. I had always thought that collective bargaining (from the union's perspective) was all about getting the best deal possible for the MEMBERS. For this reason, there should be input from the MEMBERS. That is why unions hold meetings in advance of negotiations with MEMBERS - to find out what the MEMBERS want. I thought it was important to involve the MEMBERS in discussion about possible amendments and their implications and to seek from the MEMBERS. I believe that is also why ratification meetings are held - to seek the approval on tentatively agreed upon changes to a collective agreement from the MEMBERS.
When significant changes to a collective agreement are made by a local president in the absence of consultation with or approval by the MEMBERS, where does that leave us? What faith can the MEMBERS have in their representatives at bargaining when unbeknown to them, certain issues have already been...well, taken care of.
Even if Whitlock at the best of good intentions when he did this, how could he possibly know, 4 years in advance, what would be important or acceptable to the members (many of whom would not yet have even been hired at the time) 4 years down the road?
quote:
how could he possibly know, 4 years in advance, what would be important or acceptable to the members (many of whom would not yet have even been hired at the time) 4 years down the road
E.S.P.?? (Extra Sumptuous Pension!)
The secret deal was just normal business at 777. Gib's term of office ran out in 1993, but until I started raising hell, he never bothered with an election until 1995. I sent many letters to the International and they were ignored. They did force Gib to have an election. Here's one of the letters; sorry it's such a long post:
quote:
September 27, 1995
Douglas Dority
International President
UFCW International Union
1775 K Street N.W.
Washington D.C.
20006-1598
By Courier
Dear President Dority:
I am writing to you as a member of UFCW Local 777, and I ask that you respond to this letter in writing. I also ask that you send copies of your response to Canadian Director Tom Kukovica, Gilbert Whitlock of UFCW Local 777 and individual members of the UFCW Local 777 Executive Board.
I wrote you on August 18, 1995 to ask that you ensure Local 777's Gilbert Whitlock would hold executive board meetings and general membership meetings in accordance with the International Constitution and Local 777 Bylaws. You wrote back to me saying Whitlock would contact me shortly. To date there has been no General Meeting, and Whitlock still has not contacted me. Likewise, Local 777 refuses to answer my written request for my dues status.
I understand that by his own volition, and contrary to your own rules governing such action, Whitlock is discussing the merger of Local Unions. I believe that before merger talks can begin you, as International President, must sanction such talks. Likewise, I would assume that the Local 777 Executive Board would have to authorize Whitlock to discuss such issues.
However, what is really appalling is that you are well aware that Whitlock's term of office expired in December of 1993. And still, you allow him to avoid elections.
Local 777 nominations were held in the first week of July 1995, and challenged the following week, yet nothing has been done to facilitate timely and fair elections. You know full well that we are not dealing with the final six months of a President's term of office; his term expired in 1993. Therefore, we are dealing with a point in time only. In fact, and by Constitutional law Whitlock has no right, whatsoever, to disburse funds, to chair meetings or to take any day-to-day operational actions.
President Dority, is the UFCW International Constitution binding on all UFCW members and bodies, or are a favored few exempt? Likewise, are the UFCW Local 777 Bylaws, signed by past-president Wynn in 1989, binding on all Local 777 members?
You know that all Local 777 terms expired in 1993; you know Whitlock has assembled an Executive Board, which numbers up to nine Vice-Presidents--including his wife, contrary to the three allowed by the bylaws; you know nominations were held for four Vice-President's positions; and you now know that he refuses to call a General Meeting. Excuse me if I seem a tad picayune in my complaints, but I do think the situation has lost all semblance of democracy.
President Dority, call me old fashioned, but I still think that the rights of a worker come far ahead of the $100,000-plus paycheck of a Local Union President. I have stood silent, and absorbed the wrath of the B.C. labour movement to protect Cliff Evans being identified as the author of the "Superstore" deal. Likewise, when I was with the Teamsters I stayed silent about who "called the shots" in their highly-unpopular move to raid striking workers. However, I can no longer stay silent in the face of your inaction.
I am asking for your help to do what is right--what is right for the rank-and-file member is right for the UFCW.
Sincerely yours,
Hugh Finnamore
(address and Phone # )
cc Tom Kukovica
cc Ken Georgetti
I hand delivered Ken Gorgetti's copy to the BC Federation of Labour and he ignored it just like the International, and National offices.
Have you ever asked yourself how a person can call and oversee an election when his term had run out two years earlier. Did the International step in? In effect, there was no President, there was just some guy spending the member's money. Did you know that that guy spent close to $1 million on a building without proper authority and without membership approval. Did you know that his wife had signing authority for the local's bank account?
Why am I telling you this stuff? My motives have been called into question. I just wanted to let you know that I was screaming about the stuff that was going on at Local 777 and going through "official" channels hoping that something would be done. You know what? No one in the so-called labour movement cared. I was rocking a very large boat with a lot of passengers in the first-class cabins. The elite didn't like that.
There are sleazy unions and sleazy employers, and I don't have the time of day for either. There are good employers and good unions and I help them to co-exist in the world of labour relations. It isn't where the big bucks are, but I can live a comfortable life with a clear conscience.
[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: HJFinnamore ]
Well I can see why you're unpopular with the UFCW honchos - then and now.
So let's see, this Gilbert, the President, overstays his term by 2 years, loads up the local's exec board with 3 times as many VP's as the constitution allows, appoints his spouse to the Board (was she even a member? does it matter?) and on and on and on... The members presumably are to sit back and have faith. Union activists are supposed to look the other way because it's not their union. Concerned workers/members of the public should butt out as they don't belong to "the Club". The Club (the mainstream unions and their umbrella organizations like the CLC and the provincial labour federations) looks the other way.
This is why I'm so critical of the mainstream labour movement and organizations like the CLC. How do they expect to win the support of workers when they tolerate (and in so doing, condone) this kind of behaviour on the part of their affiliates?
quote:
This is why I'm so critical of the mainstream labour movement and organizations like the CLC. How do they expect to win the support of workers when they tolerate (and in so doing, condone) this kind of behaviour on the part of their affiliates?
Are we to understand that the CLC (Canadian Labour Congress) and other labour organizations are aware of this crime and did/does nothing?
I think the newspaper referred to it as the Old Boys' Club. Of course they knew and know. Look at the stupid interview on Local 1977's Web site. Bill Reno interviews the head of the OFL. He loves the UFCW and he shops at Zehrs whenever he gets the chance. Excuse me while I hold my nose. I guess if the contract gets any cheaper, he'll move right in to a Zehrs store. Understand this--the UFCW is a major funder of the CLC, provincial federations and district labour councils. They aren't going to do anything that may affect the money the UFCW gives them. Look what happened to Johnny Roberts. He spoke out and was removed from the labour council. What did the other council members do about that injustice? Not one damned thing. Solidarity forever? Yeh, right on brothers and sisters.
On a further note, check out Cliff's special Ontario local. It's Local 206. I'll pass some stuff on it over to the MFD e-mail when I get a chance.
