UFCW Turns Lawyers Loose on William's Web.
"Voice for Working America" Sues Member for Speaking Out
Making good on earlier threats of legal action against William Gammert, administrator of the William's Web union reform web site (google search: UFCW Local 777), lawyers for UFCW Canada, UFCW Local 777, its President Gib Whitlock and Dean Patriquin, its rookie Business Agent, have commenced legal proceedings against Gammert, a member of Local 777.
In a Writ of Summons filed in BC Supreme Court this past Wednesday, the UFCW lawyers allege that certain statements on Gammert's web site, of which the UFCW and its officers have been fully aware for almost two years, are defamatory.
The Writ further claims that Gammert violated copyright law by posting a copy of the UFCW International Constitution on his site:
quote:
"Commencing in or about 1999, the Defendant has, and continues to, infringe on the UFCW's copyright in the constitution by reproducing that work, in its entirety on his website, without consent, thereby causing loss and damage to the UFCW."
A puzzling claim, given that UFCW Canada's site promises to publish the International
Constitution for the world to read.
quote:
"The UFCW International Constitution was amended and updated at the UFCW's quintennial constitutional convention held in Chicago in July 1998. The text of the document will be posted to this site when it becomes available."
the official Canadian website states. Ironically, while the UFCW waits for the text of the Constitution to become "available", it has asked the courts to grant "a temporary or permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from reproducing the Constitution of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, on his website."
The UFCW, Local 777, Whitlock and Patriquin are seeking an injunction restraining Gammert from writing anything further about them and damages in an
unspecified amount. All claim to have suffered injury to their "character, credit and reputation" in addition to suffering "distress and embarrassment".
The UFCW's official web site bills the 1.4 million-member union as "A Voice for Working America".
MFD News will keep you updated on the progress of the UFCW's lawsuit against its member, William Gammert.
What a crock the UFCW's suit is. First of all, UFCW Canada doesn't own the copyright to the "International Constitution," the UFCW International controls it for the benefit of the members. I believe William is a member, is he not?
These UFCW guys say they are embarrassed? Give me a break! If their "Partnering Agreement" with Provigo (Loblaws) and their "hotel" deals don't embarrass them nothing will. Hey, I guess their track record doesn't embarrass them either: Is Corruption a Problem in The UFCW?
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Richard ]
Mr. Gammert ran against Local 777's President. He set up a "gripe" site critical of the UFCW. He challenged the election. Gee, what other similarities with other reformers do we see here: (Click here for a LRB Decision)
quote:
The following facts are taken primarily from the Union's submission. They have been amended to incorporate information provided by the Employer and to accord with Mr. Gammert's final response. Some paragraphs from the Union's submission containing allegations which Mr. Gammert disputes have been omitted. I have also reproduced passages from some of the relevant documents on file.
1. Mr. Gammert works as a shipper/receiver at the Real Canadian Superstore on Marine Drive in Vancouver. He was hired by the Employer about eight years ago.
2. Mr. Gammert generally works 25 hours or more per week, and for the past year has been scheduled to work between 4:30 am and 12:30 pm. He maintains that he has little contact with the general public because of his shift and workstation.
3. Mr. Gammert is dissatisfied with the current leadership of the Union and has
intermittently voiced those concerns in the course of the last few years. As indicated, he was dissatisfied to the point of running for election against the incumbent Union President.
4. In order to convey his concerns to a wider audience, Mr. Gammert set up a website on the Internet. The website is styled as a "home" for those who are unhappy with the "United Fraud and Corruption Workers".
It's interesting to see, for the Labour Code Section 12 complaint, that the UFCW employed senior labour lawyer David Blair of Victory Square Law Offices to defend it while at the same time (May 9, 2001), Mr. Blair was threatening the MFD with a Defamation Suit on behalf of Bruce Rollick.
Let's see, How many lawyers have the UFCW engaged to fight it's members: Victory Square Law offices, Evans Law Firm, UFCW International Staff Attorney, Farris Vaughn Wills and Murphy, Edgar and Shore, Shortt & Company, Fiorillo and Glavin. Is there no end to the number of lawyers the UFCW is willing to spend its members' union dues on to crush dissenting voices?
Richard may have a point. The International Constitution gives control of Copyright to the UFCW International Executive Board. I don't think an affiliate like UFCW Canada has much say in the rules governing use of UFCW International Copyright materials.
It's Interesting that the UFCW International Constitution states the following in its Preamble:
quote:
Because the history of workers has been but the record of constant struggle against oppression by the wealthy and powerful,
And because wealth, with its accompanying power, is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few;...
How darned intuitive of the International Officers. The UFCW is Rich and Powerful indeed.
[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Legal_Beagle ]
I was not aware the UFCW had so many law firms involved in chasing after its critics. This is really looking like a SLAPP. Well maybe it's time somebody raised awareness of this awful practice on this side of the border. I'm wondering if there's any avenue for raising awareness of the SLAPP phenomenon through the various law societies? Lawyers have some kind of code of conduct don't they?
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: radical girl ]
Whoeeee! Does the Section 12 decision stink or what? (Click Here) The company may have had the right to conduct random searches, but they definitely don't have the right to conduct definite, deliberate, intended, planned, premeditated or specific searches. That's unreasonable search and seizure. The Vice-Chair, John Hall, is a lawyer and lawyers are supposed to understand the meanings of words. Random has a very specific meaning. By the very account set out in Hall's decision, the search of Gammert's locker was anything but random.
As for the letter, perhaps Mr. Hall should look up the jurisprudence on what constitutes a disciplinary letter.
Turn off your computer's "smellerator" before you click on the decision. Otherwise, you will be gagging.
What's interesting is that Hall didn't have anything good to say about Patriquin or UFCW Local 777. In effect, he says they are entitled to do less than an admirable job of representing their members.
quote:
...I am also prepared to assume that the parties did not carry out a full investigation as contemplated by the provision. But these assumptions do little to advance Mr. Gammert's complaint. The standard under Section 12 is not one of perfection, and a trade union need not be correct in its interpretation or application of a collective agreement....
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: weiser ]
The UFCW was really big on "Mouseland," the Tommy Douglas story about how the mice elected a cat to represent them. From whatching what the Union officials are up to recently, I'd say they they are living in a mouseland of a different sort. 
This decision speaks volumes about how rank and file dissent is treated by employers, unions and the labour relations judiciary. Hall must have been mortified at the nerve of this guy who just doesn't understand his role in the LR system: doormat.
What's this Mouseland thing? This would be interesting for those of us not steeped in mainstream union culture.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: remote viewer ]
Local 1518 is very proud of the story: (Click for Mouseland)
The story has a nice ending, but as we all know, the NDP was overladen with union business agents and they took care of the union Union Fat Cats rather than the rank and file.
Maybe government is like Dr. Frankenstein. You can elect a mouse, but when Dr. Frankenstein gets through with the mouse, it resembles a Fat Cat.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Troll ]
What puzzled me was the fact that the International and the Gibster didn't use the International Constitution Kangaroo Court to put the screws to William. However, it now becomes quite clear. The buggers are out of time by the terms of their own Constitutuion:
quote:
5. Charges shall be filed with the Local Union Executive Board within six months after the basis for the alleged violation has been discovered or should have been discovered.
We'll see how far the Courts go with this internal union matter. They toss shit like this out on a regular basis.
quote:
What puzzled me was the fact that the International and the Gibster didn't use the International Constitution Kangaroo Court to put the screws to William.
Whatever is a IC Kangaroo Court? And how might that have played out?
quote:
However, it now becomes quite clear. The buggers are out of time by the terms of their own Constitutuion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Charges shall be filed with the Local Union Executive Board within six months after the basis for the alleged violation has been discovered or should have been discovered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly the allegations UFCW are slapping brother Gammert with were not a problem 2yrs ago, when Williams web was first developed. Why is this site all of a sudden the focus of such action? ( lots of thoughts, hope someone will set me straight )
quote:
We'll see how far the Courts go with this internal union matter. They toss shit like this out on a regular basis.
But in the meantime members dues are being squandered?
Should I be embarrassed, ashamed or outraged to be a UFCW member at this time?
Hell, colour me all of the above.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: siggy ]
There's a passage in one of Noam Chomsky's books (Necessary Illusions, I think) where Chomsky discusses the evolution of British and American foreign policy following the second world war. It was the prevailing view of the leaders of the western industrial powers that the world should be organized into "have's" (the western industrial nations of the north) and "have nots" (the underdeveloped nations of the south). The have-not's would be governed by the have's and would exist to serve their interests as they were really not smart enough to do anything else and needed to be kept in line. Winston Churchill summed up the arrangement as one where the lesser peoples ought to be "governed by fine men dwelling at peace in their habitations".
I thought of this statement while reflecting on William's LRB decision and the more recent lawsuit. The "fine men" of the labour relations system are the union bureaucrats, the company administrators and the sort-of-judiciary that presides over their relationships. Guys like William periodically make it difficult for them to "live in peace in their habitations". If they appear to be common-cause whenever some rebellious worker darkens their doorstep, it's because they are.
Hopefully the real court will recognize this for what it is.
I'm still confused about why the UFCW would sue somebody for putting their Constitution on the WEB. They claim in Article 2 of the Constitution that their purpose is to to:
quote:
...take all steps and actions, which are reasonable and proper, to promote the welfare and interests of its members, of workers within its jurisdiction, and of workers generally and to afford mutual protection to members against unwarranted rules, unlawful discharge, or other forms of injustice or oppression; to sponsor, encourage, engage in, and support, financially and otherwise, educational, legislative, political, civic, social, health, welfare, community, or charitable projects or activities; and to support and encourage such other objectives for which working people may lawfully combine for their mutual protection and benefit.
If I read the Constitution right, the UFCW is an organization for anybody who works, not just UFCW members. Why would they not want to publicize their laws and regulations? Isn't it better to be up front with people? The Constitution isn't a book that's published for profit. It is a legal requirement of all unions. They don't make money off of it, it's a public document.
Why are the trolls so silent on this issue? You don't have to have knowledge about this. Hey, carlfraser, would it be fair for the International to sue you if they caught you photocopying the Constitution for the notice board, or for a new member who wanted one? This whole thing is bizarre!
In my opinion this action is by it's very nature vexatious. Can Will's lawyers not file against the UFCW given they don't have a leg to stand on within the UFCW's own constitution? I believe Will is unjustly suffering emense hardship as a result of this action and should be compensated. What do you think L.B.?
Well if they shut down Will's site never fear.
We can hop over to bari.iww.org/iu660/ and read the International Constitution there.
Kinda like chasing the end of the toilet paper roll huh guys?
UFCW lawyers should examine this statement, made by UFCW International Director, Clifford Evans. Evans and Gammert would appear to be on the same page, so to speak. It's on the record gentlemen. Go find it.
"If we are to protect union members from the real or perceived arbitrary or discriminatory action of their leaders -- local, national, international or provincial organizations -- the wording in the labour relations act of British Columbia is perhaps a good model. It's very short and very precise:
"Every person has a right to the application of the principles of natural justice in respect of all disputes relating to:
"(a) matters in the constitution of the trade union;
"(b) the person's membership in a trade union; or
"(c) discipline by a trade union."
This is a broad-brushed approach that is appealing for its inclusiveness while at the same time not dictating the affairs of individual unions. It doesn't change any constitution, but it allows an aggrieved member a legal right to challenge his or her union's action, and this is what we should be trying to achieve here in Ontario.
Certainly there has been and always will be political conflicts and differences of opinion within unions. You have to understand that union leaders operate in an adversarial system and so are conditioned to dealing with conflict. The line of work doesn't attract people who have weak convictions or who are afraid to speak their minds. When a union has crafted an organizational and governance structure over many, many years, you should tread very carefully so you don't inoculate them against a relatively small problem and in the process infect them with a much more serious disease."
Quote from "William's Web":
quote:
"Dean Patriquin told all of you that this site was full of lies. If that was the case then I would be in broiled in some legal battles rite now, (I am not). ..."
So does this mean that William's Web is full of lies?
[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: carlfraser ]
You make me smile CFR. 
Oh yeah! Welcome back? Where ya been?
[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: siggy ]
That's a really lame question carlfraser. Come on, we expect better. While we've got you here though, maybe you could tell us why is the UFCW so afraid of William's web? What's the big deal? Can't the big, rough, tough UFCW boys take a little criticism? Gosh, if their feelings are so easily bruised, how can they handle going up against insulting, arrogant management types?
From what Secret Agent posted, Cliff Evans himself appears to have said,
"Certainly there has been and always will be political conflicts and differences of opinion within unions. You have to understand that union leaders operate in an adversarial system and so are conditioned to dealing with conflict. The line of work doesn't attract people who have weak convictions or who are afraid to speak their minds."
Now you can't be telling us you disagree with Cliff?
Is it that Dean and Gib are just not conditioned enough to deal with conflict? According to what Cliff Evans says, they should be able to take the fairly commonplace protest statements Gammert makes on his site like big boys instead of wasting the members' money on silly lawsuits.
Golly, have you seen some of the union reform protest sites out there today? I don't hear any of those unions whining about how hurt their representatives' feelings are.
Hey, carlfraser, yer fly is down. Woops! Fooled ya'. Get a life, carlfraser.
William's site is rude and crude, but does that justify the UFCW International Union with its billions of dollars suing some little rank and filer for putting the International Constitution on the Web?
What's so secret about the Constitution? After this UFCW sleaze play, the UFCW will no longer be able to criticize any employer anywhere for crushing the voices and human rights of working people. This law suit is obscene by anyone's standards.
Like I said, carlfraser, get a life--even a little one.
