Smoke and mirrors, dodge and delay. If the UFCW's so pissed about this then do something about it. This isn't even a paper tiger union anymore is a workers taxation agency. Pull your members out and give them strike pay and set up picket lines outside the OFG stores and make damn sure your members won't cross. Shut the whole damn issue down now, today. Who gives a shit about legality you've already demonstrated your ability to dodge prosecution in the courts. It could take years for the employer to reclaim damages and even then there are other ways around that isn't there guys? If this is a real union and your truely upset about this then do something about it...don't just sell out these people and stab them in the back.
LRB dumps Lomans MOU
Little over a month ago they were told that it would fly. A Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives of UFCW Local 1518 and Loman Distribution in 1995 gave the union the right to unilaterally cancel its 10-year collective aggeement, reopen negotiations and strike if bargaining failed.
"MOU I" could not have come along at a better time. It stood to give the workers at Lomans warehouse in Langley BC much needed leverage with their employer. The workers face permanent layoff later this year when Overwaitea Food Group, a major player in western Canada's grocery industry, takes its warehousing business to another distribution company.
Local 1518 served both Lomans and OFG - which the union claims is a "common employer" - with notice that it was cancelling the collective agreement and reopening negotiations. According to reports from workers at the warehouse, it was hoped that negotiations would result in an alternative to the layoffs, offers of employment at the new OFG warehouse or, in the least, improved severance packages for the workers. Notice of the union's intention to strike was served on the employers last week.
But the union's position on the MOU was quickly challenged and, this past Friday, the the BC Labour Relations Board handed down a ruling stating that the MOU I was not sufficient to terminate the collective agreement.
Reaction from the workers and their union has been swift and unequivocal. "Memo I wasn't worth wipin' your butt with", said one angry worker in MFD Forum the day the LRB's ruling was issued.
A statement on Local 1518's web site says that the union is infuriated with the decision and is considering an appeal. A strongly worded statement from Local 1518 President Brooke Sundin, spells out what is at the heart of the issue in this dispute:
"Our members in the warehouse have, on average, seventeen years experience with the company, and many of our members have been there twenty and thirty years," Sundin said. "These are people who have built lives in their communities, that have families and mortgages, and the union is committed to taking every legal step it can against the company's efforts to throw them out of work."
"Clearly, the company has an obligation to work with us to find a better solution than mass termination of its workforce," he added.
More about this dispute from the workers' perspective.
Well we can look forward to a fight the ufcw way.
Leaflets leaflets everywhere. 
Bad Overwaitea! Bad, bad!
quote:
"To say we're shocked by the LRB ruling is an understatement," said Local 1518 President Brooke Sundin. "Our members are getting jerked around by the company in the worst way imaginable. The company is just dismissing them like they don't matter, and we're all busting our butts fighting to save their jobs and right this wrong that the company is trying to jam down their throats."
"The guys have been great, they've been out leafleting night and day, all over the province, and have done a great job of raising awareness among the public," said Sundin. "They've got the full support of the union and the membership, they've got public support against the injustice that's being done to them, and it just does not sit very well that the LRB could rule that a senior company official, whose signature on any number of other documents was considered legitimate, is in this one, specific, particular instance considered illegitimate and without authority."
"We're talking to the union's lawyers right now to look into appealing the LRB's decision," said Sundin. "We'll assess what the lawyers have to say, and then decide on our next course of action. Regardless of this decision, we're going to continue pursuing the common employer case before the LRB in July."
Okay, okay, here's what the union's goin' ta do:
We're goin' ta hire lawyers--lots of 'em!
We're goin' ta supply coloured paper for leaflets--lots of different colours and lots of leaflets.
We're goin' ta supply those non-offensive leaflets free of charge to the Loman guys so they will have something to keep themselves busy--we're already too busy, so we've left it up to the Loman guys to leaflet.
We're goin' ta say bad things about the employer on our web-site that few visit--very few.
We're goin' ta keep this thing tied up at the labour board until the place is shut down--shut down and empty.
We're goin' ta....
quote:
We're talking to the union's lawyers right now to look into appealing the LRB's decision,"
Should this not have already been part of the preparation? You know being prepared either way.
I know I know, no-one could've predicted what the arbitrator would focus on to make the decision. Well I disagree. I'll bet these arbitrations are pretty standard themes and any good lawyer could have predicted why an arbitrator might rule in any one direction.
quote:
"To say we're shocked by the LRB ruling is an understatement," said Local 1518 President Brooke Sundin. "...and we're all busting our butts fighting to save their jobs and right this wrong that the company is trying to jam down their throats."
Brooke, Brooke, Brooke, did ya just fall off the turnip truck? Have you read Vice-Chair O'Brien's decision?
quote:
I find that [Loman] relied on representations by the Union that it did not intend to make use of the March 12, 1993 Attachment and/or Memorandum l unless Overwaitea terminated the service contract before the end of the collective agreement. Connie Smith testified that she was not overly concerned about the Union's position because she believed that the conditions the Union wanted to protect itself against were not likely to arise once [Loman] obtained a 10-year service contract with Overwaitea. From this I infer that [Loman] felt no need to take further steps to satisfy the conditions in Memorandum l. The fact that the Union made this representation is consistent with Limpright acknowledging to Connie Smith that the Union's original intention was to only rely on Memorandum l if Overwaitea ended the service contact before the collective agreement expired.
In addition, I find that the Union delayed to the point of acquiescence on asserting its right to terminate the collective agreement under the March 12, 1993 Attachment and/or Memorandum i. The Union has had a copy of the service contract since 1995. The Union accepted there was a 10-year lease at least since 1997. In may 28, 1997 membership bulletin, the Union appears satisfied with Julian Smith's confirmation of the conditions through an affidavit. I find that the Union was aware from a very early point that the Employer faced obstacles in providing the type of proof specified in the March 12, 1993 Attachment and/or Memorandum l. Although the Union initiates tow grievances with respict to [Loman's] failure to provide proof that it had met the conditions of the March 12, 1993 Attachment and/or Memorandum I, it never pursued the grievances after 1994. In all these circumstances, I conclude that the Union has by its conduct represented to [Loman] that it did not intend to exercise its right to terminate the collective agreement for failure to meet the conditions in the march 12, 1993 Attachment and/or Memorandum l.
In any event the MOU was as useless as scrap paper.
quote:
Limpright [a shop steward at the time and not a Local 1518 signing officer] suggested that only two copies be signed, one for the Union and one for the Employer. Limpright assured Allen he would put his copy insafekeeping until such tiem as it was needed. Allen then signed Memorandum l.
Limpright signed the Memorandum on May 4, 1995. Six days later, Brooke Sundin for the Union, Connie Smith and Allen for [Loman] signed the collective agreement that did not include Memorandum l, or any reference to it, thereby making the Memorandum worth nothing more than the memory of a "transitional" document.
What is significant is that the decision will be filed in Supreme Court on Monday Morning (if not late last Friday). Any strike activity will be contempt of court. That's important to understand.
As I said from the beginning, the MOU was not part of the CA. It mentioned a "tentative" agreement. Once the agreement is signed it ain't tentative anymore.
Brooke says they are talking to lawyers to see if they can appeal the decision. Wake up Brooke! There's nothing for the union to appeal. Give me a break!
The very fact that Limpright agreed to keep the document "secret" is crap. How many other documents do they keep secret? It seems as if everytime you turn around some UFCW local is forced to cough up a secret document that the Power Source didn't know about.
Filing the decision in court is a big blow for the Loman guys.
Can someone tell me, again, why the union guys get paid the huge bucks?
quote:
Can someone tell me, again, why the union guys get paid the huge bucks?
To keep the company guys in stitches?
quote:
I find that the Union delayed to the point of acquiescence
Geez does O'Brien know the machine or what? Will the machines' acquiescence play another big part in the *common employer* case still before the board? They've sat on that for almost 10 yrs. 
quote:
WWBD? (What would Buzz do?)
WWBD? First of all, Buzz would never have signed a 10-year deal. Buzz would have nailed Overwaitea as the employer 10 years ago. Buzz just wouldn't be in this big of a mess.
That being said, if Buzz inherited this abysmal CA from the UFCW, he would realize his leverage won't be found at the Labour Board.
Buzz's leverage would be found in the right to leaflet and his right to picket. Buzz would be organizing demonstrations at Jimmy's headquarters. Buzz would be gettin' lots of media attention. He'd have the cameras rolling at the demonstration in front of EV Logistics. He'd have the media at the demonstration at Save-on-Foods.
Buzz would be in bargaining with Lomans right now. He'd make sure all the warehouse guys except four or five got their severance. Buzz would make sure that the four or five were available to picket around the clock when the warehouse shuts down. Buzz would make sure those four or five didn't lose out on their severance 'cause the union would pick it up.
Buzz might not win the war, but the damned employers would know damned well who the Loman guys are and that you don't mess with them or their union.
Now the BIG question is, what the hell is the UFCW going to do?
Is the fatman capable of raising a little hell, or are his cajones droopin'?
quote:
Now the BIG question is, what the hell is the UFCW going to do?
Is the fatman capable of raising a little hell, or are his cajones droopin'?
I got five bucks that says they're droopin'.
The UFCW isn't going to do squat. More rope to hang themselves with AFAIC.
I'm surprised that the Local 1518 leaders are infuriated. The outcome of this proceeding was highly predictable. I'm not sure what the basis for appeal is going to be.
Why are they not out picketing the business and its owners? I'm afraid that the biz-union culture makes anything beyond legal action, completely unpalatable. Maybe the boys really are infuriated, but they just can't bring themselves to fight.
How much was spent on this courtroom drama? Would it not have been better to spend it on community awareness. Radio or newspaper ads or something like that?
One more question, where is the CLC and the BC Fed in all this? Why aren't all those guys marching down to the head office to demand justice for these workers?
Maybe this is one of those "pretend" unions that the CLC doesn't like. 
Seriously, the CLC and Federations are reactive, not proactive. They don't save jobs; they complain about lost jobs.
Guys with fine clothes and flashy cars find it too embarrassing to cause a public ruckus. They'd rather risk the members' money than any personal sacrifice. They'll hire a lawyer before they will spend a night occupying Jimmy Pattison's office or Overwaitea Food Group's headquarters.
These guys are businessmen; they aren't hard-core activists. They hire communication specialists and lawyers. They spend other people's money; they do not lead workers into battle. Unless there is a camera present to record their 15 minutes of PR activity, they do not rub elbows with the peasants.
Here's The Loman Decision.
I've read that Brooke is going to take Loman to the Labour Board in July on a common employer complaint.
quote:
The Industrial Relations Council declared Loman the successor employer to Overwaitea on November 30, 1992.
If this is so, why now? Ten years ago the Labour Board said that Loman was the successor to Overwaitea. What's changed? Why has it taken 10 years to bring the case forward?
Over to you Brooke....
I sure hope the UFCW guys are embarassed enough to do some "real" stuff for the Loman crew.
We all know the truth, so it's time the high-priced fat asses started to develop some long-term and short-term strategies for helping the Loman workers.
I saw a suggestion that perhaps Brooke should go down and park his fat ass in Jimmy Pattison's office. Maybe Brooke and Ivan could park their corpulent butts in Overwaitea's fine offices. Maybe the UFCW can get its shiny new truck for a demonstration in front of the highest volume Save-on-Foods stores every Saturday and Sunday until September 28, 2002.
What is Brooke prepared to sacrifice for his members? What is Ivan prepared to sacrifice for his former workmates?
It's a shame. No matter what these guys do, they can't get the UFCW off the ground....
Maybe that's because it can't fly.
The guys are starting to ask what they might get out of 20 years of paying dues besides a t-shirt. Is the union afraid it will get sued if we J-walk? Is it OK to spit in public?
When all the details come out, if they do, ( you gotta know UFCW will let this one die as quiet a death as possible, no appeal) there will be some serious questions about representation. Some serious butt covering is forcasted for the near future. Look for it in a UFCW location near you.
I think there is a lot we can learn from this decision, disappointing as it may be. It is a good example of what the LRB's really do which is maintain order in the workplace. This is something that workers are largely kept in the dark about. The conventional wisdom is that the LRB's dispense justice but that's not so. The discussion at this thread will shed some light on why it is that way.
Although there are many occasions when unions can and should take issues to the LRB's, going there is not always the most effective strategy (depending on the issue). Having said that, there are other strategies.
I will blabber at greater length on this later when I've got a bit more time.
LL: How are workers reacting to the decision? While they may not be able to change it (unless the union can successfully appeal), we may be able to help them understand why it shook out the way that it did.
In the last couple of years, there have been three major Suprem Court decisions regarding workers' rights.
Effective leafletting is your right. It's obivious that Local 1518 doesn't have a clue or doesn't want to spend the money on effective leafletting.
You have the right to demonstrate at EV Logistics and at Overwaitea. It's obvious that Local 1518 doesn't know how to organize effective demonstrations or doesn't want to spend the money and effort on demonstrations.
There are a few options that beat the Labour Board and the Courts hands down.
Writing checks to lawyers isn't the answer. Unfortunately, that's what it seems Local 1518 does best.
I heard workers were leafleting with "n" ON-Strike Signs today. (Notice the small n) Management apparently came out and took lots of pictures and took notes. Head-Office officials were reportedly there taking pictures as well.
Talk is over 40 customers parked their carts and turned away in a little over an hour. A fact I hear was confirmed by OWF managment.
-----------------------------------------------
You have the right to *demonstrate* at EV Logistics and at Overwaitea
-----------------------------------------------
I like that word. Opens all sorts of possibilities doesent it?
--------------------------------------------------
There are a few options that beat the Labour Board and the Courts hands down.
--------------------------------------------------
Suggestions?
quote:
"They've got the full support of the union and the membership, they've got public support against the injustice that's being done to them,
The machine is right behind you all the way.
Where does the union stand on "direct action" in this case now? I'm not so much talking about leafleting as picketing, other forms of protest, media coverage and things along those lines. Has there been discussion about getting support from the CLC (they were just in town for a big do, maybe they could come back and show support for the Loman's workers who really need all the support they can get). What about the BC Fed and other unions? Has anyone approached them looking for support?
quote:
Where does the union stand on "direct action" in this case now?
They've put one man in charge of organizing the campaign, scheduling 8 hrs of leafletting duty (per worker per week). They've down-sized the leaflet but up-sized the content.
So the short answer is: It seems they don't have a stand on "direct action."
You all want to know what's sad?
I am a ufcw 1518 member. The loman/ofg guys are my union brothers. Since the dispute has escalated I have not been given any direction from 1518 on what I and others can do in support of 250 brothers who are fighting for their livelyhood.
Solitude_ity forever
Solitude_ity forever
Solitude_ity forever ...
My union's not that strong
Big Biz Union-- Office Memo--
"Capital expenditures associated with convention and conference costs have mandated an "Econo-
Battle" in this case. If expenditures at this point in time are not vigorously reduced, travel and accomodation to further conference and convention activity may have to be economy class. Please be united in protecting our dignity."
If anybody out ther would like to help the Loman/OWF warehouse guys with some leafleting call 604-882-9602 and ask for the union office.
I'm sure they would appreciate the support.
quote:
posted by <Loman Life>:
Big Biz Union-- Office Memo--
"Capital expenditures associated with convention and conference costs have mandated an "Econo-
Battle" in this case. If expenditures at this point in time are not vigorously reduced, travel and accomodation to further conference and convention activity may have to be economy class. Please be united in protecting our dignity."
I'm sure that cost of the hospitality suites at the UFCW cnvention and the CLC convention would have paid for some really great leafletts and perhaps some travelling money for leafleters.
I guess it's just a matter of priorities.
quote:
604-882-9602
I don't know that number, is that a number for the steward at the warehouse?
It's the warehouse number and yes it will get you the steward on duty at the warehouse.
604-882-9693 direct line to union office @ Lomans
quote:
Kuruption Is A Way Of Life.
Ya, YOU say so!
Welcome to the forums! 
UFCW appeals LRB decision on Lomans MOU
UFCW Local 1518 has asked the BC Labour Relations Board to reconsider a decision to reject UFCW Local 1518's claim that a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1995 gives the union the right to cancel its 10 year collective agreement with Loman Distributing and take strike action.
Workers at Lomans warehouse in Langley BC are about to be laid off permanently in September, when food retailer Overwaitea Food Group takes its business to another distribution company.
A clause in the MOU gave the union the right to unilaterally cancel the collective agreement if the company failed to provide certain information about its service contract with its only customer, OFG, and to register its lease on the warehouse. The company never made good on those commitments.
In a decision issued June 21st the LRB rejected the union's arguments based on, among other things, the union's delay in bringing the company's non-compliance forward until several years after the fact.
Last week, Local 1518 notified the LRB that it was asking for reconsideration of the decision. In a letter to the LRB, lawyers for the union state that the LRB erred in applying the law. The union has asked for expedited proceedings in view of the impending closure of the warehouse on September 28th.