Brothers and Sisters:
As per the Unifor National Union decision dated on March 17 2015, to be compliant with the decision, Local 1996-O will have Executive elections no later than July 31,2016.
In light of this National Union decision, Nomination forms are now open from March 01 2016 – March 07 2016 24:00hrs.
Please download the Nomination form and follow the instructions provided in the form.
In Solidarity,
Local 1996-O
We all need food to live. Unfortunately, with the cost of food increasing it is getting hard for many to buy all that they need.
Our trip to St. Francis Table serving meals last month was as rewarding as it is every year. It would be nice to be able to volunteer more often. It would also be nice drop off at the nearby food bank.
(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/the-psychology-behind-gift-giving-and-generosity/). Unfortunately, our realities don’t make it possible for each of us as individuals enjoy the benefits of giving.
The good news is that being a member of this Union does.
Local 1996-O has donated food and $5,000 to the Daily Bread Food Bank. We also enjoyed the privilege of bringing a $3,000 cheque to FoodShare on your behalf. It will go to programs that feed belly’s and minds of children in schools across the GTA.
Sam dropping off food and a cheque at the Daily Bread Food Bank
This money comes from Unifor’s Social Justice Fund. Unifor National is donating $135,000 to 46 different food banks across Canada.
“Cash donations help food banks fill in the blanks to their all important food donations, to make sure the families using the food banks can have a balanced diet.” Mohamad Alsadi, Director of Unifor Nationals Human Rights and International Department.
There are many reasons people need the support of FoodBanks. The cost of living is a big one. With the Loonie at a thirteen year low, food prices are only going to continue to climb over the next year.
Together we can make a real difference in the lives of people in need. And together we can make a difference in the lives of our fellow workers.
When it comes right down to it, there’s not a lot we can’t do when we work as a team.
I have reviewed all information that I have received on behalf of the National President’s Office. The Committee on Constitutional Matters requested written correspondence from the Local Union and the appellants and has now completed its investigation into their request for Review of Decision of your election.
In addition, the Committee on Constitutional Matters contacted the Unifor Ottawa Office for information relative to the approval process of Local Union By-Law amendments prior to the creation of Unifor.
On September 30, 2014 I responded to a member of Local 1996-O by email who had copied me on a question to you regarding the nomination form available to members in your Local Union. He directly asked me for my input and a ruling on the attached form through email. By this time, two other members had also contacted me by email.
I subsequently responded to the member regarding the form just as I do any other members or Leadership who contact me. I provided an opinion as to whether or not the form and the intent behind the by-law are in fact constitutional according to the Unifor Constitution.
My response was as follows:
I have reviewed the attached document relative to elections that may be forthcoming within the Local Union. I would be more than happy to discuss this and any other concern that may originate prior to the elections taking place because as we all know, Unifor is an entirely new Union with different rules and procedures than existed in each of our predecessor Unions.
In reviewing the attached, I can say that it is my opinion that the provision to require a member to currently hold an elected Chief Steward position in order to seek an Executive Board Office such as those listed would be unconstitutional. I am not aware of what is contained in the Locals by-laws as a revised set has not been sent to me as of yet for approval but I can say if that requirement is contained within, it will not be approved.
As you can see from the above noted response, I indicated that the provision restricting Executive Officer positions to currently elected Chief Stewards would be considered unconstitutional and would not be approved by the National Executive Board. I did however say that I was not aware of what was contained in the Local’s existing by-laws as I did not have a copy when questioned.
I have since been provided with a copy and clearly that provision is contained within Article 13, Section 1 which reads;
ARTICLE 13 – NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF LOCAL EXECUTIVE AND STEWARDS
Section 1- Nominations
a) Local Executive shall be nominated from the existing Chief Stewards in October every third year of term.
b) Chief Stewards shall be nominated from the existing Stewards, in April every third year of term. The nominee must be a currently existing Steward for a minimum of one year.
c) Stewards shall be nominated in March of every third year of term.
In addition, you have provided me with a copy of a letter from Brother Dave Coles approving the above noted by-law change in December of 2012.
Also, it was raised by the appellants that the by-law change didn’t follow the required procedure with the former CEP for approval although I did not find that to be the case. The letter dated December 10, 2012 from Brother Dave Coles clearly acknowledges receipt of letters from XXXXXXXXX, Recording Secretary of the Local dated November 26, 2012 and that those bylaw changes were approved in accordance with the procedure in the CEP Constitution at the time.
I thank the Local for recognizing at the December 14, 2014 General Membership meeting that the by-law as it exists today is too restrictive. In addition on February 26, 2015 you sent the National Union a summary to help clarify the sequence of events which included a statement as follows; “With the benefit of hindsight, and as explained in more detail below, we now feel that this provision is too restrictive and should be changed”. As previously stated the Local will have to amend that particular provision prior to sending revised by-laws to the National Executive Board for approval. Article 13, Section 1 a) is considered unconstitutional based on the Unifor Constitution.
Under the merger agreements between our former Unions, both CEP and CAW, Local Unions will be given up to three years to conform to the Unifor Constitution. There are approximately 760 Local Unions within Unifor who need to revise their by-laws. Many Locals have taken the approach that if they reach out for assistance or advice on a particular item contained in their by-laws, and find it to be in contradiction of the Unifor Constitution, they forego or ignore that particular provision. Your Local has chosen not to and wishes to rely on your approved by-laws and declare the election final with all Executive Officers elected by acclamation. The National Union intends to respect the merger agreements signed by our former Unions and therefore does not intend to compel the Local to hold new elections in accordance with the Unifor Constitution at this time.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, Local 1996-O elections will stand as final under the existing by-laws of the Local Union; however the term of office is being shortened so that a new election for the four Executive Officer positions must be completed by no later than July 31, 2016, which is prior to the next Unifor Constitutional Convention. Should a vacancy develop with regards to any of the current Executive positions, an election must take place in accordance with the Unifor Constitution.
I can be reached at 1.800.204.3121 Ext. 2224 if you have any questions.
In solidarity,
Rick Garant,
Director of Constitutional Matters
Unifor
In the past, your Workplace Health and Safety Committee has carried spare safety glasses to handout when they found missing, damaged or scratched safety glasses. Recently they were denied an order of 48 glasses. The glasses vary in cost depending on the style from $2 to $6 dollars. Yes, that’s under $288 dollars for the high end style.
Why would a company like Bell Canada shortchange the safety of its employees? Ok, that could be a rhetorical question.
To anyone who thinks eye protection may not be a crucial component of PPE in the workplace, think again. Nearly three out of five injured workers were not wearing eye protection at the time of the accident or were wearing the wrong kind of eye protection for the job. Eye injuries alone cost more than $300 million per year in lost production time, medical expenses and worker compensation.
The majority of workplace eye injuries are caused by small particles or objects (such as metal slivers, wood chips or dust) striking or abrading the eye. Injured workers said that nearly three-fifths of the objects were smaller than a pinhead. Injuries can also occur when nails, staples or metal penetrate the eyeball, which can result in a permanent loss of vision. Blunt force traumas caused by objects striking the eyes or face or from a worker running into an object are another threat, as are chemical burns from splashes of industrial chemicals or cleaning products.
The role of comfort in eye protection cannot be underestimated. Research has shown that comfort as well as style helps drive compliance with PPE-wearing protocols. PPE that allows workers to express their individuality also leads to greater compliance. Providing a range of options in terms of color and other style aspects gives workers some control over how they look. When people are content with their appearance in the PPE, it follows that they will be more likely to wear the PPE appropriately. And PPE that is perceived as “cool” is more likely to be worn.
Employees also must take care of protective eyewear to avoid scratches. Scratched and dirty devices reduce vision, cause glare and may contribute to accidents. Glasses that are scratched or pitted should be discarded and replaced immediately.
An on-the-job eye injury can cause lasting and permanent vision damage, potentially disabling a worker for life. Even “minor” eye injuries can cause long-term vision problems and suffering, such as recurrent and painful corneal erosion from a simple scratch from sawdust, cement or drywall.
An estimated 90 percent of eye injuries can be prevented through the use of proper protective eyewear!
With a statistic as compelling as this, it makes both common and economic sense to do everything possible to make sure workers have the right PPE to protect their eyes on the job.
Every employer should make it a safety priority for its workers to operate with clear vision in their workplace and surroundings.
Your Local and the 416 WHSC committee will be pursuing this issue.
If you have damaged or scratched safety glasses ask your manager to replace them. When lenses are scratched, vision becomes impaired and eyes are strained. When glasses are damaged, they may lose their ability to protect as they were designed to, and they are a safety hazard.
In Solidarity
Sam Snyders
It’s been a long road to getting BTS Associates certified as a bargaining unit within Unifor.
There were attempts made to hinder our campaign, security guards were installed to restrict our access and associates were suddenly tempted with unheard of raises, all in an effort to dissuade the the them from joining.
We’re happy to say the Associates staid the course and persisted in their goal of having a voice with this employer.
We’re looking forward to negotiating their first ever collective agreement in the coming months.
In the meantime, these flyers from our campaign highlight some of the key reasons this is a positive direction for these workers.
Sam Snyders
President, Local 1996-O
416 Health and Safety Co-Chair
Unifor Chairperson Workers with Disabilities
LRC Committee and JSDC Committee
Ont. Bargaining Rep
Telecommunications Industry Council Representative
Twitter : https://twitter.com/SammySnyders
