by

RE: REVIEW OF DECISION (ART 18, SEC B) ELECTION APPEAL (ART 15, SEC B, PAR 5D) – UNIFOR LOCAL 1996-0, EXECUTIVE ELECTION APPEAL I

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,

RickGarant_Sig

Rick Garant,
Director of Constitutional Matters
Unifor

by

Shining the light on disability legislation in Canada

 

I had trouble doing squats the other day at the gym as a result of an old injury–it turns out I have a degree of osteoarthritis in my hip. I can work with it, but it could get worse one day.

Would an employer see me as diminished? Would an employer begin to build a case for dismissal because it became difficult for me to get up stairs? Would they manage me differently knowing I was physically challenged?

It’s a sad reality that employers routinely get rid of loyal, engaged, dependent employees instead of working with them through their challenges.

It’s also short-sighted. Our research shows that on the whole, helping people adjust to physical and mental health changes costs less than planning and executing tactics to abandon them. Many employers, focussed on quarters instead of careers, miss the chance to capitalize on the efforts of people who can often be accomodated for a few hundred dollars.

The unofficial practice is base; it aims to externalize the cost of addressing a team member’s challenge to the community at large; to our health care systems and other support services. People’s lives can easily spin out of control when they’re dismissed in their time of need, and this process plays a role in converting a contributing member of society to a dependent. It’s cold, crass, and no one wins except for a few shareholders, in the short term.

Not in Ontario. We’ve got the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”).

The AODA is designed to remove the barriers that prevent or limit people with disabilities from participating in a variety of activities in Ontario – including employment, receipt of goods and services, transportation, the built environment and information and communication – through the enactment of legislated accessibility standards.

The AODA complements the requirements under the Human Rights Code and other laws that protect disabled people from discrimination or harassment. Its goal is to have organizations take proactive measures to address accessibility issues related to employees, customers and other members of the public.

It includes clear, progressive (perhaps obvious in hindsight) guidelines like:

  • All new buildings require affordances for accessibility.
  • All renovations are subject to the requirement of building these features.
  • All employers are required to have training in their workplaces.

In other words, Ontario has made it illegal to discriminate against people based on their physical or mental condition.

If it wasn’t embarrassing enough that these stigmas are institutionalized to the degree that we need laws to address them, consider the sad fact that Ontario is a progressive leader in this space; the other provinces have some catching up to do.

And we’re going to do everything in our power to help them.

The second in-person Canada Council meeting brought each of the elected “Workers with Disabilities” leaders together to introduce and discuss our “Shining the Light” campaign.

To increase the ability of employers to get people back to meaningful work, we’re starting by spreading the word about the foundation Ontario has set. We hope that our fellow provinces will seize best practices and adopt them.

We’ll share updates here, but feel free to ask about Shining the Light, the Canada Council for Workers with Disabilities or the AODA in the comments.

 

by

Progressing Re/integration of Persons with Disabilities

20150910_174807_001 20150910_164211

On Thursday, September 10th I volunteered to attend an event Recognizing Professional Excellence in the Re/integration of Persons with Disabilities. There were many inspiring keynote speakers and activists dedicated to fighting for the rights of workers with disabilities.

It is important that we take action for workers like Wolfgang Zimmermann, someone who at only 20 years old was instructed to cut down trees using a chainsaw on his first day on the job with absolutely no training. A tree fell on him and broke his back, leaving him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Unfortunately he was not offered accommodation or retraining for a different position. Instead he was left fighting a system that provided no support for workers with disabilities. Wolfgang is one of the founders of Pacific Coast University, and his passion for increasing awareness about the return to work and disability management programs offered at this institute is truly awe-inspiring.

The evening promoted return to work efforts for individuals who have acquired a disabling impairment, promoted the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and recognized individuals who have achieved an internationally recognized professional competency standard in Return to Work and Disability Management.

20150910_174519

Of specific interest was Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Science and the specialized training programs they offer for Return to Work and Disability Management. As a partner with the United Nations accredited International Social Security Association (ISSA), Pacific Coast offers a superior educational experience and innovative curriculum designed with guidance from the internationally renowned National Institute for Disability Management and Research.

Research shows the most successful return to work programs employ practitioners with specialized education. With increasing economic and social realities facing employers and workers continuing to “shine the light” on workplace health issues, the global demand by organizations for professional support is growing. I believe that Unifor and our current campaign (Shine the Light- See the ability not the disABILITY) can have a significantly positive impact on promoting such education and training through numerous potential avenues.

Having return to work specialists available to properly reintegrate technicians that have been affected by an illness, injury or other disability is critical. 1 in 3 people will suffer some degree of a disability over the span of their working lives. Having a professional looking out for their rights and fighting for fair accommodation with adequate training will ensure that the BTS workforce is productive and all individuals are contributing to the everyday successes of the business. I plan to approach BTS to discuss the possibility of their participation in training or hiring a trained professional to implement return to work programs and adequate disability management.

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

Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/Unifor1996?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

Twitter    :   https://twitter.com/SammySnyders

20150910_174817

by

The Kiss of Life by Rocco Morabito.

This 1967 award-winning photo entitled “Kiss of Life” shows two power linemen, Randall Champion and J. D. Thompson, at the top of a utility pole.

They had been performing routine maintenance when Champion brushed one of the high voltage lines at the very top. These are the lines that can be heard “singing” with electricity. Over 4000 volts entered Champion’s body and instantly stopped his heart (an electric chair uses about 2000 volts).

His safety harness prevented a fall, and Thompson, who had been ascending below him, quickly reached him and performed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He was unable to perform CPR given the circumstances but continued breathing into Champion’s lungs until he felt a slight pulse, then unbuckled his harness and descended with him on his shoulder.

Thompson and another worker administered CPR on the ground and had moderately revived Champion by the time paramedics arrived.

Champion survived and lived until 2002 when he died of heart failure at the age of 64. Thompson is still living. The photograph was published in newspapers around the world.

Our job at BTS can be extremely dangerous as we have to climb ladders and poles and deal with live electricity. Always consider the risks before proceeding.  Never sacrifice your safety for speed or complacency.

Use your training and skills in the use, handling, maintenance, inspection, and transportation of an extension ladder, including how to safely arrange, set, and adequately support a ladder in a range of soil conditions. Wear safety boots in good condition that meet the standards and have non-skid soles. Inspect the route that you’ll travel to bring the ladder near the pole: Is it flat and without obstacles, holes or differences in ground level? Always use your personal protection equipment, anti-fall device or a safety harness, etc.

Technicians are highly qualified, skilled people who are well aware of the risks inherent in their work.

Always use training, experience and personal protective equipment to mitigate risk!

We risk our lives, limbs and health in the workplace; taking shortcuts to increase profits for employers eventually catches up with both workers and employers.

by

We need your involvement!

 

Local 1996-O wants your participation! To support the goals of our union and members we need to engage the members. We must build a strong solidarity and prepare for the future. It is a valuable time, and we need to be smart, strategic, so we can get our slice of the pie.

As a union, we need all of the members support in order to accomplish the ultimate goals. Engagement and education of the membership will be this Local’s priority moving forward.

How we structure our movement, our agenda, our goals, will be decided by you…..the membership!

That said,

I invite you to participate and join us at the following Local Membership meetings.

 

Tuesday Sept 15, 2015

Unifor Local 252

1343 Matheson Blvd. East

Miss, Ont

730-900pm

 

Sunday October 25, 2015

Grand Prix Kartways

75 Carl Hall Rd.

Toronto, Ontario

730-900pm

 

Tuesday Nov 24, 2015

Royal Canadian Legion

9 Dawes Rd.

Toronto, Ont

730-900pm

In Solidarity,

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

Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/Unifor1996?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

Twitter    :   https://twitter.com/SammySnyders