Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow To members of CUPE 561 who work at SD43

To members of CUPE 561 who work at SD43

page: prev  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Display posts from previous:
Author Message
prototype
Post Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:54 am

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Here's some more hope for workers who aren't treated right by their unions, and employers -

Courts Order Unions to Pay Damages to Workers

Mr. Green
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:58 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Awareness of workplace bullying, and it's affect on workers, is important.

Exposing the problem is the first step to resolving the problem.

Thought I'd let everyone know that I've posted on these sites -

a thread -

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/j-j-v-sd43-cupe-561

2 comments -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-harris/bully-for-who_b_201860.html

Idea
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:02 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		More CUPE 561 election info -

It turns out that only about 20% of the CUPE 561 bargaining unit turned up for the April 2009 CUPE 561 elections, in which Dave Ginter was again voted President.

That means about 80% of the bargaining unit members didn't turn up at the meeting to vote in the elections.

Apparently someone else was running against Dave Ginter for the Presidency, but it looks like the opponent didn't effectively lobby for the position. I don't even know who ran against Dave Ginter, that's how much of a secret it was.

Looks like the CUPE 561 bargaining unit members are a little behind in utilizing the internet to further their goals, if they really want to be elected, or if they want to instigate positive changes in the union.

If nobody knows who you are, or what you stand for, then who's going to vote for you.

Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:30 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Casual Workers Win Major Court Victory

This court case, decided yesterday, is important for casual workers in Canada, and I can probably use this one for my own case.

The link is HERE

Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:57 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		The Coquitlam School District is still claiming to be an Equal Opportunity Employer.

In my September 26, 2006 response to the BC Human Rights Tribunal, the Coquitlam School District, and CUPE 561, before the Tribunal hearings began in my case, I wrote the following -

Quote:
When I was originally hired by the Coquitlam School District, in 1996, it was V. B., a Manager of Human Resources, who gave me the good news that I was hired and she said this to me - "We're an equal opportunity employer". That line gave me hope that I would be treated fairly.

(for the purposes of this posting I've changed the HR Manager's name to initials)

Of course, since then I've learned that the Coquitlam School District was NOT an Equal Opportunity Employer.

A lot of the information written in the Tribunal's decisions in my case pretty much snuffed out that claim by the school district.

And yet, the school district still claims that they're an Equal Opportunity Employer, a claim which I consider to be grossly misleading and a misrepresentation.

The Coquitlam School District still refuses to bring me back to work, giving me the same rights as my male co-workers, and CUPE 561 still goes along with that.

To read a recent 'We're an Equal Opportunity Employer' claim by the school district click here
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:58 am

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Never Say Die

Contrary to what Dave Ginter has written in the latest issue of the CUPE 561 Shoptalk newsletter my case against CUPE 561 is NOT finished.

Dave Ginter conveniently forgot to mention in Shoptalk that we're now in the BC Court of Appeal.


Tons of News

There's been a lot going on these past few months, especially regarding my numerous appearances at the BC Supreme Court.

And it's not over yet. I'm in the BC Supreme Court and in the BC Court of Appeal.

I'm nearly ready to start posting all the news. Just have to finish sorting out the relevant info.

Exclamation
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:53 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		WANTED: Proof of Arbitration


Between the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 561 and the Board of School Trustees of School District 43 (Coquitlam) -


While researching for my case I've looked for arbitration cases that CUPE 561 has been involved with concerning the Coquitlam School District.

I haven't been able to find any proof of any actual Arbitration Decisions/Awards between CUPE 561 and SD43 since 1999.

This is despite the fact that the union has mentioned, numerous times during the past few years, in it's shoptalk newsletter, of several grievances proceeding to arbitration.

If CUPE 561 and SD43 did proceed to arbitration during the past 10 years how come I can't find any of those arbitration cases in any caselaw books at the Vancouver Courthouse, or in the Courthouse computors. All Arbitration cases, Canada-wide, can be accessed at the Vancouver Courthouse.


WANTED: Proof that CUPE 561 was involved in any actual arbitration cases with the Coquitlam School District since 1999.


If anyone has proof please PM me through this post (or to my email address, if you have it). Name the grievance, the Arbitrator, the dates and the outcome of the decision. Send the actual decision, if you can.

I need this in a hurry.

Shocked
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:28 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada

Post # 1 of 2010

Victory in the Court of Appeal

Last Thursday, April 1, 2010, I won one of my cases against the union, CUPE 561, in front of a 3-Judge panel at the BC Court of Appeal.

Yes, CUPE 561 lost in the highest court in B. C.

The union does not get their security for costs after all. Mr. Green

Now we prepare for the main application in the Court of Appeal. Full steam ahead.

I'll post the whole story here late tomorrow.

And more tomorrow on all these items as well -

Defamation

CUPE 561 bargaining unit members have been letting me know that I've been publicly defamed on many occasions, by Dave Ginter and a certain other CUPE 561 executive board member.

I believe that I've been maliciously slandered and libeled, with the above mens' express intent of destroying my reputation.

Did Dave Ginter personally cause me to lose my job?

I've been told that Dave Ginter has publicly admitted that he was responsible for me losing work in late 2008.

Breach of a Tribunal Order

Because of certain evidence I have in my possession, I believe that Dave Ginter and a certain other CUPE 561 executive board member have breached an Order of the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Discrimination against other women at the Coquitlam School District

I've been hearing heartbreaking stories about how badly many women have been, and still are, being treated at the Coquitlam School District, by certain men in management, as well as by certain CUPE 561 executive board members. The women feel they're being harassed and discriminated against.

There's also an amazing paper trail regarding a lot of this.

Treachery and Betrayal

Awful stories of treachery and betrayal have surfaced, about certain CUPE 561 executive board members malevolently acting against other CUPE 561 bargaining unit members (all women). If I hadn't seen some of the relevant documents with my own eyes I might have found it all hard to believe.

Kangaroo Court

A 'Trial' is being arranged against two longtime CUPE 561 bargaining unit women, who had complained of harassment and discrimination. The 'trial committee' will be comprised of 'members in good standing'. Most of the 'members in good standing' at CUPE 561 are friends and supporters of the CUPE 561 executive, so we believe that the trial is guaranteed to be of the marsupial variety.

Arbitration

And just what did happen to all those arbitrations that CUPE 561 supposedly took part in.

Their cup runneth over

Looks like Dave Ginter, and the CUPE 561 executive, will have their hands full in every major legal jurisdiction in BC in the next few months.

Perhaps Dave Ginter should retire before the swatter hits the fly. It's not going to be pretty.

Stay tuned.

Idea
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:57 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Exclamation

Post # 2 of 2010


As I said in my last post, I won against CUPE 561 in the Court of Appeal last week, in front of 3 judges.

GOING TO COURT

For those of you who wonder what's involved when you go to court, here's a bit of a droll rundown of my court experiences -

I dealt with court matters throughout all of 2009 - from January straight through December.

When you go to court there are many things that have to be done. You have to file petitions, or applications, or notices of motion, notices of appearance, affidavits, responses, records, and all kinds of other documents. Sometimes you don't have a clue what you're supposed to be filing.

You have to write letters back and forth with the lawyers representing the other parties. Usually the lawyers do that between each other. But when you're self-represented, as I was after December 1, 2008, you have to write all the letters yourself to the other lawyers. And there can be many letters before that first court appearance, and even afterwards. You have to discuss with the lawyers things like dates, documents, etc.

When you file the paperwork at the court registry you have to do it in person, in order for it to be witnessed by the court registry, and then stamped by the registry. Going to the court registry in person is a real pain if you live far away, especially if you have to go often.

You might wind up standing in line at the court registry, sometimes for a very long time, just to file those few documents.

Copies of everything you file at the registry must be delivered to the lawyers for the other parties. You can mail them, or courier them, or deliver them in person. Luckily for me all the lawyers for the other parties (3 of them) had their offices close to the Vancouver courthouses, so I just delivered all the copies of the filed documents myself, right after I filed at the courthouse.

You'll spend many hours, many days, and many weeks researching case law to prepare for your case. Then you have to write an outline and provide your written argument. That's hard to do if you're not a lawyer.

All this is a lot of work.

When you don't have a lawyer you'll be confused about what to do, how to proceed, what the actual rules are, what the procedures are, etc. etc.

There's so much to learn. And there's so much that's not written down anywhere for you to learn from.

It can also be expensive to go to court.

You have to pay court fees.

You have to pay for gas to get to Vancouver, not to mention pay for the expensive parking around the Vancouver courthouses.

You could also wind up in front of Judges, or Masters, several times, on different applications.


Lawyers, lawyers everywhere, and not one for me

And throughout all of 2009 I was always looking for a lawyer who would be willing to help me in court, without charging me.

I never found one in 2009.

But I found one early this year - 2010. My lucky year Mr. Green


Court - From the Beginning

Here are the court facts. There were many many letters, and many other events in between, but I'm just mostly listing the relevant court facts. This might be dry reading for those who aren't into court facts. But there are passages of interest, for those interested in justice.


BC Supreme Court

2009

December 1, 2008 - My new lawyer filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court, for Judicial Review of several of the Tribunal's decisions. I named the Coquitlam School District, CUPE 561, and the BC Human Rights Tribunal as the respondents on the Petition.

After the Petition was filed I represented myself on the case, as I couldn't afford the lawyer anymore.

February 5, 2009 - The lawyer for the union sent me a letter letting me know that the union would be putting in an application to the court to have my case against the union dismissed, for being out of time.

April 2009 - The lawyer for the union let me know that the union wanted to go to court in June.

April 2009 - I told the union's lawyer that I wanted to wait until November at the earliest to go to court. I had no lawyer, no work, no money, and no Tribunal Record. There was a controversy regarding the Tribunal Record. The Tribunal Record is the evidence that was in front of the BC Human Rights Tribunal. I told the lawyer that I felt I needed a lawyer to represent me in court.

April 2009 - The union's lawyer let me know that the union insisted on going to court in June.

April 2009 - I let the lawyer for the union know that I was planning to file an amendment to the December 2008 Petition, and that I still didn't have a lawyer to represent me in court.

April 30, 2009 - The union filed a preliminary motion in the BC Supreme Court to have my case against it dismissed.

May 22, 2009 - I filed my response in court, opposing the union's relief.

May 22, 2009 - I let the lawyer for union know that I still wasn't ready for the June court hearing. One reason was that I still didn't have the Tribunal Record.

May 25, 2009 - Lawyer for union letting me know that they plan to proceed with their motion on June 2.

May 28, 2009 - I let the lawyer for the union know that I would be seeking an adjournment of their June 2 hearing.

May 28, 2009 - I requested Indigent Status at the BC Supreme Court. In order to be declared Indigent by the court you have to swear to the court that you're basically broke. You can't receive Indigent Status unless your case has merit. When you have Indigent Status you don't have to pay court fees or pay for photocopies. You save an incredible amount of money.

May 28, 2009 - My first appearance before a Judge at the BC Supreme Court. Judge Groves granted me Indigent Status in the Supreme Court. He told me my case had merit. In the courtroom was just myself, the Judge, and the court clerk. The courthouse was already closed when I left the courtroom.

May 28, 2009 - The same Judge also endorsed my Short Leave Requisition, for a temporary adjournment. My accompanying affidavit requested an adjournment until November.

May 28, 2009 - I filed a Notice of Motion, that I be granted a temporary adjournment, which was accompanied by my affidavit, in which I requested an adjournment of the hearing until November.

June 2, 2009 - The union's lawyer and I went to a hearing in front of Judge Pitfield at the BC Supreme Court. The Judge denied my request for adjournment until November. I admitted to the court that I was unprepared for the hearing. The Judge knew that I had Indigent Status, that the Tribunal Record wasn't in front of him, that I was planning an amendment to the Petition, and that I was still looking for legal representation.The Judge allowed the hearing of the union's application anyway, which began immediately. The day's hearing ended and the next hearing date was set for July 13.

July 10, 2009 - I applied at the court for Anonymity, to continue the Anonymity the BC Human Rights Tribunal had granted me.

July 13, 2009 - Our 2nd appearance in front of the same Judge, Judge Pitfield. The Judge knew that the Tribunal Record still wasn't in front of him, that I was still planning an amendment to the Petition, and that I was still looking for legal representation. The hearing, of the union's application to dismiss, continued. Judge Pitfield granted me anonymity. The union didn't oppose my request for anonymity. The Judge reserved judgment on the union's application.

July 21, 2009 - Written decision by Judge Pitfield. I won on both of the timeliness issues, but lost on the merit issue. Judge Pitfield granted CUPE's motion and dismissed my case against them in the Supreme Court. The union had asked for costs, and the Judge wrote "CUPE is entitled to costs at scale B should it choose to assert a claim." No amount was mentioned.

July 21, 2009 - I wrote to the lawyer for the union, letting the union know that I would be filing in the Court of Appeal, to appeal Judge Pitfield's decision.

July 22, 2009 - The union chose to assert a claim for costs, against an Indigent woman who they knew was broke, in debt, and couldn't find enough work to afford a lawyer. The union's lawyer sent me a letter, along with a Draft Bill of Costs, and they asked me to make out a check to CUPE 561 if I didn't take issue with the amount of their bill. I actually had a chuckle when I read the amount of their bill - $ 6004.24.

To see why I was chuckling you have to go back and read my March 13, 2009 posting here on uncharted. That posting concerns CUPE 561 sending a certain former manager of the Coquitlam School District a 'political' donation of $6,000.

CUPE 561 couldn't get CUPE BC or anyone else to reimburse that particular amount back to them, so they've found another way to get that $6,000 back.

Touché.

A couple of days later I phoned tape management at the BC Supreme Court to inquire about transcripts, which I would need in the Court of Appeal. I made an appointment to listen to the sound recordings of the June 2 and July 13 hearings.

July 31, 2009 - I listened to part of the sound recordings. I found out that lawyers, but not self-represented litigants, can get copies of court sound recordings to take with them. I went across the street to the BC Supreme Court self-help centre, to inquire about what I would need to file an application at the court to get copies of the sound recordings.

July 31, 2009 - I filed a Notice of Motion, and affidavit, in the BC Supreme Court, requesting a copy of the sound recordings from the June 2 and July 13 hearings.

July 31, 2009 - Same day - I went, without notice to the parties, in front of a Master at the BC Supreme Court, to obtain a copy of the sound recordings. The Master heard me briefly and told me to return Aug. 4 to continue the hearing for the sound recordings.

Aug. 4, 2009 - My name wasn't on the hearing list for that day. I made out a requisition to re-book for Aug. 10.

Aug. 10, 2009 - A different Master heard me in court on the sound recordings application. He gave me the runaround and then adjourned the hearing until after I contacted the union's lawyer to inquire about transcripts. I had to present a letter from the union's lawyer, about transcripts, to the court at the next hearing.

Aug. 11, 2009 - The union's lawyer wrote me, asking again about their Bill of Costs.

Aug. 12, 2009 - In a separate letter I wrote to the union's lawyer about the Judge's transcript question.

Aug. 12, 2009 - A separate letter to the union's lawyer - I replied to the lawyer about their 2nd Bill of Costs letter. I reminded them that I was planning to file in the Court of Appeal, and also reminded them that, due to serious financial hardship, I was unable to pay the Bill of Costs.

I asked for a more detailed breakdown of certain items on the Bill of Costs. I needed more info on what the charges were in certain numbered categories the lawyer had listed on his Bill, and I also asked for the following (leaving off the amounts for this post) -

Courier Charges - Need item by item courier charges. To whom, on what dates, at what cost.
Photocopies - How many copies. What price per copy.
Agency Fees - Which agencies. For what services.
Quicklaw Charges - Specify exactly what the charges are for. Why not use CANLII and other free internet sites where caselaw is provided free of charge.

Aug. 13, 2009 - The union's lawyer wrote back, saying they took no position on the transcripts.

Aug. 14, 2009 - With the union's letter in-hand, I returned to the BC Supreme Court. I filed a Requisition at the court, to re-set the July application to Aug. 14.

Aug. 14, 2009 - A new Judge heard my request for the sound recordings. He didn't want to see the lawyer's letter, didn't want to hear my arguments or see documents supporting my arguments, and quickly dismissed my case for the sound recordings. My request for the sound recordings was denied. I couldn't believe that man was a Judge.


Court of Appeal

Aug. 19, 2009 - I filed an application in the Court of Appeal, to appeal Judge Pitfield's July 21 Supreme Court decision.

Aug. 19, 2009 - I filed a Notice of Motion, to request Indigent Status on the above application.

Aug. 19, 2009 - I filed an application in the Court of Appeal, to appeal the Aug. 14 sound recordings decision. That Judge's name will not be mentioned here in this post, even though I should name him.

Aug. 19, 2009 - I filed for Indigent Status on the above application.

Aug. 19, 2009 - I delivered all the Appeal documents to the respondents.

Aug. 21, 2009 - The union's lawyer wrote me, saying the union takes no position regarding my Application for Indigent Status.

Aug. 24, 2009 - I filed amended Aug. 19 applications, and delivered them to the parties.

Aug. 25, 2009 - My 1st appearance in the Court of Appeal. Judge Bauman granted me Indigent Status on my application to appeal Judge Pitfield's July 21 decision. Judge Bauman saw merit in my appeal. The union's lawyer did not attend this hearing, even though he was given notice.

Aug. 25, 2009 - I filed a Requisition at the BC Supreme Court to enter Judge Pitfield's July 13 Anonymity Order.

Aug. 26, 2009 - Order for anonymity entered in the BC Supreme Court.

Aug. 27, 2009 - The union's lawyer sent me a revised Bill of Costs, which now amounts to $5,801.27

Sept. 2, 2009 - The union's lawyer wrote me, saying they will be making an application to the Court of Appeal for security of costs for the appeal of Judge Pitfield's July 21 decision. That means the union was going to court to try to force me to pay them before my appeal can go ahead.

I could feel that Dave Ginter, President of CUPE 561, was really desperate to get money from me.

Sept. 4, 2009 - I wrote back, saying that I will oppose the union's security of costs application, and reminded them about my serious financial difficulties.

Sept. 4, 2009 - The union's lawyer wrote back, saying they have instructions to proceed with their motion for security of costs.

Sept. 9, 2009 - The union's lawyer still bugging me to settle the Bill of Costs.

Sept. 11, 2009 - I appear at the Court of Appeal, in front of Judge Saunders, regarding my application for Indigent Status on the Tape Recordings decision of August 14.

Sept. 14, 2009 - Judge Saunders made an oral decision and granted me Indigent Status on the Tape Recordings decision of Aug. 14. She said my case had merit. I have that decision in writing.

Sept. 15, 2009 - Court matters temporarily suspended between parties, due to a death in the family.

Oct. 13, 2009 - I write to the union's lawyer, letting them know, once again, that I'm unable to pay any Costs due to serious financial difficulties. I also remind them that we're going to the Court of Appeal. I let the lawyer know that I've been awarded Indigent Status on both of my Court of Appeal applications.

Oct. 16, 2009 - The union, through their lawyer, is still bugging me about the Bill of Costs.

Several letters about dates for the union's security for costs application to be heard in the Court of Appeal.

Oct. 23, 2009 - Another letter from the union's lawyer about having the Costs, from the July 21 decision, assessed in the BC Supreme Court Registry.

November 27, 2009 - We're at the Court of Appeal, in front of Judge Garson, to hear the union's Security for Costs application. The union's asking for the Court to order me to pay CUPE's Bill of Costs, (again revised) at $4,941.30, before my main appeal against the union can go ahead. I had hardly any documents in front of the Judge, with which to support my case, as I couldn't afford to print out the documents (4 copies of everything). I had to count on my Affidavit, and arguments, to see me through in front of the Judge. The Judge heard us and then reserved her decision.

December 29, 2009 - Judge Garson, in an incredibly inaccurate decision, decided in the union's favour and ordered me to pay the union their Bill of Costs, $4,941.30, as security for costs, which I was ordered to pay before my main appeal against the union could proceed. Judge Garson gave me 45 days to pay.

December 30, 2009 - I wrote the lawyer for the union, telling them that I'm filing next week at the court of appeal, to vary the Order of Judge Garson.

This next appeal meant that I was appealing to the highest court in BC - a three-Judge panel in the Court of Appeal.


2010

Court of Appeal -

Three-Judge Panel

January 5, 2010 - I filed an application in the Court of Appeal, to vary the Order of Judge Garson's December 29 decision.

January 5, 2010 - I personally brought in the notice of the application to the union's lawyer's office

January 18, 2010 - Another letter, from the union's lawyer, about having the Costs, from the July 21 decision, assessed in the BC Supreme Court.

January 20, 2010 - I write a letter to the union's lawyer, the contents of which I won't reveal here yet.

January 28, 2010 - I write to all parties, letting them know that I intend to proceed with my application in the Court of Appeal for copies of the sounds recordings of Judge Pitfield's July 21 decision. I also let the parties know that I intend to file an application in the Court of Appeal for an order for a copy of the sound recordings from Judge Garson's Nov. 27 decision in the Court of Appeal.


Lawyer to the rescue

In late January a lawyer agreed to represent me on my January 5 application in the Court of Appeal, to vary the December 29 Order of Judge Garson, the security for costs decision which the union had won.

My new lawyer worked quickly, gathering documents from me, ordering the transcripts from the June 2 and July 13 Supreme Court hearings (Judge Pitfield presiding), and transcripts from the November 27 Court of Appeal hearing (Judge Garson presiding).

The transcripts came in. Pages and pages of them. My lawyer put together, and filed, the Motion Book for the appeal against the security for costs.

For the first time in a year I had an expert looking out for me in court.

I was the happiest woman alive.


A Winner

April 1, 2010 - In front of 3 Judges, in the Court of Appeal, my lawyer, and the union's lawyer, argued their cases. The Judges in the Court of the Appeal had open discussions with each other and the 2 lawyers. From what I was hearing, I sensed early on at the hearing that things were going our way.

The gist of the Judge's discussions went something like this -

I had originally been granted Indigent Status by Judge Bauman on my main appeal application, and I'd also been granted Indigent Status on other applications, by other Judges. You cannot be granted Indigent Status if the Judge decides that your case has no merit. The union did not oppose my motion for Indigent Status in the Court of Appeal. The union didn't even show up at the hearing when Judge Bauman was deciding whether or not to grant me Indigent Status. Judge Bauman found merit in my appeal, and granted me Indigent Status.

The 3 Judges were offended by the union wanting security for costs, after I had been granted Indigent Status, especially since the union didn't even bother opposing my application for Indigent Status. One Judge said, "I just think this is inappropriate".

The Judges were unanimous in their oral decision at the end of the hearing - The Dec. 29, 2009 order of Judge Garson is set aside. The union could not receive security for costs from me.


My lawyer has already started on our main appeal.

I have a good feeling about the outcome there too Cool


A NOTE - Nobody from the union ever showed up for any of our hearings in the courts.

Exclamation


Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:39 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Exclamation

Post # 3 of 2010


Defamation

Did Dave Ginter personally cause me to lose my job?

Breach of a Tribunal Order


I've been told, by CUPE 561 bargaining unit members, how Dave Ginter and a certain other CUPE 561 Executive Board Member, have maliciously publicly defamed me at CUPE 561 monthly meetings. I also believe that Dave Ginter and the other CUPE 561 Executive Board Member have breached the Human Rights Tribunal's order, as well as violated the BC Privacy Act, regarding me. I've also been told that Dave Ginter has publicly claimed personal responsibility for me losing work in 2008.

I first heard some of these things about me in January of this year and, very concerned, I wrote CUPE 561's lawyer on January 20 with my concerns.

The union's lawyer replied back to me with a blanket denial regarding what I wrote to him in my letter.

Realizing that I had been maliciously defamed, and that the union was denying it, I began looking into what I could do about my concerns. I began reading case law to see what my legal options were. I felt that CUPE 561 was ruining my reputation, among other serious concerns.

Meanwhile, since January, CUPE 561 members have been telling me that Dave Ginter has still been publicly defaming me at subsequent union meetings. Also, since then, I've acquired a letter which the CUPE 561 Executive handed out to CUPE 561 members at the February CUPE 561 monthly meeting. The information in that letter, which was dated January 20, not only continued to defame me, but also, I believe, breached the BC Privacy Act, as well the BC Human Rights Tribunal's order. The author of the letter is a certain CUPE 561 Executive Board Member who will remain unnamed in my posts, so far.

Perhaps those men don't think I'll do anything about those malicious acts against me. How bright are those men.

I was going to post more about this subject now, but thought I'd better wait until after I file the new legal actions, regarding these matters, against CUPE 561 next week.

Idea
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:55 am

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Post # 4 of 2010


They stayed away in droves


Elections?

What elections?

Quote:
"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

- Edwin Edwards (former 4-term Governor of Louisiana, and currently serving a 10-year prison term for racketeering)


The infamous CUPE 561 general elections once again took place, this past Saturday, April 10.

All positions, except the positions of the President, Recording Secretary, and Two Trustees, were supposedly up for grabs.

I was told that approximately 6% of the CUPE 561 bargaining unit showed up to vote in the elections.

6%

That's even worse than last year's elections.

I was told that of the 6% of members who did show up, nearly all were men from the Coquitlam School District's maintenance department. The men in the maintenance department form a small minority of the members in CUPE 561.

I was told that very few women showed up to vote, even though women form the vast majority of the CUPE 561 bargaining unit .

There's a lot more to this story, which is tied into the stories of 3 of the titles I posted in my Post # 1 - Discrimination against other women at the Coquitlam School District, Treachery and Betrayal, and Kangaroo Court, but I have to wait awhile before I post more about all these stories.


Mr. Green
Back to top profile :: pm
prototype
Post Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:34 pm

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
Location: Canada 		Question
CAN ANYBODY HELP?

Computer help -

My computer broke down quite awhile back and I haven't been able to afford to get it fixed. My case is coming up in the BC Supreme Court next month and I really need that computer. Is there someone who can take a look at my Mac Imac G4 computer? None of my friends has a Mac computer and they don't have a clue about it. I can offer to do some painting in return for help with my Mac as I'm a professional Journeyman Painter with many years experience. Or maybe we can barter for other type of work.

I'm not on the internet at home right now so the only way to get a hold of me is by cell. My number's
seven seven eight nine zero eight nine thousand. Leave a message and I'll get back to you.

I live about an hour east of Vancouver.

Work needed -

Preparing for court costs money and I haven't been able to find enough work. If anybody needs a Journeyman Painter give me a call. My number's above.

Cheers, J J

Idea
Back to top profile :: pm
Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow To members of CUPE 561 who work at SD43
Page 5 of 5
page: prev  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group