The energy he expels through these is scary particularly when you consider the fact that he and I have never had a conversation.
I've received several copies of this mailing from co-workers who were:
1.) Angry their e-mail address were obtained from somewhere else and used for the purpose of this mail without their knowledge or consent.
2.) Angry their e-mail addresses were visible to all and not protected through blind copy or bbc.
3.) Angry they weren't asked or warned which now involves them in a lawsuit.
4.) Re: palmerf@trimet.org will be the subject of another HR investigation regarding use of in-house communications for HR-202, and Respectful workplace HR-171
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:31:44 -0800
Subject: ATU757 Presidents Actions
From: chipsxday@gmail.com
To: saphiredolphine@yahoo.com; sgtdanb1@yahoo.com; megaton2368@hotmail.com; kahtirojas@aol.com; trimet6213@comcast.net; eboctran@comcast.net; tb2111@hotmail.com
CC: alyourpalster@gmail.com; arelinarussell@comcast.net; blythers1974@yahoo.com; bigbrutus@comcast.net; bruceh_merlo@hotmail.com; conroyc@hotmail.com; kcw18@comcast.net; piensagrande@yahoo.com; eaglerock1313@aol.com; northernoregoncoastguy@yahoo.com; misterbear@comcast.net; bugalove06@gmail.com; discodeb3433@comcast.net; dfachiol@comcast.net; kingduke1975@msn.com; palmerf@trimet.org; sowlekl@comcast.net; halligandad@gmail.com; busgrrl@gmail.com; sirruffin@verizon.net; kagshair@msn.com; spikeinptown@comcast.net; onebusdog@yahoo.com; lamunchbear@yahoo.com; ldunham0946@msn.com; llsugarbear@netzero.net; leroybaldwin@gmail.com; xenafan@teleport.com; lorraineg1266@yahoo.com; nhasselblad@gmail.com; tripatsbus@comcast.net; iratherbefish@hotmail.com; rem.susi@yahoo.com; starlightpix@mac.com; betos61@yahoo.com; thurmand8.18@comcast.net; rosesof59@yahoo.com; busdoc@comcast.net; fontsam@aol.com; taday@centrytel.net; scott@pdxmen.com; shebeegone@gmail.com; bruuser53@yahoo.com; tedibear87@yahoo.com; ydalton5@yahoo.com; oregonian77@hotmail.com
Dear ATU Members,
On February 2nd, 2011 ATU757 President Jonathan Hunt sent a letter to six (6) members (Click Here) to see the letter). I feel it is important that our membership is aware of this letter because of how inaccurate it is. This was an attempt by President Hunt to “side step” and avoid a member his union constitutional rights (section 22 pages 112 - 119). In his attempt he has inflicted injury on a total of fifteen (15) members and may have inflicted injury on our membership. Please take a moment to read the letter and learn the facts.
Facts about the letter:
In a meeting with President Hunt I learned that he did not write or check the factual content of the letter. He advised a union staff member what he wanted and had that person write it. Upon completion of the letter he signed it and had it mailed certified to six (6) members.
The six (6) members it was addressed to were (a) the member filing, (b) the member being charged and (c) four (4) others out of the fourteen (14) members that signed the filing. When asked why all who signed were not addressed, President Hunt replied that the constitution only requires five (5) member’s signatures. Our Constitution section 22.3 page 114 states “Any such charges preferred against any member who is not an officer shall be signed by at least five (5) members in good standing in the L.U.”
The letter states “The Union is in receipt of the charges and counter-charges among the above individuals which seek to have the union membership discipline a member.” This statement is not just incorrect in facts, it is also misleading. From meeting with President Hunt he stated that the preferring of charges I filed was the only filing for this event. There were no counter-charges and no other member filed any documents in regard toward this event. Filing a preferring of charges to present to the membership is not asking the membership to discipline a member. The statement “which seek to have the union membership discipline a member” is misleading. When a membership is presented with a preferring of charges they are being asked if it should move forward with a Trial Committee. A 60% supportive vote to move forward will allow a Trial Committee to view all the information and decide if and what disciplinary actions should be taken. The membership is not being asked to discipline a member, it is being asked to assure our Constitution, Bylaws and Contracts are being followed.
The rest of the letter comments about how the issue is a conflict between employees and is not appropriate for consideration by the membership. Unions are supposed to be able to help resolve conflicts between employees (union members) before management becomes involved. Here our union is stating otherwise. It is clearly stated that the union would much rather have management resolve member’s issues. Six (6) members have been told to go to management or outside legal source but don’t come to the union.
The impression given says that this is a workplace-related harassment and the union does not want to curtail the free speech expression of union members. It appears that the union is not interested in that fact that all members must be accorded equal rights and privileges. When a member is harassing another member, rights and privileges are being violated and are no longer equal for all members.
Effects of the letter:
President Hunt claims he only sent the letter to six (6) members because the Constitution only requires five (5) members’ signatures. Yet he released the signature list of all fourteen (14) members that signed to the member being charged. He states that the member has the right to know who the accusers are. The release of these signatures ended up in the hands of TriMet HR. Fourteen (14) members is now exposed to communications from both the member being charged and the employer’s HR department. Both have questioned members from this list about the signing. This can be a very intimidating event for these members and make them feel intimidated and bullied.
President Hunt has advised me that the constitution requires that it is the responsibility of the member filing charges to provide a copy of the charges to the union and the member being charged. The union office or the employer will not provide me an address to send a copy of the charges. If I hand the charges to the member at or around work it can be considered harassment. I find this an interesting challenge. I did manage to get the address and sent a copy of charges to the member. I put the union name and address as the return to show it is union business. The member did not accept the letter and I find myself having to hire an agency to serve the member properly.
The last preferring of charges handled by our union was handled very differently than how I am currently being advised. The member filing the charges wrote the charges and collected the signatures then delivered the filing to the union office. President Hunt personally delivered a copy of the charges to the member being charged. I am finding myself questioning the equality in our membership.
In Closing:
I question President Hunt’s ability to represent our membership. He has demonstrated that he will not assure that a document is factual and not misleading before signing it. He will take measures to “side step” or avoid issues that he is not interested in. He has handled two preferring of charge cases and both are handled differently. He will only send mail to some of the members who signed and not all. He will not preserve the security of a list of members. He will interfere with a member trying to protect himself/herself in place, wage, or any other willful act.
President Hunt has violated our constitution in section 13.15 pages 58-59, section 21.6 pages 103-104, section 21.7 on page 114 and He is interfering with section 22. Our membership is in need to look at his actions closely. With the above facts does our membership feel comfortable while he represents us during so many contract negotiations?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.