The preferring of charges sabotage

On April 20^th 2015 I went down to our union office to serve a Preferring of Charges towards Bruce Hansen, Jonathan Hunt and Mary Logoria. I brought 5 copies of the charges to the union hall. The secretary was there to receive the copies. I told her 1 copy for me so she stamped it received and gave me that back. Then the next copy was for the office so she wrote office on top and stamped that received. We then continued with Bruce, then Jon and then Mary. Each one she wrote the person’s name up top and stamped received. At that point I considered the charges as being served.

Bruce sent Larry Hanley (International President) a letter with questions about the Preferring of Charges along with a copy of the charges. In this letter Bruce states that the office has been served and as of current no member being charged has been served.

I questioned Bruce about this comment pointing out that I left 4 copies with the secretary having each officer’s name at the top and was told they would get it. Bruce told me that I must follow the Bylaws and Constitution to the “T” and it states that the office and the member is to be served copies of the charges. He states that Oregon law must be observed and that leaving it with the secretary is not considered being served. He also stated that he was not served a copy of the charges. Bruce would not produce the law reference he was using and advised me that I needed to look it up and be aware of how to server a person in the state of Oregon.

I went home and looked it up Oregon Law 419B.824 and in this law there is a section that talks about “If the person to be served maintains an office for conducting business, office service may be made by leaving a true copy of the summons and a true copy of the petition at the office during normal working hours with the person who is apparently in charge.”

I did as Oregon Law requires and again Bruce gave a false statement to me and International. I will continue to work through Bruce’s game and keep note of all his attempts to sabotage the Preferring of Charges process.

Chris Day 

Chris,

As you know, Section 22.3 of the International Constitution and General Laws requires the charging party to serve a copy of the charges “upon the officer or member upon whom such charges are filed and the LU or JC.”  You have served your charges on the Union.  You have not given any indication that you have served your charges on Dan.

The International’s constitution makes specific use of the term “service.”  Service is a legal term with a definition created by statute.  The Union cannot allow charges against a member or officer to be heard unless the charges have been served upon both the charged party and the Union.  To do so would violate our governing documents.  In Oregon, the definition of an acceptable manner of service is provided by ORCP Rule 7(d).  For your convenience, the rule is copied below.

Bruce (hansen)

ORCP 7

D Manner of service

D(1) Notice required. Summons shall be served, either within or without this state, in any manner reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the defendant of the existence and pendency of the action and to afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and defend. Summons may be served in a manner specified in this rule or by any other rule or statute on the defendant or upon an agent authorized by appointment or law to accept service of summons for the defendant. Service may be made, subject to the restrictions and requirements of this rule, by the following methods: personal service of true copies of the summons and the complaint upon defendant or an agent of defendant authorized to receive process; substituted service by leaving true copies of the summons and the complaint at a person’s dwelling house or usual place of abode; office service by leaving true copies of the summons and the complaint with a person who is apparently in charge of an office; service by mail; or, service by publication.

D(2) Service methods.