Thursday, April 30, 2015

Bruce Hansen stonewalls Chris Day's preferring of charges against union officers

Chris Day
It appears that Bruce is intentionally impeding the 'investigation' into the charges that Chris Day filed.
Look at this bullshit email that Chris got from Bruce. The text of the preferring of charges is below the break

From: "Bruce Hansen" <>
Date: Apr 28, 2015 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Failure to provide notice to membership of "Preferring of Charges"
To: "Christopher Day" <>
Cc: "Jon Hunt" <>, "Mary Longoria" <>

The charges you delivered to the Union office have raised a number of procedural questions.  Because your charges are directed against the person or people who would normally chair a meeting, the Union has requested procedural guidance from the International.  We expect to receive the guidance that will allow us to move forward on the charges within the next day or two.

The Union is committed to respecting our democratic values and principles by ensuring your right to bring charges forward while simultaneously protecting the due process provisions of the IU Constitution and General Rules.  We have asked the International to provide direction to make sure that all involved receive a fair process.  You will be briefed as soon as the procedure to address your charges is clarified.


P r e f e r r i n g o f C h a r g e s B r u c e H a n s e n , J o n a t h a n H u n t a n d M a r y L o n g o r i a P a g e 1 | 5
  
Christopher Day 8343 SE Lafayette Street Portland, Oregon 97266
ATU757 1801 NE Couch Street Portland, Oregon 97232
To whom in my concern,
I, Christopher Day as a member in good standing present this preferring of charges towards Bruce Hansen ATU757 President-Business Representative, Jonathan Hunt ATU757 Vice President-Assistant Business Representative and Mary Longoria Financial Secretary-Treasurer to ATU757 as governed in ATU International Constitution and General Laws section 22 “Charges, Trials and Penalties”. I am charging these Officers with the following:  Conduct unbecoming a member  Malfeasant actions towards our election and Election Committee  Violating Section 5 of local bylaw  Violating Section 13 of local bylaw  Violating Section 14 of local bylaw  Violating Section 15 of local bylaw  Violating US Title 29 – Labor  Violating ORS653 – Labor Laws
Violation of Section 5 of ATU757 Local Bylaw:
“It shall be the duty of the chief executive officer to preside at all meetings of the
L.U., to preserve order and enforce the Constitution and the L.U.'s Bylaws”. Our bylaws are vital to the operations of our union and must be followed. To willingly violate a bylaw is in violation of the duties as chief executive officer and must be held accountable for that action.

P r e f e r r i n g o f C h a r g e s B r u c e H a n s e n , J o n a t h a n H u n t a n d M a r y L o n g o r i a P a g e 2 | 5
Violation of Section 13 of ATU757 Local Bylaw:
“Nominations shall be held at the first regular Union meeting in May every three
(3) years. They shall be held at the 3:00 pm Charter meeting as set forth by the Financial Secretary-Treasurer.” Our regular Union meeting use to be held on Sunday at 3pm and the full time officers changed that shortly after 2012 elections. When this change was made the full time officers failed to review the bylaws to see if their change would affect anything within our bylaws. By changing the regular Charter meeting day and time to Mondays at 6:30pm created a violation in Section 13 of our local bylaw for the very next nomination meeting. When setting up for 2015 Elections the full time officers still did not see the conflict that the day and time change of our Charter meeting has created and the officers failed to address this. When this was pointed out to the full time officers in February the full time officer could have corrected the bylaw at that time with enough time for the change to take affect so that this bylaw would not be violated. The full time officers didn’t not take any action and just continued knowing of the conflict. Though it is the responsibility of the executive chief officer to assure our bylaws are maintain it is also the responsibility of our Vice President and Financial Secretary to assure that are members are protected and that our union is being run correctly. Ignoring a bylaw violation is conduct unbecoming a member. Members must assure that our bylaws are held with the highest respect and must do everything within their power to assure that they are enforced.
Violation of Section 14 of ATU757 Local Bylaw:
“Election ballots are to be counted no sooner than 20 days nor later than 30 days from the meeting at which nominations were made.” In February the full time officers had been advised that the dates within the election notice is in violation of this bylaw. At that time the officers could have did a proposed bylaw change to get this corrected and upon that correction they would have not violated this bylaw. Instead they contacted Department of Labor and International asking if they violate this bylaw would they disqualify the election. Both the DOL and International indicated that they would not disqualify the election for that reason. When our officers received that information then they made no other attempt to assure that our bylaw would be followed. Even though the DOL and International will not disqualify the election a bylaw is still being violated and it must be viewed as such. The full time officers did have opportunity to make a strong effort to correct this yet failed to do so. Our bylaws are a vital role within our membership and failing to do everything within our power to preserve our bylaw causes harm to our members and union. This is also conduct unbecoming a member and must be held accountable.

P r e f e r r i n g o f C h a r g e s B r u c e H a n s e n , J o n a t h a n H u n t a n d M a r y L o n g o r i a P a g e 3 | 5
Violation of Section 15 of ATU757 Local Bylaw:
“Wages for the Election Committee shall be governed by the prevailing rate of the department in which the chairperson and four (4) committee members work.” In both
February’s and March’s election notice a comment was made that states “It may happen
that committee members will be required to perform limited committee work as unpaid
volunteers.” This statement is indicating that our union will require members to perform
work as unpaid volunteers (work off the clock). When this was questioned to the full time
officers this was the response given to the membership “No provision in federal law or
Division bylaws requires the Division to compensate members of the Election Committee for every hour spent performing Committee work.” And the complaint was then ignored. In viewing this one must first identify if the election committee is performing a task that is essential to the function of our union. Our bylaws indicate that this is an essential function and a prevailing rate of pay is mentioned. By stating a prevailing rate of pay now makes our union the employer and the election committee members the employee. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 29 – Labor indicates that an employer must pay an employee for their time perform work for the employer. ORS 653
also addresses that an employer is to pay an employee for all time worked. To “require” a
member to perform work unpaid is in violation of Federal and State Laws. During the meetings in March it was revealed that not only is the election committee being treated in such a manner but the executive board members are as well. In learning this information it is important to investigate the conduct of our union and to assure that our union is not in violation of any local or Federal Laws. If the investigation indicates that the election committee is being paid for all work then the statement made in the notice must be questioned as a possible deterrent for members to not participate in the election committee. It is not clear that every member is being told the same about election committee member pay and it creates question about the validly of the election committee in place. This Preferring of Charges should be presented to the membership May 11th, 2015. This is the same time of nominations and is the start of the violations being mentioned with in these charges. Though the vote count has not taken place it is scheduled outside of our bylaw and our full time officers have indicated that they will violate the vote count timeline. With the notice statement and these other factors that is three (3) bylaws that our officer have allowed to be violated within this event. That is not acceptable and our officers need to be held accountable for their actions. For any officer to openly violate any bylaw and to not demonstrate a strong commitment in correcting the violation is causing harm to our membership and our union. This is conduct unbecoming a member and might put our union at risk of violating Local and Federal Laws.

P r e f e r r i n g o f C h a r g e s B r u c e H a n s e n , J o n a t h a n H u n t a n d M a r y L o n g o r i a P a g e 4 | 5
When our full time officers reached out to the International to seek approval and advice they failed to mention many things. International stated “Based on the information
provided, it is clear that the local is making a good faith effort to insure the accurate and
proper conduct of its elections.” They also stated “We also recommend that the local
consider amending its bylaws to avoid similar concerns in the future with language
providing adherence to any timetable “to the maximum extent possible”. These
statements are from a letter from International dated February 19th, 2015. At the time of that letter corrections could have been attempted to be made to correct the bylaw so that there would be no violations yet as of the date of this Preferring of Charges there has been no attempt to correct this. Failure to make any attempt to assure our bylaws are correctly maintained and followed are actions that cause harm to our membership and our union. To allow multiple bylaw violations to take place without accountability will continue to cause harm to our membership and union. ATU International Constitution and General Laws section 22.4 “Initial Consideration of Charges” states “Charges preferred in accordance with Section 22.3
shall be brought before the regular meeting, and shall be heard and considered at that meeting”. It is my interpretation of that statement meaning that only the Charter meeting will be the meeting that this will be voted on and that three- fourths (75%) of the members present at that meeting must vote in favor for this to move forward to trial procedures. Votes are not required by members attending the continuation meetings. At the end of that charter meeting will be the local union’s final decision in the case if three-fourths of the members present do not approve it to move forward. Upon the union’s final
decision I am permitted to appeal the decision with International as stated in ATU International Constitution and General Laws Section 23.

P r e f e r r i n g o f C h a r g e s B r u c e H a n s e n , J o n a t h a n H u n t a n d M a r y L o n g o r i a P a g e 5 | 5
This is page 5 of 5 pages. It is understood that to file preferring of charges towards an officer that ten (10) members in good standing are required to sign for initial consideration to take place. Every member that has signed this page has been able to view and read all six (6) pages of the preferring of charges being filed against Dan Martin and is in support of the charges being made. Each member is aware that there is not enough notice for this to be presented in April’s charter meeting and are planning for it to take place during May’s charter meeting. Each member is aware
that their presents is required at the meeting so that the charges shall be brought forward. Some of the members that support these charges did not witness any part of the event yet they feel that the event needs to be investigated.
Printed Name Signature Date Christopher Day

Enter a Comment
Assign a Task

No comments: