S Block vs B Hansen

There is some confusion  in these communications. My comments are in red. There are 2 factions that appear to be fighting for control of the union. Block/Hunt/Longoria and Hansen/Martin/unknown. I agree that Trimet does indeed want Hansen/Martin to win the upcoming election and will do whatever they can to make sure that happens. As all of us who watch Trimet know, Trimet usually gets what they want. 
How can I possibly (or any retiree) support Bruce after he allowed Trimet to lie to us about our retirement benefits? He's as guilty as Trimet in that regard.


The Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB) found that a hearing is warranted over the “block run” experiment and Bruce Hansen’s refusal to let the members vote on whether to give up their seniority. On April 20, 2015 the ERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) wrote “I have carefully reviewed Block’s complaint, ATU’s informal response, and Block’s response to my April 10, 2015 order to show cause, and conclude that the complaint in this matter raises issues of fact and law that require a hearing.” Once a hearing date is set, the complaint will be formally served; after which ATU will be required to file an answer.

Hansen and the local union counsel immediately requested the opportunity to file yet another informal,(what does this mean 'informal', how can you file an informal response. That doesn't make sense.?) updated response. Up to this point, the parties had agreed to provide one another with copies of all filings with ERB. But Hansen is now refusing to provide members a copy of their last informal filing with ERB, which resulted in the ERB Administrative Law Judge notifying members once again they need to file another response by May 14, 2015 or the complaint, will be dismissed. (so I read that as Bruce filed an 'informal' response but didn't give it to the other side so now the judge says the Block side needs to respond)

The word from TriMet management is that TriMet’s paid attorneys assisted Hansen and the ATU’s legal counsel in preparing their last response submitted to ERB. (so Trimet management admitted they helped the Bruce Hansen side)

 Shirley Block sent the following email to the union’s counsel Lane Toensmeier.

Lane,
The word around TriMet management is that TriMet attorneys or TriMet paid attorneys advised you either directly or indirectly through Bruce Hansen in your preparation of your most recent informal response to the ERB, which by the way I still have not received a copy of. Is this true?
Shirley

Shirley then received the following response to her question:

Shirley,
My client is the Union. By your own pleadings and documents, you have named yourself as the party adverse to the union. Under Rule 4.3 of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, I cannot give you legal advice. The ALJ has already spoken to the issue of what documents you are entitled to receive. (in other words the union doesn't have to provide the Block side any documents) If you have additional questions, I recommend consulting with a competent attorney. To the extent you need help finding a qualified attorney you can consult the Oregon State bar Lawyer Referral Services. (so he is saying the Bock Attorney is not competent)
Regarding your request to schedule hearing dates based on the first 4/20 message from ALJ Kehoe – your request ignores the second 4/20 message from ALJ stating “I will revisit the issue of whether there should be a hearing and inform the parties of my decision.”(so there was no decision made) The ALJ found that your complaint still fails to present an actionable claim.(here it is stated that there is no actual hearing)  While you have asked for and received an extension of your deadline to respond to the show cause letter, there is not currently a valid complaint to hear. The Union is not prepared or willing to commit additional Union resources to schedule a hearing when (1) the ALJ has not identified the issue to which the Union must respond and (2) you, as the Complainant, have not demonstrated an actionable complaint exists. The Union will schedule a hearing date if, and only if, the ALJ finds that your complaint presents issues of fact and law requiring a hearing.
Regards,
Lane
--------------------------------------------
The current local union attorney is somewhat confused. He is representing Hansen, using union funds against dues paying members of the union who are attempting to enforce their collective bargaining agreement.(the union is both the plaintiff and the defendant in reality) It is also obvious from his refusal to answer the question, that he and Hansen are being advised by TriMet paid attorneys. (union and trimet working together)
  Another first in this local union’s history
When you get to the point that you lower yourself to accepting employer aid in trying to take away the rights of your members, it is time.
Members have until May 14, 2015 to respond to the ERB ALJ’s 2nd Order to Show Cause, which they will.

Meanwhile, Hansen’s running mate Dan Martin, took a break from his “block run” assignment at TriMet and is now conducting the signup at Center Street paid by TriMet. Any member seeing Martin campaigning, asking members for support, or any other activity prohibited by law should write down the time, date and names of any witnesses. Being paid by TriMet and campaigning for union office is illegal.
We know TriMet management prefers the team of Hansen and Martin to win the upcoming election. The election will be about honesty, truthfulness with the members about who you are and what you stand for, and the ability to stop TriMet from taking more away from our contract!