dragon Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Hello Richard, Please expand on this: "Your MEC has already signed off on the T.A., and now by law they MUST recommend the membership accept it. They have no legal alternative. The same applies to any ACPA official." I plan to attend the roadshow and I will ask this question, of course it has unmentionable impact. Where would I find the legal support? Appreciate your assistance. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 I'm not sure where you would find the legal reference, dragon. But you could ask your union representative for their opinion. I base that statement on my own involvement in union negotiations and other union activities in the past. But of course you can consider the implications for yourself were it not true. If an MEC signed off on a tentative agreement, and then reneged and recommended against its acceptance, that would be negotiating in 'bad faith'. Natural law, dude. Of course, it's all just my own interpretation and understanding... blah, blah, blah. Please verify and come to your own conclusions. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted June 12, 2003 Author Share Posted June 12, 2003 Richard, As I stated to you privately tonight, and I would be happy to reproduce that here, I support your initiative and your substance, unlike some of the hollow, mysterious and pathetic detractors [me included], magicians and wizards here on the aef. At least you have balls worth signing your name to.. I would like a legal reference.. not to dispute you, rather, to support you. Toronto will see a huge turnout, as well, members of all geography and history will tune in to the ezboard and I would like to be able to report on union recommendations – a personal pet peeve. Natural law? You’ve got me there.. over my head.. just the facts. Yes, the deck is stacked against you here it seems, still, my card is in your corner, that Keller will resemble your ear to the track. Kind regards dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 666 Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Unless someone had a gun to ACPA's head at the negotiations table, it would be delicate not to reccommend a deal that was signed by both parties. To recommend against it would place ACPA in a bargaining "in bad faith" situation wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Hi Dragon: It's been a long time but as I recall the only legal challenge that could be mounted against the ACPA representatives is a charge by AC of bargaining in bad faith. Not exactly a criminal matter, more a question of whether or not the persons negotiating were in fact speaking for "the whole". It'd be like your real estate agent telling you your house is sold, the agreement to purchase has been signed by the buyer with no hidden conditions, then the buyer coming back later to say his family doesn't like the house - they're not going to take it. That would be a breach of contract law. Your principle question would be a breach of the CLC in its governance of union activity & representation. As I recall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted June 12, 2003 Author Share Posted June 12, 2003 Good morning Loon and to triple 6 as well.. I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge of the whole ‘executive recommendation’ thing is minimal, especially how law, real, perceived or other, would or could apply. Having said that; It is a major disappointment to have to endure member votes, within a democratic structure, skewed by a recommendation, one way or the other. Admittedly, seems I am in the minority in that view as many would just as soon be spoon fed and told how to vote. Me, I just want to know what I’m voting on, I believe I am intelligent enough to make my own mind up as I believe most members to be. So, enough of that. To the current vote then. Still, I have yet to decide how to cast my vote [i have NO intel, just hearsay]. I would prefer that at the forthcoming road shows, the official word be a withholding of any recommendation, with a genuine effort put forth, not to tip the balance either way – as difficult as that would be. After reading Richard’s post, I wanted to ask the question and solicit information. Thanks for taking the time. Kind regards dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest buskipper Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 666, So far the only signatures on the TA are those of the two negotiating committees. None of the elected MEC officials sit on that committee. The Negots Team has recommended acceptance, I assume, since they have agreed to it, but it is up to the MEC to decide if it is acceptable to send out to the membership for ratification. We should here more today or tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 That's an important detail, buskipper, and thanks for mentioning it. But I'll just remind you that Justice Farley indicated that the negotiators at the table with Justice Winkler "shall have maximum authority" to bargain on behalf of their memberships, and respective interests. What kind of weight does that carry legally? I couldn't say. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.