IBEW would have rather kept this CENSORED! -- Wire-Nut's IBEW Chat Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:34:11 04/01/05 Fri
Author: Canadian Separatist
Author Host/IP: d205-206-77-94.abhsia.telus.net / 205.206.77.94
Subject: IBEW would have rather kept this CENSORED!

THE ELECTED VS. THE APPOINTED!!!

Posted By: Alberta Labor Relations Board
Date: Thursday, 31 March 2005, at 8:06 p.m.

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

- and -

LOCAL UNION 424, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS,

THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
(INTERNATIONAL)

Applicants

- and -

MIKE REINHART

Respondent

- and -

MIKE REINHART

Applicant

LOCAL UNION 424, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS,

THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
(INTERNATIONAL)

Respondents

FILE NO.: GE-04655

BOARD MEMBERS

Mark Asbell � Chair

Roger Gunn � Member

Pam Kirkwood � Member

APPEARANCES

For the Unions: William Johnson, Q.C. (Counsel), Larry Schell, Tim Brower

For Mike Reinhart: G. Brent Gawne (Counsel)

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This confirms the oral decision of the Board rendered Saturday, March 12, 2005
addressing two further reconsideration applications pursuant to section 12(4) of the Labour
Relations Code in the ongoing dispute between the international union, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (�IBEW�), its local, Local 424 (�Local Union 424�), jointly
referred to as the �Unions�, and Mike Reinhart. At that time the Board issued a bottom line
decision with fuller reasons to follow. These are our reasons for decision.

I. Background

[2] These latest applications follow a number of other applications previously dealt with in
letter decisions including the original interim relief application ([2005] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-009 -
the �February 10th Order�), motions to file in Court ([2005] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-013),
reconsiderations of the February 10th Order ([2005] Alta. L.R.B. LD-014 - the �February 24th
Order�), and variations on the February 10th and 24th Orders ([2005] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-016,
[2005] Alta. L.R.B.R. LD-019). All of these applications arise out of the original application
from Mr. Reinhart dated December 21, 2004 seeking to overturn an internal union disciplinary
decision rendered by International Vice-President Phil Flemming dated December 15, 2004 (the
�Disciplinary Decision�) against Mr. Reinhart. The Disciplinary Decision addressed internal
Union charges preferred against Mr. Reinhart by Mr. James Watson, President of Local Union
424. The Disciplinary Decision ruled against Mr. Reinhart and decided that Mr. Reinhart be
immediately terminated as business manager of Local Union 424; terminated all remuneration;
removed Mr. Reinhart from any position in which he represented the IBEW, Local Union 424 or
any of its interests; permanently prevented Mr. Reinhart from assuming any position with the
IBEW; and, ordered that Mr. Reinhart not attend any Union meetings of the IBEW for a period
of three years.

[3] Although the substance of these charges and the findings from the Disciplinary Decision
are not relevant to the present application, we nonetheless touch on them to give a flavour of the
background to this application. Running on a so-called �reform� platform, the membership of
Local Union 424 elected Mr. Reinhart to the position of Business Manager for Local Union 424
by a large margin in June of 2004. A mere six months later, Mr. Flemming renders the

Disciplinary Decision. While we did not hear what happened in the intervening period, suffice it
to say there must have been much jockeying and some unrest to lead to the laying of charges in
such a short timeframe. This unrest continued after Mr. Flemming rendered the Disciplinary
Decision and was evident in the acrimonious litigious conduct of the participants before us and
the crowd of observers at each of the hearings. It was clear to the Board, and referenced by the
parties, that while this took the form of a legal dispute, political considerations coloured
everything and positions were adopted and advocated that carried relatively little legal weight
but bore heavy consideration and scrutiny by the membership of Local Union 424 and IBEW
generally. In this sense, this was a most unusual legal dispute as it is rare that internal union
conflicts see the light of day outside the walls of the union hall. First the Disciplinary Decision
and then the various decisions from the Labour Relations Board were being thrown around like a
political football and being used by the parties and their supporters or detractors in a manner
rarely seen before this Board.

[4] In his original application, Mr. Reinhart alleged a number of fundamental errors with
Vice-President Flemming�s decision and the process followed by the Unions. After receiving
submissions from the parties, the Board scheduled the matter for hearing to commence February
4, 2005. Prior to the start of the hearing the parties recommenced discussions on how best to
resolve all, or at least some, of the dispute between the parties. After lengthy discussions the
parties agreed to adjourn the hearing until February 10, 2005. Unfortunately, the parties were
unable to resolve their dispute by that date and the hearing commenced. In opening submissions,
however, and without prior notification to Mr. Reinhart, the Unions presented a letter dated
February 9, 2005 from Mr. Laurence J. Cohen, General Counsel for IBEW. Although this letter
has now been referenced in two letter decisions, it has not previously been quoted. As the parties
and the Board have relied on this letter, we now set it out in detail. Addressed to William
Johnson, counsel for the Unions in our hearing, it reads:

Re: IBEW Member Mike Reinhart

Alberta Labour Relations Board

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is further reference to the efforts between Mr. Reinhart, the IBEW and Local
Union 424 to resolve the pending case before the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

Those efforts have been unsuccessful, and the hearing is scheduled to resume
tomorrow.

In spite of the failure of the settlement efforts, and while the IBEW continues to
maintain that it has not violated the Labour Code, you are authorized to advise the
Board that the IBEW is prepared to do the following, in an effort to resolve any
issues concerning the fairness of its hearing process:

1. Mr. Reinhart will be granted a new hearing, with the right to be
represented by an attorney of his choosing.

2. If Mr. Reinhart agrees, Vice President Flemming will again be the
decision maker, at the conclusion of the hearing. If Mr. Reinhart does not
wish to have the new decision made by Vice President Flemming, a Vice
President from a different IBEW District will be assigned.

3. Mr. Reinhart, through his counsel, may submit preliminary issues
concerning the validity of the charges to Vice President Flemming, or the
substitute Vice President, for decision prior to the commencement of the
hearing. These preliminary matters would be limited to such issues as the
timeliness of the charges against Mr. Reinhart, whether the charges were
properly signed, and whether the actions alleged to violate the IBEW
Constitution, if true, were properly encompassed within the sections of the
IBEW Constitution specified in the charges.

On behalf of the IBEW, I hope that the agreement to take the action set forth
above will be useful to the Board.

Sincerely yours, �

By: Laurence J. Cohen, General Counsel, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC

[5] Relying on IBEW�s undertaking and representations, the Labour Relations Board asked
the parties what else, if anything, needed to be addressed in the hearing. Mr. Reinhart�s counsel
indicated they were satisfied with the undertaking with the exception of how to preserve Mr.
Reinhart�s presumption of innocence. After hearing argument on this issue, and basing the
directives on IBEW�s representations of a new hearing, the Board, in its February 10th Order,
directed a new discipline hearing for Mr. Reinhart and that he be reinstated to, but suspended
from, his position as business manager with full pay and benefits pending the conclusion of the
new discipline hearing. Subsequently, the parties could not agree on what constituted wages and
benefits and Mr. Reinhart applied to have the February 10th Order filed in Court while the
Unions applied for reconsideration to revoke the Order. Neither application succeeded although

the Board did clarify its February 10th Order by defining what constituted wages and benefits
(the February 24th Order). The Board also ordered the payment of back wages by a date certain
which date was subsequently twice varied pending the filing and then hearing of these
applications.

II. The February Union Meetings

[6] The applications now before the Board include another application from the Unions to
revoke the prior Board Orders and a reconsideration application from Mr. Reinhart to clarify his
membership status with the Unions to allow him to attend all Union meetings. We received 16
exhibits and heard evidence from a number of witnesses. The gist of the evidence before us is
applicable to both applications as it centred around Local 424 meetings the weekend of February
26 and 27 together with another larger meeting in Fort McMurray on February 28, 2005. Very
little of the factual evidence is disputed.

[7] At the conclusion of the hearing on February 23, 2005 leading up to the February 24th
Order, the Board asked the parties if there was anything further to be dealt with. At that time,
counsel for Mr. Reinhart asked the Unions whether Mr. Reinhart would be able to attend the
forthcoming Union meetings. At that time Mr. Reinhart was informed that as he was again a
member in good standing he would be able to attend the meetings. Shortly thereafter, sometime
in the morning of February 25, 2005, Mr. Gawne, on behalf of Mr. Reinhart, received a letter
from the Unions advising him that as the Disciplinary Decision remained in force, Mr. Reinhart
was no longer a member in good standing and could not attend any union meetings pending the
re-hearing of his internal disciplinary charges. Mr. Reinhart immediately applied for an urgent
hearing but the Board could not strike the same panel on such short notice and the Board did not
receive full consent for the Chair to hear the matter alone as required under the Code. After
discussions with the Board Officer, Mr. Tim Brower on behalf of Local Union 424 confirmed
that Mr. Reinhart would not be allowed in the union meetings but assured Mr. Reinhart�s counsel
that no mention would be made of Mr. Reinhart and the application before the Board, at the
Local Union 424�s meetings.

[8] On Saturday, February 26th, Mr. Reinhart attempted to attend the first of the union
meetings in Edmonton but was met outside by Mr. Larry Schell, an IBEW representative, who
told Mr. Reinhart he was not permitted inside the meeting and asked him to leave. Mr. Reinhart
left without incident.

[9] On Monday, February 28th, counsel for Mr. Reinhart submitted another application for
reconsideration to include �the express declaration that Mr. Reinhart be entitled to attend union
meetings forthwith, and pending the re-hearing of his disciplinary charges.� Mr. Reinhart
demanded an immediate hearing because of the scheduled Local Union 424 meeting in Fort
McMurray that evening. The Board found no grounds for an urgent and expedited hearing and
refused to schedule the matter before Mr. Reinhart�s scheduled departure for Fort McMurray.
Together with another Local Union 424 member Eric Klein, Mr. Reinhart then drove to Fort
McMurray arriving at approximately 8:00 p.m., just in time for the scheduled meeting. While
Mr. Klein went into the meeting immediately, Mr. Reinhart went into the adjacent restaurant to
eat and, we find, wait for an opportune time to enter the meeting.

[10] The meeting started slightly after 8:00 pm and was well attended: the witnesses suggested
anywhere from 125 to 200 members attended. The meeting progressed well with a number of
standard reports. Throughout the meeting a number of Mr. Reinhart�s supporters were seen
leaving and returning a short time later, allegedly to go and speak with Mr. Reinhart. Mr. Klein
was seen talking on his cell phone. Mr. Reinhart acknowledges that while he was eating a
couple of his supporters did visit him in the restaurant but he says this was entirely unsolicited on
his behalf. Mr. Reinhart remained in the restaurant until approximately 9:40 pm when he
stepped across to join the union meeting. Shortly before this he acknowledges receiving a phone
call from Mr. Klein but he denies any suggestion the purpose of the phone call was to inform
him of the progress of the meeting. Whether this is so or not, the timing of his arrival at the
union meeting happened to coincide with the start of the presentation from the acting Business
Manager, Tim Brower. While Mr. Reinhart does not remember it, witnesses testified that he was
met outside the door by a number of his supporters and escorted into the meeting with supporters
on each side and in front of him. These supporters began clapping before they entered the room
and other supporters inside the room picked up on the clapping. As he entered the room all
business ceased and everyone stood to see what the commotion was about. Others picked up on

the clapping and several began shouting. Mr. Reinhart got about ten feet inside the meeting
room as the entry way into the room was quite crowded. Several people were shaking his hand
and generally trying to get his attention. Several members began chanting, �bring back Mike!�
over and over. Mr. Reinhart testified that, �upon entering there was applause and then roaring
applause. � The noise in the room was sufficient such that I couldn�t hear clearly with all the
ruckus.�

[11] Gord Spackman, Chairman of the meeting, called for order and then stated, �If Mike
Reinhart is in the room you will have to leave or I will adjourn the meeting.� Mr. Reinhart
testified he did not hear this as the people around him diverted his attention although he did state
he heard his name being mentioned over the speaker system. He remained in place and
continued talking and shaking hands. With Mr. Spackman�s announcement, the noise level
increased with more yelling, name calling, and insults. The �commotion� � as another witness
put it � lasted between one and five minutes: the time frame differed from witness to witness.
Mr. Spackman then repeated over the microphone �Mike Reinhart you will have to leave or I
will close the meeting.� Again, Mr. Reinhart testified, he did not hear the request so did not
respond. Shortly thereafter Mr. Spackman announced over the microphone �this meeting is now
closed� which brought a chorus of angry shouts. Someone was able to get Mr. Reinhart�s
attention at this time and he left the room and went outside. Two witnesses, Mr. Stephen
Whitely and Mr. Stan MacNaughton, said many of the members were very angry and
disappointed with the disruption and subsequent closure of the meeting by Mr. Spackman, as
they had been waiting for discussion about the arbitrator�s ruling on the collective agreement.

[12] Mr. Joe Montpetit, the chief shop steward for Local Union 424 at the UE 1 jobsite,
testified there were three undercurrents causing unrest among the membership at the site: the
collective agreement situation; the working conditions; and; the uncertainty surrounding Mr.
Reinhart. He testified that after the issuance of the Disciplinary Decision, Local Union 424 had
to send out five business representatives to chat with the membership and calm them down.
From January 7 through to the issuance of the February 10th Order things had quieted down.
According to Mr. Montpetit this changed with the release of the February 10th Order as, although
he appreciated Mr. Reinhart had been reappointed but suspended pending the completion of the
new re-hearing, some members believed that Mr. Reinhart had been reinstated in full to his

position as Business Manager and that he had been vindicated. This caused �turmoil and
confusion� among the membership because some members did not understand what the decision
really meant. He also testified production has been impacted as members are arguing amongst
themselves and taking extended breaks to discuss the situation. It is even interfering with safety
meetings as much of the time is actually being taken up discussing the situation between Mr.
Reinhart and the Unions. Members, owners, and contractors have expressed concern over this
development. Everyone simply wants clarification as there is some confusion over who is
running the union. And everyone, according to Mr. Montpetit, wants to know the truth so they
can put this whole episode to rest. He also testified that he and other members of Local Union
424 were pleased with the order of a re-hearing as this would bring resolution about who is
running Local Union 424 once and for all.

III. Positions

[13] The Unions argue the February 10th and February 24th Orders have caused so much
uncertainty that the decisions have exacerbated instead of quieted the confusion around Mr.
Reinhart�s status. They point out the objective of an interim order is to prevent harm and create
stability, however, with the best of intentions, the opposite occurred in the present situation. The
confusion must rest solely at the feet of Mr. Reinhart. The Unions argue whether deliberate,
reckless, or just through a mere misunderstanding, Mr. Reinhart, either acting in concert with his
supporters or simply his supporters using him as a lightning rod, have used the opportunity for
their own ends in an effort to re-establish Mr. Reinhart�s credibility and ultimately his position.
Again, either Mr. Reinhart and his supporters or just his supporters, have inflamed the situation
trying to create a crisis-like atmosphere hoping to lead to instability. The Unions point to the
open web sites where positions are posted and debated including one supposedly from a Mr.
Reinhart supporter advocating an illegal walkout later this year. All of this confusion, the
Unions argue, flows out of the misunderstanding (perhaps intentionally so) of the February 10th
Order. It is impacting the over-all work product and labour relations at a delicate time.

[14] The Unions also argue Mr. Reinhart is using the opportunity to politicize the issue as he
has no legal grounds on which to base his defense.

[15] This confusion must stop. The only way to stop the confusion, the Unions argue, is to go
back to square one � strike the existing Orders � and get on with the original application from
Mr. Reinhart. This would eliminate the harm caused by the uncertainty and allow the parties to
deal with the merits of the original application, which has yet to be adjudicated and ruled upon.
This would also have the effect of reinstituting, without debate, the Disciplinary Decision with
its five rulings until such time as the Board rules on the legality of the process followed in
reaching that decision.

[16] Mr. Reinhart agrees there has been confusion over his right to attend Local Union 424
meetings but this confusion was caused not by Mr. Reinhart, but by the Unions� change in
position. He points out that on February 23rd, the Unions agreed he was a member in good
standing and, as a result, was fully entitled to attend union meetings. The day before the first of
the Local Union 424 meetings they changed their position and suddenly adopted the stance he
was not entitled to attend, relying on the Disciplinary Decision for their justification. Of course,
Mr. Reinhart argues, he wanted to attend the union meetings, as is his right, as he wants to do
everything possible to clear his name. He should not feel shame or regret for doing that which
an innocent person would do.

[17] Mr. Reinhart argues the February 10th and 24th Orders were designed to take the parties
back to their original positions, as best they could, with the intention of preserving the
presumption of innocence and allowing for a fair and impartial re-hearing. He takes the position
the Disciplinary Decision had been vacated, if not explicitly then certainly implicitly. Like the
Unions, he too wants certainty and clarification but the best way to do this is not to strike the
original Orders, but rather, he argues, to clarify his position by confirming his right to attend
union meetings and do everything a member is otherwise entitled to do. Any confusion here,
Mr. Reinhart argues, is caused not by him, but because of a retrenchment by IBEW � it has
changed its mind.

IV. Decision

[18] The Unions acknowledge a mistake was made and that it wrongly advised Mr. Reinhart
on February 23rd he was entitled to attend Local Union 424 meetings. It claims any confusion,

however, was cleared up well before the meetings starting February 26th and Mr. Reinhart knew
before hand he was not entitled to attend nor would he be allowed to attend.

[19] While we are satisfied that Mr. Reinhart knew as of February 25th of the Unions� change
of position from February 23rd and that Mr. Reinhart knew he would be refused entry to Local
Union 424�s meetings (and despite this chose to attend), we are also satisfied IBEW has indeed
retrenched from its original undertaking contained in its letter of February 9th and has been trying
to extricate itself ever since the initial fight over full pay and benefits. In this regard, each of the
parties �have played politics� and have attempted to use this legal forum to advance their
interests. They now each come before the Board asking us to exercise our discretion, an
equitable remedy, in favour of their own case and interests. There is an old legal maxim called
the �clean hands� doctrine, that paraphrased, says that he who seeks equity must come with clean
hands. Black�s Law Dictionary says that under the �clean hands� doctrine, �equity will not grant
relief to a party, who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some
remedy, if such party in his prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable
principle.� We are satisfied in the case before us each party is at least partially to blame for what
has transpired since February 10th and neither party is faultless. Neither party comes before us
with clean hands and neither party should receive the discretionary remedy they seek. So as to
maintain labour relations peace and clarify rights, however, we will amend our previous Orders
to put in certain terms what Mr. Reinhart is entitled to with respect to his membership rights
during the currency of his suspension under our Order.

[20] With regard to the Unions� application to revoke the February 10th and 24th Orders, the
very core of these Orders was the representation or undertaking from the Unions to both Mr.
Reinhart and the Board that IBEW would hold a new discipline hearing into the charges facing
Mr. Reinhart. This representation or undertaking appeared to fall rapidly off the rails on
February 11, 2005 after Mr. Reinhart, in a letter from his counsel to the Unions, sought
reimbursement and reestablishment of not only his wages but also his car, gas credit card, union
credit card, access card, and cell phone, the latter of which were needed to allow him to engage
in �political activities that form part of (Mr. Reinhart�s) office as Business Manager.� This
position, admits the Unions, caused angst and ultimately formed part of the basis for its
application to revoke the February 10th Order that the Board rejected in our February 24th Order.

We have no doubt that as of the February 11th letter from Mr. Reinhart and any prior discussions
leading up to it, whatever good-will that was on the table and evident in the negotiations leading
up to the February 10th Order ceased. In a series of applications since that date the Unions have
either sought to revoke the original decision ordering the new discipline hearing or to delay the
payment of monies as ordered thereby ultimately delaying the start date of the re-hearing. We
have no evidence before us indicating there has been any effort by the Unions to follow-up on its
own representation or undertaking.

[21] As for Mr. Reinhart, the evidence leads us to the conclusion he has chosen a path
designed for confrontation and for the most visibility possible. While our first Order reinstated
him to his former position it also suspended him with full pay and benefits pending the
conclusion of the re-hearing. In the labour relations context, it is generally understood (as
evidenced by the testimony of Mr. Montpetit) that a suspended employee no longer has work
responsibilities, access to their work premises, or need for any tools required for the performance
of his job until such time as the suspension is lifted. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Reinhart, a senior
manager of Local Union 424 and one no doubt familiar with this concept, chose to �push the
envelope� as counsel for the Unions put it, and sought the return of his car, credit cards, cell
phone and access cards � all for the admitted purpose of continuing in his position and carrying
out his political responsibilities. Given the political overtones of this case and that, within his
own testimony, Mr. Reinhart fully knew and appreciated his �reform platform � caused concern
among the old guard� we are satisfied that Mr. Reinhart knew his demands would have the effect
of thumbing his nose at this same �old guard� and raise their ire. Mr. Reinhart also admitted
being aware, as of February 25th, that the Unions took the position he was not entitled to, nor
could he attend Union meetings. Whether this was a correct position or not, we are satisfied he
knew or ought to have known his subsequent attendance at Local Union 424 meetings would, as
he articulated later in a slightly different context, cause a �ruckus� and lead to fracturing of the
meeting. We also heard some evidence � without contradiction � that supporters of Mr. Reinhart
orchestrated this �ruckus� when he attended the meeting in Fort McMurray. We are satisfied this
conduct was designed to upset the flow of the meeting.

[22] Each party now seeks to use the other�s misconduct as justification for their position to
revoke or alter the original Order but we are not prepared to use either party�s misconduct as

support for altering our award. As indicated, alteration of our previous Orders for these reasons
requires the exercise of our discretionary powers � an equitable remedy � and neither party
before us comes with the clean hands required. As such, we refuse to grant either application as
requested.

[23] However, on the basis of evidence submitted before us we are satisfied there is at least
some confusion among the members as to Mr. Reinhart�s position as an elected, albeit
suspended, Business Manager. This confusion is causing disquiet in the workplace leading to a
loss of productivity and potential safety concerns. In the interests of labour relations peace and
to quell any further problems for Mr. Reinhart, the Unions and its members we are exercising our
discretion to amend our previous Orders to clarify Mr. Reinhart�s status at membership meetings.

[24] To this end, and to enable the Unions to carry out their business, Mr. Reinhart is not
allowed to attend Local Union 424 meetings until the new discipline hearing has been completed
and a new decision rendered. At that time, our Orders are expended and become null and void.
After the rendering of this decision on March 12th, the parties also agreed that Mr. Reinhart is not
to be on the premises, either in the building or on the parking lot, where a Local Union 424
meeting is taking place. Additionally, during the Local Union 424 meetings, there shall be no
interaction by cell phone or otherwise between Mr. Reinhart and any participants of the said
meetings.

[25] The February 24th order, as amended by today�s order (the �March 12th Order�) stands
and as such, wages and benefits are payable forthwith to Mr. Reinhart and will continue to be
paid until such time as the new disciplinary hearing has been concluded and a decision made and
communicated to Mr. Reinhart. We further direct that this new disciplinary hearing commence
as soon as possible and in any event no later than Monday, April 18, 2005. The Board Chair,
with the consent of the parties, will retain jurisdiction regarding the scheduling of the new
discipline hearing.

[26] We further direct that the March 12th Order and our earlier February 24th Order be posted
on Local Union 424�s web site until the completion of the new disciplinary hearing.

ISSUED and DATED at the City of Edmonton in the province of Alberta this 31st day of March,
2005 by the Labour Relations Board and signed by its Chair.

Mark L. Asbell, Chair

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]