Opening Statement



Friday, 6 September 2013

President Richard Brock: The OECTA Discipline Panel Decision


Dear readers!

Kindly note Mr. Brock remains incommunicado as he has been deciding how to proceed. I would be pleased to interview him at his earliest convenience. Materials are being provided by the understandably concerned members of OECTA Halton Elementary. The decision below is among the many communications that are being shared.  Please note dates on all documents. Here is the decision on the presidents case as they have forwarded it to me:

IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING BETWEEN:
BARBARA DOBROWOLSKI, BOB GIASSON, MIKE SILMSER, DEAN SPENCE, AND LONDON DISTRICT UNIT EXECUTIVE

(Complainants) 
- and –  

RICHARD BROCK

(Respondent) 

AND BETWEEN:
DAN GRYZWACZ, CHRIS MONTGOMERY AND BILL STRATTON
(Complainants)  

- and –  
RICHARD BROCK AND THE HALTON ELEMENTARY UNIT EXECUTIVE

(Respondents)
BEFORE A PANEL OF THE ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION (OECTA) DISCIPLINE BOARD  

August 22, 2013
Joe Ryan, Chairperson
Kathy McVean
Gary Tomcko

SGIN OF THE CASE

The General Secretary of OECTA has referred the following statements of complaint to the Discipline Board of OECTA:

1. Barbara Dobrowolski, Bob Giasson, Mike Silmser and Dean Spence who have filed a complaint against Richard Brock; and
2. Dan Gryzwacz, Chris Montgomery and Bill Stratton who have filed a complaint against Richard Brock and the Halton Elementary Unit Executive; and

3. London District Unit Executive which has filed a complaint against Richard Brock.

The allegations are that:
Complaint #1 The actions of Mr. Richard Brock, President of OECTA Halton Elementary Unit, and the OECTA Halton Elementary Unit Executive are in violation of the Handbook, including but not limited to:

2.67 The duties of the Unit Executive shall be:
2.67.1 to promote the interests of the Association

2.69.1 The duties of the unit president shall be:
2.69.1.1 to promote the interests of the Association

2.127.1 Any member of the Association is liable to a complaint under 4.13 who violates the constitution, by-laws, policies or procedures of the Association;
Complaint #2 The actions of Mr. Richard Brock, President of OECTA Halton Elementary Unit, and the OECTA Halton Elementary Unit Executive are in violation of the Handbook, including but not limited to:

2.67 The duties of the Unit Executive shall be:
2.67.1 to promote the interests of the Association

2.69.1 The duties of the unit president shall be:
2.69.1.1 to promote the interests of the Association

2.127 Any member of the Association is liable to a complaint under 4.13 who:
2.127.1 violates the constitution, by-laws, policies or procedures of the Association

2.128 Any teacher bargaining unit executive, occasional teacher bargaining unit Executive or unit executive is liable to a complaint under 4.13 which:
2.128.1 is in breach of the constitution, by-laws, policies or procedures of the Association;

Complaint #3 Richard Brock is working contrary to the interests of the Association and the membership of OECTA in that he has interfered in an unwarranted manner against three OECTA bargaining units. Mr. Brock is in direct violation of By-Law 2.67, Duties of the Unit Executive;
2.69.1, Duties of the Unit President; 2.127 - 2.127.2; Discipline of Members; and Policies 3.80 - 3.84.2 Conflict of Interest.

It is alleged that these violations occurred with respect to the application by the President and the Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit of OECTA for intervenor status in support of the Durham Catholic District School Board in a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board involving OECTA and the aforementioned employer School Board.
As a result of the similarity of the allegations, the parties agreed to have the complaints heard at a single hearing.

7. That the General Secretary is directed by the panel to provide a copy of the panel’s decision, a statement of the reasons for it and the penalty to be imposed to the respondents and the complainants
7. That the General Secretary is directed by the panel to provide a copy of the panel’s decision, a statement of the reasons for it and the penalty to be imposed to the respondents and the complainants

7. That the General Secretary is directed by the panel to provide a copy of the panel’s decision, a statement of the reasons for it and the penalty to be imposed to the respondents and the complainants
7. That the General Secretary is directed by the panel to provide a copy of the panel’s decision, a statement of the reasons for it and the penalty to be imposed to the respondents and the complainants 
THE HEARING  

The Hearing into this complaint was convened on Thursday, August 22, 2013 at the Provincial Office of OECTA, 65 St. Clair Ave. E., Toronto, Ontario. 
The Panel received the following information as evidence:

Exhibit #1 Notice of Complaints
Exhibit #2 Notice of Hearing

Exhibit #3 Binder of Documents submitted by the Complainants
Exhibit #4 Binder of Documents submitted by the Respondents

There was no agreed statement of facts. The parties agreed to the procedure to be followed in the Hearing. During his opening remarks Mr. Boyle presented a motion to dismiss. The following constitutes a summary of the reasons presented.
Mr. Boyle made several references to documents that are contained in Exhibit #4. Several references were made to British and U.S. articles. Mr. Boyle argued that the interests of the Association are not easily defined and therefore, it is difficult to suggest that Richard Brock and the Halton Elementary Unit Executive were working contrary to the interests of the Association.

Mr. Boyle also argued that the action of Richard Brock and Halton Elementary Unit Executive is insubstantial because only preparatory steps were taken and the application was withdrawn before intervenor status was granted and there was no participation by the Halton Elementary Unit in the OLRB proceedings. Mr. Boyle contended that the charges are without substance. He alleged that the actions of the General Secretary taken against Richard Brock, were vexatious and outside his jurisdiction.
Mr. Boyle argued that for all the reasons presented, the complaints should be dismissed at the outset because the matter should not have been referred to the Discipline Board and as such, a hearing should not have been convened.

Mr. Chudak provided his rebuttal to the arguments presented by the Respondents regarding the motion to dismiss. Mr. Chudak argued that The Supreme Court of Canada has made a ruling on internal union discipline procedures. When an individual joins a union he or she agrees to be bound by the union constitution, including any internal disciplinary proceedings. With reference to the application simply being made and having no effect Mr. Chudak argued that the Complainants’ evidence would refute that assertion.
He contended that the very fact that Mr. Brock and the Halton Unit Executive applied for intervenor status on behalf of a school board has had major repercussions for bargaining for the complainants and that he would show on the balance of probabilities that this is the case for many other OECTA units and individuals. Mr. Chudak argued that the Complainants followed the Handbook procedures for filing the complaints. The complaints were filed in good faith. The Handbook entitles the Complainants to a hearing once the matter is referred to the Discipline Board by the General Secretary, therefore, the hearing should proceed.

The Panel recessed to consider the motion to dismiss. The Panel denied the motion to dismiss for the following reasons:
1. With regard to Mr. Boyle’s position that the action of the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit was preparatory in nature and that therefore discipline would not be justified, the panel observed that in the eighteen examples cited (Section V, Tab 1 of the Respondents’ Binder of documents) for which discipline would not be justified, there was no sample infraction listed which was comparable in any way to the alleged infraction at issue in this hearing.
2. The panel emphasized that it was governed in its deliberations by the OECTA Handbook and relevant Ontario labour law and that there was no Ontario statute that prevented the Association from disciplining members as long as the process used was not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. The panel further noted that the majority of the articles quoted by the Respondents in Section V, Tabs 1 to 14, were not rules or regulations and were from British and U.S. publications and therefore had little standing.

3. The OECTA Handbook does not permit a discipline panel to dismiss a case once it has received it from the General Secretary – Article 4.13.9 states, ‘The chairperson of the discipline panel shall conduct the hearing...’
4. To dismiss the case would deny the Complainants their right to a full hearing – Article 4.13.8 states, ‘The complainants....shall be entitled to appear ...and shall be responsible for the presentation...’

5. Articles 4.13.8 and 4.13.9 spell out a responsibility and an obligation on the discipline panel to hold a hearing.
6. By conducting a full hearing the panel is ensuring that the process is not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

7. The panel declined to comment on the statements made by Mr. Boyle regarding the General Secretary.  
Mr. Boyle’s objections were noted for the record and the hearing continued.

At this time, Mr. Chudak presented the Complainants’ case. Witnesses for the Complainants were:
- Chris Montgomery, President, Durham Secondary Unit of OECTA;

- Dan Gryzwacz, Immediate Past President, Durham Elementary Unit of OECTA;
- Bill Stratton, President, Durham Occasional Teachers OECTA;

- Mike Silmser, Immediate Past President, Renfrew Unit of OECTA; and
- Shelley Malone, Past First Vice-President, London District OECTA Unit.

 Mr. Boyle questioned Chris Montgomery, Dan Gryzwacz, Bill Stratton, Mike Silmser and Shelley Malone. Mr. Chudak re-directed questions to Chris Montgomery, Dan Gryzwacz, Bill Stratton, Mike Silmser and Shelley Malone.
Mr. Boyle presented the case for all of the Respondents. The witnesses for the Respondents were:

- Mr. Richard Brock, President, Halton Elementary Unit of OECTA.
As Mr. Boyle started to question the first witness for the Respondents, Mr. Chudak objected to Mr. Brock being allowed to testify as a witness. Mr. Chudak stated that both parties were asked to provide Will Says prior to the Hearing; the Complainants submitted Will Says for all of the witnesses that testified while the Respondents did not provide Will Says. It was Mr. Chudak’s contention that this gave an unfair advantage to the Respondents and he therefore objected to Mr. Boyle calling Mr. Brock as a witness.  

The panel recessed in order to consider the objection. The panel returned and made the following statements:  
- That the Complainants’ objection had validity;

- That the Respondents did not provide the requested Will Says;
- That to rule in favour of the Complainants’ objection would result in continuing the hearing without hearing from the Respondents and therefore place the panel in a position in which it would be open to allegations of being arbitrary, discriminatory or acting in bad faith.

The panel then made the following ruling on the objection:
1. That Mr. Brock be allowed to appear as a witness.

2. That the Will Say requirement in the case of Mr. Brock be waived as Mr. Boyle has stated that Mr. Brock will be the only witness called.
3. That no other witnesses will be allowed without the required Will Say.

Mr. Boyle continued to present the case for the Respondents and called Mr. Brock as a witness.
Mr. Chudak questioned Mr. Brock. Following the presentations by the Complainant and the Respondent, closing statements were made by both parties. The panel adjourned the hearing on August 22, 2013 at approximately 4:30 p.m.  

The panel met on August 23, 2013 to deliberate.
DECISIONS OF THE PANEL

After consideration of the evidence and testimony presented, the panel arrived at the following decisions:
1. With respect to the complaint against the Halton Elementary Unit Executive, the panel’s decision is that the Halton Elementary Unit Executive was in violation of By-Law Article 2.67.1.

2. With respect to the complaints against Richard Brock, President of the Halton Elementary Unit Executive, the panel’s decision is that Richard Brock was in violation of By-Law Article 2.69.1.1.
REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS

1. It was clear to the panel that the Provincial Executive resolution of July 5, 2012 (Tab 1b - Exhibit #3) and the Council of Presidents resolution of (July 12, 2012 Tab 1a - Exhibit #4) identified the appending of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to collective agreements as Association policy thus making it an ‘interest’ of the Association.
2. The act of applying for intervenor status, in itself, constituted a violation of By-Laws 2.67.1 and 2.69.1.1. The panel did not agree that the application was preparatory as it was in fact an action that was taken by the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit.

3. It is clear from the wording of the April 11, 2013 application for intervenor status (Form A-34, page 3, point 7 at Tab 23 of section IV of Exhibit #4), that the purpose of the application was to prevent the appending of the MoU to collective agreements, and not, as the Respondents claimed, to address the concerns of the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit regarding the death benefit or Long Term Disability (LTD) plans.
4. There were a number of appropriate avenues within the organizational structure of the Association open to the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit through which their concerns regarding the death benefit and LTD plans could have been addressed. These include the Council of Presidents, the Provincial Executive, the Annual General Meeting and the routine consultation with collective bargaining staff at Provincial Office.

5. Even though the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit did attempt to use the avenues referenced above to address their concerns regarding the death benefit and the LTD plans, it was the panel’s view that there comes a point in time when it becomes realistic for a group within the Association to accept the concept that the will of the majority must prevail.
6. In applying for intervenor status on the side of a School Board in opposition to the position adopted by the Association, the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit impinged on the solidarity of the Association. The ‘Statement of Principles’ contained in the OECTA Handbook identifies the building of ‘...solidarity through actions that foster trust and collegiality’ as a key principle on which the Constitution, By-Laws, Policies and Procedures of the Association are based.

7. It is the panel’s view that the action of the President and the Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit, in effect, impeached the credibility of the Association with the Ministry of Education, Ontario Labour Relations Board and with School Boards across the province.
8. It is the panel’s view that, on the balance of probabilities, the action of the President and Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit had a negative effect on the bargaining climate in a number of bargaining units across the province.

PENALTY
1. That the membership privileges of Richard Brock, President of the Halton Elementary Unit, be suspended immediately for the period ending on June 30, 2015.

2. That effective immediately, Richard Brock is prohibited from holding any elected or appointed position within OECTA, provincially or locally, prior to July 1, 2015.
3. That the General Secretary facilitate a full time placement for Richard Brock with the Halton Catholic District School Board as soon as possible for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years.

4. That the Association, through the General Secretary, issue a letter of reprimand to the 2012-2013 Executive of the Halton Elementary Unit.
5. That the decisions of the Discipline Panel shall be published in the next official OECTA publication.
6. That the General Secretary is instructed to immediately communicate the decisions of the Discipline Panel to the members of the Halton Elementary Unit.

7. That the General Secretary is directed by the panel to provide a copy of the panel’s decision, a statement of the reasons for it and the penalty to be imposed to the respondents and the complainants
COMMENTARY: I will have more to say later. Meanwhile please have your say.

Use the COMMENTS button below:

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why is it that the complainants were treated as complainants and the respondents were treated as if they were witnesses???
I can't believe they stopped them from speaking/testifying!!
In any legal proceedings the respondents have a right to speak.

What does ETFO, OSSTF, AEFO, CUPE, OTF, etc. do?

Why is OECTA so undemocratic?

Who's next?

This is brutal. Everyone should be writing to OECTA's Provincial Executive about this!!!

Anonymous said...

So the president and unit executive side with a school board against another group of teachers they don't even represent? They have a word for that in labour circles and it's not a nice one.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the first opinion. Your outrage should be with those who turned on their union sisters and brothers by siding with a school board.

Anonymous said...

ETFO OSSTF AEFO CUPE etc. all have similar discipline procedures in their by-laws. They almost all make sure that discipline panels are free from political interference. You can't have it both ways. Read the decision carefully and your questions about process are answered. Witnesses were asked to produce will-says and they were not provided and that would have not been acceptable in any sort of hearing because it disadvantages the other side since they can't prepare for the hearing. OECTA is democratic. Their discipline process is in their Handbook and requires 2/3 votes at their annual meeting to amend. Chiarelli was at many of those AGMs. In fact, his unit wanted to give even MORE power to the discipline board and broaden the scope of complaints that they would consider. Chiarelli was a part of his unit executive when this was put forward to the last annual meeting.

David Chiarelli said...

OECTA TSU has unsuccessfully forwarded the AGM motion for an Ombudsman during the past few years. The Brock decision further emphasizes this important need. TSU motions are member generated. Unlike most units, TSU delegates are not told how to vote + do not vote in block.

Although I am retired from the executive I still take pride in the fair democratic process TSU has exercised in its participation in the OECTA AGM's. I do not speak on the units behalf though, and you will note that I identify myself by name on my blogs + comments.

A lot of readers don't. I have allowed that because I understand their fear of being bullied as union members, especially when we see the example being made of the Halton Elementary executive and members. Different points of view are encouraged on my blog. However critics who direct their comments at me should identify themselves by name.

And so, let the debate continue ...

Anonymous said...

David, I'm with you. I smell a rat!

ETFO Steve said...

Any bureaucracy that gets big enough, or has been around long enough, begins to serve itself more than those whose needs it was created to serve in the first place. Clearly, this is what has happened to OECTA (any other number of organizations may easily be substituted here). So long as OECTA members remain apathetic about what their federation is supposed to do for them, and membership dues are collected automatically, this will remain the case. If ever there was an argument for Right to Work legislation this is a good one. There has never been a better time for our federations to be on the same page, yet sadly, this type of insanity will persist as long as those elected to represent us only represent themselves. The ball is really in the court of the members.

David Chiarelli said...

right to work laws would even be worse Steve. all workers would be completely vulnerable

ETFO Steve said...

Holy moly David, I hope you don't think I'm advocating Right to Work. I am saying is it is a choice some might make if they feel their federation $ are being wasted by a self-serving bureaucracy. We can stand on our soap boxes and yell till our throats are raw, but change has got to come from the grass roots. Frankly, after this past year I wonder what the heck it will take for that to happen.

David Chiarelli said...

Gotcha Steve! Agreed! If the OECTA members got to decide if they wanted to be members right now I would bet over 50% wouldn't easily be convinced to sign up with things as they are now. Maybe because of apathy as well as anger. Perhaps that is the most scariest aspect of PC RTW legislation.

A union that loses touch with its grassroots is no longer a union. There has been a serious disconnect. I am very disappointed to see this latest most nasty + partisan discipline panel act at a time when there's a new provincial executive which needs to reconcile and bring members together.

I hate to say it but I am glad that I am no longer an active OECTA member.

Anonymous said...

Amen David! I am a 20year+ OECTA member and unless something happens quickly ala James Ryan turning this union around I will never forget no vote on the MOU and now appointed OECTA Provincial employees going against member elected unit presidents. Ignore the members it's all about me!

Anonymous said...

I am still waiting for David's perspective on a OECTA President who applies for intervenor status against other OECTA units. Is this an example of union solidarity? Would you have voted in favour of such a move? Why is OECTA criticized when this was a conscious decision by someone to hurt the case of other OECTA units who wanted the MoU appended?

David Chiarelli said...

Intervenor status? Remember, Halton Elementary did not have legal aid for the OLRB hearings. If you will look at the blogs on the OLRB MOU cases in November, you will note that CUPE also asked for intervenor status to monitor the proceedings, nothing more intended.

When Halton Elementary requested the same thing for the Durham OLRB case, the legal aid at OLRB would've had to assist in writing the language. The unit had to seek a lot of direction from them because it hadn't lots of other legal resources every step of the way. So what happens when Halton Elementary later learns it wasn't presented in exactly the same way that they intended?

My understanding is that as a sign of good faith Halton Elementary dropped the intervenor status request immediately. Please tell me us how the rest of the problematic Durham let alone OECTA negotiations with the boards all went off the rails because of this? In all the mistakes that have been made since July 5th this seems pretty darn minor.

Again we have a question of an unfair playing field. Whoever has the best lawyers wins. What if a unit can't afford their own legal help? It seems to me that this is the cross Richard is being nailed on, vis a vis legal jargon. We then have a question of application of the letter of the law verses the spirit of the law here, as I mentioned earlier.

It also applies to the question of proportionality. Even if technically a rule was broken, the disciplinary panel had a wide range of consequences it could've decided on. I don't see how this justifies throwing the whole book at Richard, and removing a democratically elected local president from his unit. Also, why the difference between that "justice" meted out to Richard, who as President would be acting on the instructions of the executive, and that of his executive who just received a reprimand. Of course they were all stuck in the same legal void, fighting for their members death gratuities, and the other MOU strips to their members contracts.

Add no ombudsman. No legal aid. A very complicated + disturbing process over the short summer months, while everyone is away and in the dark. Plus all the other issues outlined above. I should think PE needs to put a stay on the Brock Halton Elementary decision while the whole discipline panel procedures and decision making process is reviewed so OECTA can move on from this awful period in the unions history for the common good of ALL its units + members.

Anonymous said...

Or a Provincial President who signs a MOU agreement and doesn't allow a membership-wide vote by all OECTA members? Start of OECTA's decline?

Anonymous said...

Thank you David for your summary and pointing out that Halton elementary is fighting this for ALL OECTA members.Give the union back to its members.

Anonymous said...

Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room first. Richard Brock is a very strong personality and a very polarizing character. We can talk about technicalities and legalities all we want but ultimately for better or for worse very few people in the know would argue about the following two things (if the discussion is off the record and balls out honest). 1. Richard's executive instructs him far less than he instructs them. He is largely a one man show. You can say that is a sign that he is a great leader or a despot or anything in between but anyone who has been around OECTA world for any length of time knows that Brock runs the show in his unit. That is why he was disciplined and his exec was not. Also, the buck has to stop somewhere and as Prez. he is it. 2. Richard is a very bold actor in union politics and he is far from naïve or stupid. He's like a bull in a China shop. Some people like that, some people don't. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. He knew exactly what was happening when intervener status was sought. He was pissed about the MOU and very frustrated with the process and the Exec (as many people were, justifiably I think) and he was trying to make a statement and keep his fight alive. That being said, he sought intervenor status in a case of another unit who were in conflict with their board. I defy any exec member from any unit who reads this to tell me, honestly, that this wouldn't piss them off. OECTA politics are OECTA politics and they are strange these days but we don't do things that can hurt our own, even indirectly. We don't mess with the bargaining of other units. Even if it didn't have any impact in the end, it clearly could have and we all know that. And for that reason RB was punished. I hated and still hate the MOU. I have huge problems with how it went down. But we have to separate our allegiances on that matter with the simple understanding that OECTA Presidents and/or Units cannot go rogue and take actions that may undermine solidarity between units and within OECTA as a whole. It is wrong, it is selfish and it is childish. Richard Brock is a President who has often pushed the boundries. Like it or lump it, he pushed it too far this time. even if he thought better of it at the last moment I think we all know that the truth is that he publicly found common cause with one of the boards (both opposed to MOU) and that justifies the penalty. We removed the Provincial President largely due to MOU concerns (that pound of flesh has been given). Now a Local President who went to far in opposition to the MOU (Yes, in spite of my hatred of the wretched agreement, there is such a thing as going too far in opposition) has also been made to pay. Time to stop griping. Accept what has happened and work as a whole to ensure that we are strong and united in the future. I'm not sure how to put my name on this properly (I'm a bit of a luddite) so I'll just sign below,
Ryan Dollimore

David Chiarelli said...

Thanks for using your own name Ryan. I'm going to disagree though. Handing out tickets for bullying or questionable MOU irregularities at OECTA is like handing out speeding tickets at the Molson Indie.

Why is it Brock who is the one who gets nailed and made an example of? How come so many other readers here are afraid to use their names? Why was this done over the summer when most everyone was away?

Just what the heck is a "will say"? Was there enough info and time to realistically allow them to be gathered so as to meet the unbendingly tough procedural requirements over the summer? Why was this used to try to prevent even Richard from speaking as his own witness?

As far as the credibility of to complainants go who exactly was prevented from speaking as a witness on Richards behalf? Can we confirm that? Why or why not? It would be very illuminating as to the credibility of the complaints and the extent of the damage allegedly done [whatever that was ... ]

Can we confirm that Richards witnesses were prominent well respected names from the PE, OTF, local presidents, + others?
How about Bob Boyle as Richards agent? He is hardly known as one to enable bullies and not understand the rules. Isn't that pause for concern over just what was really going on?

I still find it hard to believe this discipline hearing + the extreme consequences were absolutely necessary and intended to stop Richard as the #1 bully at OECTA with all the other nonsense that has been going on over the past year since July 5th. Also highly dubious is the question of procedural wrangling + emphasis all of a sudden on interpreting them on a strict rigid basis when we saw what happened with the MOU last year.

The Discipline Panel better have a pretty thick pad of speeding tickets to hand out. No?

Anonymous said...

So OECTA is disciplining "bullies" now? Maybe they should have started with all the Provincial Executive "bullies" who voted YES to the MOU. The ultimate act of bullying and betrayal of OECTA members was not being allowed to vote on the MOU. What kind of union leadership does that to its members? That will NEVER be forgotten by OECTA members or the labour movement in Ontario and Canada. Something that destructive doesn't go away easily.

Anonymous said...

While I am very troubled by the Discipline Panel's Penalty (on Mr. Brock), I find Ryan Dollimore's contribution to be very well written and it has given me something to pause and think about.

Anonymous said...

As a target of Richard's bullying and in-your-face personality, I do believe what comes around, goes around...you know what they say about Karma....

David Chiarelli said...

Re: Ryan Dollimores comment contribution. Yes, thank you Ryan. Agree or not it was a valuable well considered contribution to our great debate. We need to hear as many different points of view as we can to truly understand any issue in a meaningful way.

Anonymous said...

At least President Richard Brock stands up for what is right for his members which seems to be an activity that is as scarce as hen's teeth these days. Richard's application for intervenor status was not even completed or submitted. IS it a crime to think about doing something these days. If so we are all guilty. Richard may not be soft spoken but we can all see that he does his job (defends his Members)!

Anonymous said...

I have never met a dedicated leader who is so up front for his membership's rights. I have been asking him to move over to my unit and be our president! He is a model for all unit presidents and should be given a medal instead of villified. I think that certain people feel very threatened by his zeal and it shows them up as the self-serving scum that they are. This is why he is being scandalized and persecuted. President Richard Brock, I saw your mettle in the OLRB and have a great appreciation for you! You the man and none of these lessor individuals will ever change my opinion of you. I know that your heart is in the right place- with your Members and defending their rights!I hope that this will be evident when this case is decided! LOL

Anonymous said...

Many Units decided not to append the MOU. This according the discipline board is against the best interests of the association. They had a right to do that. The PE knew it and nothing was done. I note that all the units that brought the complaint against Richard argued in favour of appending the MOU. Coincidence? Now, we have a body telling us what our best interests are. Not the members, not AGM, not COP and not the PE. If this is allowed to stand, our rules and the AGM mean nothing.

All we need is the three people put in place, before the PE even knew the board existed, to tell us what our best interests are. I heard that there is proof of this now.

Anonymous said...

Wow you only allow for positive comments. No bias??????

David Chiarelli said...

Hardly. Identify yourself. Provide credible objective evidence of this claim and relate to document above.

David Chiarelli said...

Hi Anon!

Regretfully, I am not going to post anonymous attacks on Richard concerning the still hotly debated situation at OECTA Halton Unit because a] he is under a gag order and cannot respond, and b] OECTA has not released an official audit.

I don't doubt Richard was a prime dissident target because he is controversial, and as such a good target to make an example of. This later muckraking however, has nothing to do with the OECTA MOU, our focus here.

There was a Halton blogsite dealing with all things Richard. The ongoing debate about Richards other activities at Halton can continue there.

Thanks!

David C

carquestions said...

A) I posted as Carquestions (Mark Whinton) not as anonymous. B) There is no hot debate about OECTA or Richard on any blogsite.

C) Richard is long gone and will be remembered only for helping himself and certainly not for helping fellow union members.

Oectacat said...

We all know all that counts is Marshall and his posi

Oectacat said...

Is this the teacher? ...... The one who the general secretary is protecting? I put no stock in any thing you say mark whinton!

David Chiarelli said...

Real interesting discussion folks, but let's please keep this civil! Thanks for your contributions!

carquestions said...

As a matter of fact we're cousins

Oectacat said...

I actually have the document that shows halton withdrawing as soon as provincial got involved. But this was a chance that Marshall couldn't let go of to f... Richard. The disciplinary board and the so called mediator were all Jarvis' men. Mou people

David Chiarelli said...

You and Oectacat?! Definitely not kissing cousins, that's for sure .....

carquestions said...

Anonymous oecta person - sounds like you're angry with Jarvis - Posi? is a street term for an automotive differential, I think you mean posse. You have a document that proves Richard applied for intervenor status on behalf of an employer? Good for you. You seem to have collected evidence that clearly shows Richard's guilt as is detailed above in the panel's decision.

The bottom line is Jarvis followed the law, Richard did not and was punished for it. If Richard thought the decision was wrong he could have taken them to court over it like lots of people who think quasi judicials panels goofed up - but he didn't. For a person so fond of defending others he seems incapable of defending himself on this blog. No lawsuit, no blog comments, no nothing. If you want to know why he hasn't defended himself and why his story is old news just google Richard Brock Oecta and you'll find all the answers you need all based on facts with supporting documents.

Oectacat said...

Oh .. I didn't realize Google knew Richard.. really? Anyone can post. I don't put it past GS to pay people to do so, using our money too! I would love to know how much was spent on this vendetta.
Thanks David

Oectacat said...

Carguy,
1 no we don't know each other, you taught at the school my kids attended. they both said you're scum.
2 so I made a self correct error.bfd.and yes I do know about cars, but I don't need to flaunt my knowledge here.
3 Jarvis is like you. He fabricated stuff and lied. I know first hand. I was there.
4 Richard's hands and those of his friends,who btw were accused with him just for being so, had their hands tied legally. they can't talk.how convenient for Marshal!
5 I don't think Richard needs to explain himself to people like you.

Post a Comment

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!
See below ...

Communist Girls Are More Fun #1

Communist Girls Are More Fun #1

Communist Grrrls are More Fun #2

Communist Grrrls are More Fun #2

Communist Grrrls Are More Fun #3

Communist Grrrls Are More Fun #3

Communist Girls Are More Fun #4

Communist Girls Are More Fun #4

Art at the Paris Louvre: What does it mean?!?

Art at the Paris Louvre: What does it mean?!?
A careful analytical study!

Help! I Have No Arms!

Help! I Have No Arms!
Please scratch my back.

I can't find my underwear!.

I can't find my underwear!.
Have you seen them!

Weee! I can fly!

Weee! I can fly!
Look! I can crawl thru walls!

I have a headache!

I have a headache!
And a broken nose.

I have a square hole in my bum!

I have a square hole in my bum!

Here try this, it's very good!

Here try this, it's very good!
No. You have a bird face.

I have an ugly baby!

I have an ugly baby!
No I'm not!

Let's save all our money + buy pants!

Let's save all our money + buy pants!
OK but I need a new hand too!

Oh no! I got something in my eye!

Oh no! I got something in my eye!

You don't look well.

You don't look well.
No. My head hurts +I have a sore chest.

Would you like a bun?

Would you like a bun?

Chichen-Itza: Lost Maya City of Ruins!

Chichen-Itza: Lost Maya City of Ruins!
The Temple of Kukulkan!

Gotta love it!

Gotta love it!
Truly amazing!

Under Reconstruction!

Under Reconstruction!

Temples + Snakes!

Temples + Snakes!

The Snake!

The Snake!
It runs the length of the ball field!