Protest Decisions

IN RE: DAVE MCPHERSON, LARRY BARNETT, JOHN HULL, ED ARBIC, TOM WAKARUK, RICK FYVIE, and RAY BARTOLOTTI,
Protest Decision 2000 EAD 33
Issued: October 6, 2000
OEA Case Nos. PR071201CA, PR071202CA, PR071203CA, PR071302CA, PR080901CA, PR081101CA and PR092801CA

Dave McPherson, Larry Barnett, John Hull, Ed Arbic, Tom Wakaruk, Rick Fyvie and Ray Bartolotti, all members of Local 938, filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The McPherson, Barnett, Hull, Arbic and Wakaruk protests are filed against Ray Bartolotti, president of Local 938. The protestors allege that Bartolotti has filed or threatened to file internal union charges against the protestors in violation of the Rules, in to discourage or prevent the protestors from running as candidates in Local 938's upcoming delegate election. Wakaruk's protest alleges that Bartolotti improperly suspended Wakaruk from membership in retaliation for his delegate campaign activities. Fyvie's protest is directed against Local 938 member Joe Jephson, alleging that Jephson improperly campaigned during a Local 938 membership meeting by seeking election accreditation signatures for the Tom Leedham slate. Bartolotti's protest is directed against the "Local 938 Members Slate", of which McPherson, Barnett, Hull, Arbic, Wakaruk, Jephson, Hull and others are members, and alleges that the content of a flyer on behalf of the Local 938 Members Slate violates the Election Rules.

Election Administrator representatives Gwen Randall and Michael Nicholson investigated the protests.

Article VI, Section 1(a)(1) of the Rules provides that to be eligible to run for any convention delegate, alternate delegate, or International Officer position, one must be a member in continuous good standing of the local union, with one's dues paid to the local union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers, or failure to pay fines or assessments. Article VII, Section 11(a) provides that all union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions. Article VII, Section 11(g) provides that retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by that or any other article of the Rules is prohibited.

Findings of Facts

A. Ray Bartolotti took office as president of Local 938 in Mississauga, Ontario in January 1998, displacing a long-time incumbent. Local 938 is one of the largest IBT local unions in Canada, representing employees at numerous employers throughout the province of Ontario. Clay Nickerson took office as secretary-treasurer of the local at the same time that Bartolotti became president.

Since Bartolotti's accession, political conflict has been rife in Local 938. Under his leadership, Bartolotti has taken certain actions that have been heavily criticized and attacked by certain members of Local 938. Among Bartolotti's most vocal critics in the period since his election are Hull, Barnett and others associated with them, including Arbic, McPherson, Jephson and Wakaruk. These members have criticized Bartolotti for, among other things, allegedly exorbitant compensation and benefits afforded to Local 938 officers and staff, an allegedly improper sale of the local's former hall, allegedly anti-democratic practices, alleged violence against a fellow union officer (Nickerson), allegedly inadequate representation in dealings with employers, and other alleged acts. These criticisms have taken the form of complaints to the International Union (which conducted investigations of the local), complaints to the IRB, a hotly contested race for trustee of a health and welfare plan, and internal union charges against Bartolotti.

During the period since Bartolotti's accession, these political wars have seen shifting alliances, with certain individuals who were formerly opposed to Bartolotti changing sides and supporting Bartolotti. Bartolotti has pursued such defections from the ranks of his opponents, in an effort to build his power in the local. Those opposed to Bartolotti have similarly continued their attacks against Bartolotti, and sought to have others join their ranks. These efforts continue to the time of this writing, and will undoubtedly continue hereafter. Under the current political alignment, Bartolotti and his faction are supporters of the Hoffa slate, while their opponents in local union politics are currently supporters of the Leedham slate.

Among the weapons used by the two sides in this internal political war is the filing of internal charges against each other alleging violation of the provisions of the IBT Constitution and Local 938's Bylaws. Thus, on May 25, 1999, Bartolotti and Fyvie, along with Nickerson, Local 938 Recording Secretary Debbie Jones (now both members of the Local 938 Members Slate opposing Bartolotti) and others filed internal union charges against Barnett, Hull, Arbic, Wakaruk and others (including Wayne Maslen), alleging violations of the IBT Constitution and Local 938's Bylaws. The charges alleged that the respondents improperly brought reproach upon the local union by notice postings allegedly containing misrepresentations concerning an April 18, 1999 membership meeting, disrupting that meeting, and picketing and blocking ingress and egress on the day of that meeting outside the Local 938 hall. These charges were withdrawn without prejudice on July 8, 1999, after Bartolotti had convinced Maslen to change sides in the Local 938 political battle and come to work for Bartolotti at the local. And while Maslen shifted sides, Local 938 officers Nickerson and Jones also shifted sides, abandoning Bartolotti because they disagreed with the way he was running the local. The split between Bartolotti and Nickerson has been especially deep, at one point resulting in a physical confrontation.

One of the ways in which the political rift between the pro and anti-Bartolotti factions has manifested itself is planning by the anti-Bartolotti forces to run a slate of candidates against whatever candidates Bartolotti would support in the 2001 delegate election at Local 938. Before Maslen shifted sides, the strategy of running an opposition delegate slate against the Bartolotti forces was discussed by the members aligned with Hull. It may fairly be assumed that Maslen shared this information with Bartolotti after he switched sides, and in interviews with the staff of the Election Administrator, Bartolotti does not deny knowledge of generalized plans by the forces aligned with Hull to run delegate candidates against those to be run by Bartolotti. Jones (the Local's recording secretary) produced handwritten notes of the May 7, 2000 general membership meeting that alluded to some discussion by Hull about delegate candidacy at the end of the meeting (although a tape of the meeting reviewed by our staff abruptly cuts off at the end and no such discussion could be heard). More importantly, Bartolotti concedes that he knew by at least May 2000 that Hull and others were planning to run a slate of delegate candidates against Bartolotti's candidates.

Thus, John Hull stated that on or about the week of May 21, 2000, he and a supporter encountered Bartolotti at the Coffee Time coffee shop. According to Hull, Bartolotti offered to split the delegate positions for the upcoming elections with Hull's forces, with Bartolotti having a one-delegate edge. (Bartolotti had miscalculated the number of delegate positions by one.) Hull stated that Bartolotti justified the offer by noting that it would save the local money not to run a contested delegate election. Hull rejected the offer. (Bartolotti also asked Hull to come to work with him at the local; Hull refused.) In his interviews with the staff of the Election Administrator, Bartolotti agrees that this encounter occurred and that this delegate split offer was made. Moreover, Bartolotti and Hull each agree that Bartolotti has since renewed this offer twice, most recently in August 2000, and that Hull's response was the same. Bartolotti concedes that such a resolution of the delegate election might also help defuse internal tension in the local and thus work to his political benefit.

Around the same time as the Coffee Time meeting, on May 22, 2000, Hull filed internal union charges against Bartolotti with General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Keegel. The charges alleged that on May 16, 2000, Bartolotti had wrongfully damaged union property in Nickerson's office at the local in a "fit of rage." Hull requested that Bartolotti be removed from his position as president of Local 938.

On June 2, 2000, Barnett filed charges with Keegel against Bartolotti. Barnett's charges alleged that Bartolotti violated the IBT Constitution and the Local 938 Bylaws on May 7, 2000 by presenting a resolution at the general membership meeting held on that day. The resolution allegedly was passed by the Local 938 Executive Board on April 7, 2000, and authorized Bartolotti to "continue to do things in the furture (sic) as he had done in the past." Barnett's charges sought suspension of Bartolotti from office until a decision on the validity of the charges was made. Copies of these charges were sent to General President Hoffa, Joint Council 52, the Ethical Practices Committee and the IRB, among others.

On June 3, 2000, Arbic filed charges with Keegel against Bartolotti. The charges alleged that Bartolotti violated the IBT Constitution at the May 7, 2000 general membership meeting by leaving the meeting "in the middle of questions being asked under New Business" and failing to call for adjournment. Copies of the charges were sent to Joint Council 52 and the Ethical Practices Committee.

On June 7, 2000, Barnett filed further charges with Keegel against Bartolotti. These charges alleged that at the June 4, 2000, general membership meeting Bartolotti refused to read the minutes of a May 3, 2000 meeting of the local's Executive Board for information and membership approval. Copies of the protest were sent to General President Hoffa, Joint Council 52, the Ethical Practices Committee and the IRB.

On June 17, 2000, Hull filed further charges with Keegel against Bartolotti. The charges alleged that Bartolotti said to Hull at the June 4, 2000 general membership meeting that he (Bartolotti) would "get" Hull and "when he does it will be good." The charges sought Bartolotti's immediate suspension from office. Copies of the charges were sent to General President Hoffa, the IRB and the Ethical Practices Committee.

Bartolotti's response to these charges by Hull, Barnett and Arbic was to file charges against them on June 23, 2000 (against Hull), June 26, 2000 (against Barnett), and June 28, 2000 (against Hull). The charges were filed with Local 938. They three charges were similar, realleging the incidents covered in Bartolotti's earlier withdrawn protest filed against Hull, Barnett, Arbic and others in 1999. The charges also alleged that Barnett, Hull and Arbic were "in constant pursuit of deliberate and unfounded charges against [Bartolotti]", seeking his removal from office. The charges complained that Barnett, Hull and Arbic's charges were maliciously motivated, and that copies had been sent to numerous parties in an attempt to "discredit Brother Bartolotti and bring reproach upon the Union." The charges also alleged a continued effort aimed at "usurping the authority of the President re: numerous motions, etc., mob like behavior and using the democratic process in an anarchic format which is not in the best interest of the members of the Local Union." By letter of July 5, 2000, copies of Bartolotti's charges against Hull, Barnett and Arbic were served by Local 938 upon them. They were received by the three over the next week.

On July 7, 2000, General President Hoffa wrote Barnett, Hull, Arbic and another individual about their charges against Bartolotti. He stated that the charges did not meet the requirement for the International's assertion of original jurisdiction (an immediate threat to welfare of an affiliate or the International Union). Accordingly, he referred the charges to Joint Council 52 for hearing.

On July 9 and 10, 2000, Barnett, Arbic, Wakaruk and others declared their intentions to run as candidates in Local 938's delegate elections. The declarations were published in Internet postings. On July 12 and 13, 2000, Hull, Arbic and Barnett filed charges with the Election Administrator alleging that Bartolotti's internal union charges against them were filed in retaliation for their plans to run as candidates for delegates from Local 938 to the IBT 2001 convention. Dave McPherson also filed his protest against Bartolotti on July 12, 2000, alleging that on July 9, 2000, while McPherson was soliciting signatures on Tom Leedham slate petitions, Bartolotti indirectly threatened to file internal union charges against McPherson, by allegedly saying that McPherson would be hearing from Bartolotti soon.[1]

Bartolotti responded in writing to the Barnett, Hull, Arbic and McPherson protests. Essentially, he told the Election Administrator that his charges against Barnett, Hull and Arbic were in retaliation for their May and June 2000 internal union charges against him. He maintained that position during his subsequent interviews with the staff of the Election Administrator.

On July 15, 2000, Hull, Barnett and Arbic wrote Local 938 asking that Bartolotti's charges against them be dismissed because they were "bogus", directed at protected activity (distribution of flyers to the membership, peaceable assembly, filing of internal union charges, and speaking and making motions at membership meetings). The letter also stated that the charges were in large part a repetition of Bartolotti's withdrawn May 25, 1999 charges, and alleged that the refiling of these charges by Bartolotti was motivated by the upcoming delegate elections.

On July 16, 2000, Hull wrote to the staff of the Election Administrator repeating his claim that Bartolotti's charges were in retaliation for Hull's planned delegate candidacy, and noted that he was "thinking of running for [IBT] V.P."

On July 18, 2000, Barnett wrote the staff of the Election Administrator and, among other points, alleged that he could not get a fair hearing before Local 938 on Bartolotti's charges against him because Bartolotti controlled the Executive Board. As a result, Barnett stated his belief that as a result of the Bartolotti charges he and his friends would lose their membership in good standing status and their ability to run for delegate. Arbic made similar claims in a letter to the Election Administrator's staff dated July 19, 2000. Arbic alleged that he had made it known to Bartolotti in March 1999 that he had planned to run for delegate in 2001, and that Bartolotti's charges were filed in retaliation for his planned candidacy.

Hearing dates before Local 938 on Bartolotti's charges against Hull, Barnett and Arbic are set for the week of October 9, 2000. The Hull, Barnett and Arbic charges against Bartolotti are before the Joint Council, but no result has been reached as of this writing.

B. The Fyvie protest alleges that Joe Jephson, who is a member of the Local Members Slate along with Hull, Barnett, Arbic and others, improperly addressed a July 30, 2000 membership meeting by stating criticisms of Local 938's leadership. Fyvie also alleged that Jephson improperly "solicited signatures throughout the hall in support of the Leedham slate." Fyvie referred Local 938 staff member Bob Miles to the Election Administrator as a witness.

Joe Jephson admitted that he was critical of Local 938's leadership during the July 30 meeting for the local's Purolator membership, but states that such conduct is not prohibited by the Rules. Jephson further admitted that he circulated Leedham slate petitions outside the meeting room in which the July 30 meeting was held. Jephson stated that he obtained four signatures before the meeting, all the while never relinquishing possession of his petition forms, which he folded and placed in his pocket before he entered the meeting. According to Jephson, that is where the petitions stayed until the meeting was over and he exited the hall. Jephson thus flatly denies that he circulated petitions during the meeting. Bob Miles, a Bartolotti and Hoffa supporter, essentially confirmed Jephson's version of the July 30 petition signature solicitation. Based on this corroboration, and on Jephson's detailed recollection of his actions, we credit Jephson.

C. Tom Wakaruk was injured in an industrial accident in 1998 and performed modified duties for his employer, Roadway Reimer Express in Toronto, until May 1999 when he commenced receipt of workers' compensation. His employer continues to pay health and welfare contributions and pension contributions to Local 938 funds on his behalf.

From and after May 1999, Wakaruk has paid his monthly dues directly to Local 938. Pursuant to a motion of the executive board in December 1999, it was agreed that Wakaruk's dues would be accepted, as it was believed that the bylaws of Local 938 were not clear with respect to the position of a member in receipt of workers' compensation who continues to perform duties on behalf of the local union.

Wakaruk has been a shop steward at Roadway Reimer for many years and in late 1999 and early 2000 he participated as a member of the negotiating committee for a new collective bargaining agreement at Roadway Reimer. As late as May 2000, Wakaruk continued to deal with letters of understanding at Roadway Reimer on behalf of the local.

Wakaruk claims that in July 2000 he made known his intention to seek election as convention delegates on behalf of Local 938. Wakaruk is well known in the local as a supporter of the Leedham slate. At a local union meeting in July 2000, Wakaruk states that he assisted others circulating an accreditation petition on behalf of the Leedham slate. Bartolotti does not dispute that he considers Wakaruk to be politically aligned with Hull, with whom Bartolotti tried as early as May 2000 to broker a deal whereby the Hull and Bartolotti factions would agree to a near even split in Local 938's delegates to the 2001 IBT convention.

On August 8, 2000, Wakaruk received a letter dated August 1, 2000, signed by Ray Bartolotti as President of Local 938, returning his dues and advising him that he stood suspended by the Constitution and Bylaws of the IBT. The letter stated:

Local 938 Executive Board has erred in the acceptance of your dues payment in December 1999. Under the advice of Secretary-Treasurer Clay Nickerson, we assumed that his suggestion regarding your payment of dues was correct. We now find that it violates the International Constitution and Local Union By-Laws. As you have been on Compensation and not working in the craft you should have remained on suspension. Therefore, enclosed please find a cheque in the amount of $881.00 repaying you the monies incorrectly received by the Local Union from you. Be advised you stand suspended by the Local Union as provided by the Constitution and By-Laws.

No provision of the International Constitution or the local's by-laws is cited in the letter. Because of the letter, Wakaruk lost his continuous good standing status in Local 938, making him ineligible to be a candidate for convention delegate under Article VI, Section 1(a)(1) of the Rules. Further, Hull stated during the investigation that Bartolotti called him after issuing the August 1 letter to Wakaruk and taunted Hull about Wakaruk's removal form membership, claiming that he (Bartolotti) had "got Tom." Bartolotti did not deny this when asked about the interchange.

During the investigation of these protests, the staff of the Election Administrator was presented with an August 10, 2000 interpretation of the IBT Constitution by General President Hoffa in a case involving a member in another local union similarly situated with Wakaruk. The interpretation states "a member who is out of work due to an illness or injury and who retains the right to return to employment is not considered to be 'unemployed' for purposes of Article XVIII" of the IBT Constitution, and its provision for the mandatory issuance of withdrawal cards (which issuance results in suspension of membership). As General President Hoffa's letter states, "[w]hile such a member may receive a withdrawal card upon request, the local union may not issue a withdrawal card if the member wants to retain active status." (Emphasis supplied.)

When presented with this constitutional interpretation, Bartolotti stated that his decision to issue the August 1, 2000 letter to Wakaruk was based on advice he had received from Ed Pratt, an IBT staff member, concerning the governing provisions of the IBT Constitution. When contacted, Pratt confirmed Bartolotti's claim. When asked about the Hoffa constitutional interpretation, Pratt said that a mistake may have been made. He promised to look into the matter.

Subsequently, Local 938 and Bartolotti have agreed to rescind the August 1, 2000 letter to Wakaruk and reinstate his continuous membership in good standing upon his payment of back dues. Based on this agreement, the Wakaruk protest is RESOLVED.

D. Bartolotti's protest alleges that a recent flyer circulated by the Local 938 Members Slate violates the Rules. The allegation of a Rules violation is founded upon the content of the flyer, which Bartolotti asserts is "an attack personally directed at [him]." As relief, Bartolotti asks that all members of the slate be "ruled ineligible to run as Delegates."

The flyer is openly critical of Bartolotti, asserting that he adopted a staff pension plan over the opposition of the membership. The flyer states that the "main focus of the [slate's delegate] campaign will be on Ray's pension as well as the way Teamsters Canada and the International Union have refused to deal with the numerous complaints filed against Ray Bartolotti. The flyer also renews the claim of slate members Hull, Arbic and Barnett that the internal charges filed against them by Bartolotti are nothing but an attempt to suspend them from membership in the union and thereby "eliminat[e] his opposition in the delegate election."

Analysis and Conclusion

As noted above, the protest in Case No. PR080901CA concerning the removal of protestor Tom Wakaruk's membership status has been resolved. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss all of the remaining protests.

First, we dismiss the Bartolotti protest in Case No. PR092801CA because on its face it states no violation of the Rules. The protest alleges a Rules violation based on the content of a piece of campaign literature that is critical of an incumbent officer. Such criticism is protected by the Rules, not prohibited. This protest is DENIED.

Second, we dismiss the Fyvie protest in Case No. PR081101CA. To the extent it alleges that Local 938 member Joe Jephson violated the Rules because of his speech at a membership meeting critical of Local 938's leadership, that conduct is likewise protected, and cannot form the basis for a Rules violation. Nor is Jephson's solicitation of election accreditation petition signatures outside a union meeting before and after the meeting a Rules violation. Article VII, Section 11(a) of the Rules is explicit in this regard, providing that the right of members to engage in campaign activity includes the "right to distribute campaign literature and otherwise to solicit support for a member's candidacy outside a meeting hall before, during and after a Union meeting, regardless of Union policy, rule or practice." The record here shows that that is precisely what Jephson did. Accordingly, the Fyvie protest is DENIED.

Third, we dismiss the McPherson protest alleging that Bartolotti threatened McPherson with internal union charges while McPherson was soliciting Leedham campaign signatures. The alleged threat was made when (McPherson claims) Bartolotti said, "you'll be hearing from me", or words to that effect. Bartolotti denied making this statement, and a third party present for the Bartolotti-McPherson interchange recalls that Bartolotti said "I'll see you later", or words to that effect. We dismiss this protest because, even if Bartolotti did utter the words "you'll be hearing from me", they are too vague to constitute a threat that Bartolotti intended to file internal union charges against McPherson. In this regard, we also note that Bartolotti did not subsequently file charges against McPherson, even though the record here shows that Bartolotti is not reluctant to file charges against fellow members when he wishes to do so. Accordingly, the McPherson protest is DENIED.

Finally, we cannot conclude that the charges Bartolotti filed against Hull, Barnett and Arbic were filed in retaliation for exercise of their protected right to run for delegate. In reaching this conclusion, we note our finding that Bartolotti was well aware that Hull planned to run a slate of delegate candidate against whoever Bartolotti supported for those positions. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the delegate split deal that Bartolotti admits he first offered Hull in late May 2000. And while the evidence is less clear that the specific intent of Arbic and Barnett to run for delegate was known to Bartolotti when he filed his internal charges against them (and Hull) in the last week of June 2000, it is undoubtedly true that at that point in time Bartolotti knew that Barnett and Arbic were key allies of Hull. It is thus likely that in late June 2000, Bartolotti saw Arbic and Barnett as potential candidates, along with Hull, on the slate that Hull planned to run for the Local 938 delegate positions.

We nevertheless disagree with the claim of Hull, Barnett and Arbic that the timing of Bartolotti's charges supports the inference that Bartolotti filed the charges in retaliation for the delegate candidacy plans of Hull and his friends. Thus, Bartolotti did not file the charges after Hull spurned his delegate split offer in later May 2000. Instead, Bartolotti's charges were not filed until weeks later, beginning June 23, 2000, after Hull, Barnet and Arbic filed their own internal charges against Bartolotti.

This timing supports the inference that Bartolotti's late June 2000 charges against Hull, Barnett and Arbic were tit for tat retaliation by Bartolotti against his three adversaries for their pursuit of charges against him.  We so find.  And based on this finding, we must dismiss the Hull, Barnett and Arbic protests, since Bartolotti's charges were not filed in retaliation for electoral-related conduct protected by the Rules.[2]  These protests are accordingly DENIED.

In so denying these last three protests, however, we hasten to add that this result is based solely on the conclusion that the filing of Bartolotti's charges against Hull, Barnett and Arbic was not in retaliation for electoral-related conduct protected by the Rules.  This does not mean that the further processing of such charges by the Union will be immune from inquiry based on a protest alleging that the resolution reached on these charges was motivated by the members' protected electoral-related conduct.[3]  In so stating, of course, we do not mean to state that we believe that such will, or is likely to, come to pass.  We express this caveat only to ensure that the parties understand the limits of this ruling.[4]

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kenneth Conboy

Election Appeals Master

Latham & Watkins

Suite 1000

885 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Fax: 212-751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, c/o International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 25 Louisiana Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001, all within the time

period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

 

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

Election Administrator

cc: Kenneth Conboy

Gwen Randall, Q.C.

2000 EAD 33

 

DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR:

 

Patrick Szymanski

IBT General Counsel

25 Louisiana Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20001

 

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,

Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

 

J. Douglas Korney

Korney & Heldt

30700 Telegraph Road

Suite 1551

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

 

Barbara Harvey

645 Griswold

Penobscot Building

Suite 1800

Detroit, MI 48226

 

Tom Leedham

18763 South Highway 211

Molalla, OR 97038

 

Betty Grdina

Yablonski, Both & Edelman

Suite 800

1140 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20036

 

Michael Goldberg

73 Harrowgate Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

 

Ed Arbic

155 Delta Street

Etobicoke, ON M8W 4E5

 

John Hull

3221 Eglinton Avenue East, #1705

Scarborough, ON M1J 3N5

 

Larry Barnett

3157 Oakview Road

Mississauga, ON L5N 7N8

 

Dave McPherson

15 Mapleridge Drive, RR #2

Omemee, ON K0L 2W0

 

Tom Wakaruk

924 Clarkson Rd. South

Mississauga, ON L5J 2V3

 

Joe Jephson

510-27 Bergamount Avenue

Toronto, ON M6V 1W5

 

Brian Chapman

38A Patricia ST.

St. Thomas, ON N5P 2C8

 

Debbie Jones

812-1900 Bloor St. E.,

Mississauga, ON L4X 2S1

 

Rick Mazak

R.R. #7

St. Thomas, ON N5P 3T2

 

Cee McEwen

22 Crittenden Square

Scarborough, ON M1B 1V1

 

Clay Nickerson

702-1900 Bloor St. E.

Mississauga, ON L4X 2S1

 

Bill Sawyer

4814 King Street East

Beamsville, ON L0R 1B6

 

Teamsters Local 938

Attn: Ray Bartolotti & Ray Fyvie

275 Matheson Blvd. East

Mississauga, ON L4Z 1X8