January 9 2015, I am a 2nd year apprentice and a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 424 (“IBEW LU 424”) On October 4 2012 Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy suspended my ability to take calls from the hall. (See Item “A”) I have asked multiple times to appeal the decision of Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy and I have been denied any kind of an appeals process. (See Item “B”, Item “C”, Item “D”) What the IBEW LU 424 is doing to me is contrary to the Alberta Labor Relations Code sections 26 and 152 and as well under the Alberta Human Rights Act section 7(1). http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/ALRB Code.htm#s26 26 No trade union shall expel or suspend any of its members or take disciplinary action against or impose any form of penalty on any person for any reason other than a failure to pay the periodic dues, assessments and initiation fees uniformly required to be paid by all members of the trade union as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the trade union, unless that person has been (a) served personally or by double registered mail with specific charges in writing, (b) given a reasonable time to prepare the person’s defence, (c) afforded a full and fair hearing, including the right to be represented by counsel, and (d) found guilty of the charge or charges, and if a monetary penalty has been imposed, fails to pay it after having been given a reasonable time to do so. http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/ALRB Code.htm#s151 Prohibited practices by trade union, etc. 152(1) No trade union or person acting on behalf of a trade union shall (a) Expel or suspend a person from membership in the trade union or deny membership in the trade union to a person by applying to the person in a discriminatory manner the membership rules of the trade union;

(b) take disciplinary action against or impose any form of penalty on a person by applying to the person in a discriminatory manner the standards of discipline of the trade union. http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A25P5.pdf 7(1) No employer shall

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person, or

(b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or of any other person.

If you look at the letter from Bill Begemann dated November 1 2012 (Item “P”) and I quote Mr. Begemann from that letter “IBEW has suspended dispatch services on the basis of a temporary administrative ban” That clearly violates section of the Labor Relations Code listed above where it says “No trade union shall expel or suspend any of its members or take disciplinary action against or impose any form of penalty on any person for any reason other than a failure to pay the periodic dues”. I also disagree with the chain of events which Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann claim happened on the sites which I was dispatched to as well. (See Item “AB”) I also wanted it noted for the record that the only reason why the Human Rights case and the Alberta Labor Relations Board case against the IBEW LU 424 was filed was because the IBEW LU 424 refused to give me any kind of an appeal process and deal with this matter internally. Therefore I had no choice but to go to these government agencies to peruse my case. I have been given absolutely no hearing, no charges have ever been presented to me in writing but yet I am being refused the ability to be able to take calls from my hall. What has been done to me is a disciplinary action by refusing to allow me to take any calls from the hall. It is also discriminatory to not give me any kind of hearing / trial and to keep me out of work now for over two years and is contrary to the IBEW Constitution. Now the IBEW is saying that this suspension is being done under the collective agreement which is incorrect procedure any kind of disciplinary action like a suspension would take place under the IBEW Constitution section XXV. There clearly is a dispute on how this matter has been handled by the IBEW LU 424. Under Article XV section 6 it clearly states that the Local Unions can make their own bylaws and rules but it cannot conflict with the IBEW Constitution and that if there is any doubt that the IBEW constitution shall be supreme. Also under Article XXV Section 8 it states that all rules that are in conflict with the IBEW Constitution and the rules herein are null and void. The decision here made by Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy clearly conflicts with the IBEW Constitution by not presenting charges in writing as per Article XXV section 3 and not having any kind of a hearing or an appeal process under Article XXV section 2 and article XXV section 6 of the IBEW Constitution.

Both Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann was sent a letter asking exactly what section(s) of the IBEW LU 424 collective agreements would allow them to do this but they have refused to provide any answer. http://ibewminuteman.com/ibew constitution/article-15.php Sec. 6. L.U.'s are empowered to make their own bylaws and rules, but these shall in no way conflict with this Constitution. Where any doubt appears, this Constitution shall be supreme. Sec. 8. All L.U. bylaws or rules in conflict with this Constitution and the rules herein are null and void. The IBEW Constitution has not been supreme here in this matter and the IBEW Constitution has not been followed over the past 2 years and therefore the decision of Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy are null and void but yet I have been penalized and have been unable to take calls from the hall. I have tried and when I called in I get told that I am not able to take calls there is some kind of a note placed on my record which states not to dispatch me. Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann are trying to say that this matter is being done under the IBEW LU 424 collective agreement which is incorrect any discipline which is what this is would be done under the IBEW Constitution not the collective agreement. Also the IBEW LU 424 has been provided a letter from my psychologist Dr. Jahandar she provided a letter clearing me to return me to work. (See Item “E”) The IBEW LU 424 has demanded an Independent Medical Exam prior to me even getting them clearance to return to work. The IBEW LU 424 has been demanding an IME since November 20 2012 (See Item “F) I did not even get the letter to return to work from Dr. Jahandar until December 3 2012. (See Item “E”) The IBEW LU 424 has refused all medical information put in front of them and there has been many documents by different doctors given to the IBEW LU 424 and continue to act in an unreasonable manner and continue to demand just an IME and refuses to look at any other medical information or even answer my questions as to what medical information they need to try and resolve this matter. I have been cleared to work by my Psychologist but yet Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann continue to keep me out of work. (See Item “E”) The IBEW LU 424 was provided the following documents by me as part of my co-operation

1. Letter dated November 29 2012 2 page document from Dr. Frank Campbell (Item “G”)

2. Letter dated November 2 2012 a letter from Dr. Jahandar outlining conditions which need accommodation. (Item “H”)

3. Letter dated December 3 2012 by Dr. Jahandar clearing me to return to work. (Item “E”)

4. Letter by Dr. Starreveld dated January 19 2012 of an MRI and EEG of my head which both came back unremarkable. (Item “I”)

5. Letter by Dr. Rogan dated September 18 2012 diagnosing me with Asperger’s Syndrome 6. Letter by Dr. Rogan dated December 11 2012 stating that having Asperger’s Syndrome does not

preclude or stop the individual from gainful employment if they have Asperger’s Syndrome and A.D.D (Item “K”)

7. A 4 page independent report done by Dr. Dew (Psychologist) I was referred to Dr. Dew by Dr. Jahandar to get this information for the IBEW LU 424. (Item “L”)

Also it should be noted that I was going to go see an Occupational Therapist who is an expert in her field by the name of Sharon Brintnell ( ) who is an expert in occupational therapy, and is internationally known. Ms. Brintnell is an expert in her field and is the director of the OPAU research and services unit at the University of Alberta and the president of the World Federation of Occupational Therapists (“WFOT”) was on the board of directors for the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (“CAOT”) She was going to do her own assessment of me and provide the IBEW LU 424 a list of recommendations as to what was needed to return me to work, but the IBEW LU 424 said that they would not recognize her report and again demanded a psychologist / psychiatrist and an Independent Medical Exam (“IME”) I did see her for a couple of times until Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann said they would not accept her findings through the lawyer the IBEW LU 424 has hired. If it was true that Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann actually was concerned about Occupational Risk Ms. Brintnell would have been able to answer those questions as an Occupational Therapist but instead they told me that they would refuse her findings. Neither Kevin Levy nor Bill Begemann are concerned about occupational safety here. That is just another lie and an excuse to try and keep me out of work longer. Also the IBEW LU 424 claims that my doctor agreed about a IME that is incorrect she never has said that I spoke with her as well after the IBEW LU 424 spoke with my doctor. Once again that it an outright lie on the part of the IBEW LU 424. Also as part of my co-operation I setup a telephone conference with Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann with the Autism Society of Edmonton Area (“ASEA”) http://www.autismedmonton.org 780-453-3971 I setup a conference call between the IBEW LU 424, Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy with a lady by the name of Patricia Terrett who is also an expert when it comes to the Autism Spectrum. I did this to help Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy determine how to accommodate my disability. Both Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann was given this information on October 16 2012. (See Item “M”) It was not until I sent that response in Item “M” that Mr. Begemann reluctantly contacted the ASEA office and spoke with Patricia Terrett. Also as part of my co-operation in this matter I actually took the time to be able to look up psychologists here in Edmonton who specialize in Autism as well and sent Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy that information on December 4 2012. (See Item “R”) Yet neither of them used these resources I gave to them even though they are specialists in Autism and ADD to help them figure out the accommodations. It should also be noted that up to recently Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy wanted me to go see their doctor which they hired for the IME I have disagreed with that and the fact that it would not be fair since the doctor (Dr. Els) is being paid by the IBEW LU 424.

It has only been recently, approximately November 2014 that they have now said they would let me go see another doctor other than Dr. Els but they have never came forward with a name of a doctor who specialize in Autism / Asperger’s Syndrome here in Edmonton. Of course this is something the Kevin Levy or Bill Begemann would have to setup because it would be paid for by the IBEW LU 424. Also another reason why I have been hesitant to go see Dr. Els is because he does not specialize in Asperger’s Syndrome or Attention Deficit Disorder (“A.D.D”) but rather addiction. I don’t have any addiction issues and that is also clearly noted in the report from Dr. Rogan (See Item “J”) and I quote “No substance abuse is noted” The only reason why this doctor (Dr. Els) got picked is because of his ability to do very well on the witness stand and this doctor has been on the stand at various criminal cases and tribunals. Dr. Els is not an expert in Autism / Asperger’s Syndrome or A.D.D. and this doctor has never seen me or done any kind of diagnosis on me. The report prepared by Dr. Els is incorrect and inaccurate at best and this doctor has been basically paid off to say this. I heavily dispute the finding of Dr. Els. (See Item “N” and Item “O”) Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann are basing their whole case off of a doctor who has never seen me and never done any kind of exam on me. With the very small amount of Information Dr. Els had available to him there is no way that he could accurately come to the conclusion that he did the decision was the one that Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy wanted and he was influenced by them to come to that decision. Dr. Els is not an expert when it comes to Autism or Asperger’s or A.D.D I have informed them multiple times about my objections and they have fallen on deaf ears with both Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann. The IBEW LU 424 has in no way proven that I am not fit for work or that I cannot do my job. I also have a lot of concerns about the fairness of any IME from a doctor here in Alberta due to the huge influence which the IBEW LU 424 has in this province and if I could actually get a fair IME done. There is no safety issues here either I have been cleared to return to work by my Doctor. Dr. Jahandar gave me full clearance to return to work. Instead of Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann returning me to work at that point they hired that quack doctor. (Dr. Els) and highly influenced his decision making process. There was also no reason as well at that point to hire Dr. Els other than malice on the part of Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann to continue to keep me out of work. For the letter from Dr. Jahandar see Item “E”. If this had of been any other person other than me the doctor’s letter would have been taken at face value and returned to work. But because it was me they wasted money of the hard working members of the local to hire a quack doctor who is not even an expert in the field of Autism / Asperger’s Syndrome or A.D.D. Maybe Mr. Daniels should check into what other frivolous spending Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann have been doing. Also if you look in Item “P” Mr. Begemann quotes part of the IBEW LU 424 collective agreement as the reason for my suspension. “The Parties hereto do enter into and establish the following wage schedules and conditions of employment for the purpose of maintaining harmonious relations and establishing stable conditions of employment and providing financial and personal relations mutually beneficial to the parties” that is listed under purpose and really isn’t an article of the agreement. (See Item “Q”)

Nether less I see nothing that gives Bill Begemann or Kevin Levy the right to discipline me from under the collective agreement. This is clearly not an occupational safety issue as they are stating other reasons for their action. If it is the IBEW LU 424’s intention to discipline me for disrupting the harmonious relations that would be done under the IBEW Constitution article XXV section 1(e) which has not been followed by Bill Begemann or Kevin Levy and which would also entitle me to having the charges in writing and served to me and a hearing and an appeal process which has not been done. There is no way I could have charged now two years later as the IBEW Constitution clearly outlines the time frame for this to occur and it is well past that. http://ibewminuteman.com/ibew constitution/article-25.php (e) Engaging in any act or acts which are contrary to the member's responsibility toward the I.B.E.W., or any of its L.U.'s, as an institution, or which interfere with the performance by the I.B.E.W. or a L.U. with its legal or contractual obligations. I am in no way saying I am guilty of this I do not believe I am but this would be the section that Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy would have to charge me under. Again no charges have ever been presented me to in writing. Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy have basically left me in limbo for the past 2 years and not being able to take calls though the IBEW LU 424 hall. If they are going to suspend my ability to take calls then proper procedure should have been followed being the charges are presented in writing, there was a fair and impartial hearing, and an appeal process if need be. I have been given none of that, the bottom line I am trying to make is that any kind of disciplinary action which would be taken against a member would be done under the IBEW constitution not the collective agreement. I have clearly co-operated here and I have done everything possible to try and resolve this matter and I have given the IBEW LU 424 a mountain of information that they refuse to use or look at. Both Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann continue to act in an unreasonable manner and refuse to even try and work with me in this matter. The fact that a case with the Alberta Labor Relations Board (“ALRB”) and the Alberta Human Rights have been filed against the IBEW LU 424 and which they both now have to answer to also leads me to believe that the continued suspension has been retribution and retaliation for filing these complaints against the hall. Also this is due to past disagreements which I have had with the both of them. They are clearly abusing their positions of authority to be able to keep me from being able to peruse my career as an electrician. Both Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann have caused economic harm to me as well as delaying my apprenticeship now over 2 years. I am still a 2nd year apprentice I should be a 4th year apprentice or close to a Journeyman by now. Both of these individuals have clearly caused economic harm to me! The bottom line is that Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann have not made any attempt to try and accommodate my disability or made any attempt to try and resolve this matter. I believe it is the intention of Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy to indefinitely keep me suspended and out of work.

Neither Bill Begemann nor Kevin Levy have acted in good faith in this manner or made any kind of serious attempt to resolve this matter. All they continue to do is demand an IME which is invasive and violates my right to privacy. I also asked that a grievance be filed against CDN. Power Pac and Bill Begemann refused to do so on the grounds that CDN. Power Pac found out I had a mental disability and that they simply got rid of me due to this. Mental disability is a protected ground as well under the Alberta Human Rights Act. A grievance as well should have been filed because it is a protected ground being a mental disability but Mr. Begemann refused to do so. See Item “T” http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/other/union membership/what to know/union role.asp It is discriminatory for a union to: participate in the creation of a discriminatory policy in the collective agreement or other organization policy; refuse to fulfill its duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship; retaliate by reducing services to a member who has made a human rights complaint; exclude, expel or suspend a member based on one of the protected grounds; or refuse to file a grievance when the refusal is based on a protected ground, such as gender or race. http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins sheets booklets/bulletins/obtaining med

info in workplace app2.asp The rule is: "Where an employee is suffering from a physical or mental disability that is implicated in the misconduct that has resulted in discharge, the conduct is not culpable." This comes from United Steelworkers of America, Local 5885 v. Sealy Canada Ltd. (Bender Grievance), [2006] A.G.A.A. No. 8. (See Item “AA”) There is also case law supporting my position about the IME as well as Occupational Safety here employers or unions have made the same statement as the IBEW LU 424 and it has been found that the need for the IME was not warranted even for so called “safety sensitive” positions. http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins sheets booklets/bulletins/obtaining med

info in workplace app2.asp “8. Legal principle: An employer should make a clear request for further medical information, including what kind of information is needed and the format in which it can be submitted.” See the case Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Federated Co-operatives Limited (Item “U”)

Neither Mr. Begemann nor Mr. Levy have provided any kind of clear request as to what medical information is needed. I have sent a letter to both of them asking for the exact information which they need and instead I get a demand back from them once again demanding just an IME instead of answering the question as to what information they needed exactly. The IBEW LU 424 has not been clear as to what medical information they need in this matter at all. Kevin Levy or Bill Begemann is not specifying what information they are looking for they just demand an invasive IME. http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins sheets booklets/bulletins/obtaining med

info in workplace.asp#Requestinganindependent “An employer must first try to get the medical information they require from the employee's doctor or specialist before requiring an IME. Requiring an employee to submit to an IME by a doctor of the employer's choosing is intrusive. Arbitrators and courts are reluctant to require an examination by someone who is not chosen, or at least agreed to, by the employee.” “Employers must try less intrusive methods of obtaining clear medical information before requiring this information through other means.” The IBEW LU 424 has also not tried the least invasive way and has demanded an IME since the start! http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins sheets booklets/bulletins/obtaining med

info in workplace.asp “Demand a definitive opinion that the employee will have no further medical problems. It is unreasonable to expect a doctor to guarantee that an employee's disability is completely resolved or that they will have no further medical issues. Such a demand would reasonably be considered harassing.” “The employer does not have an unconditional right to full disclosure of the employee's medical situation.” “Employees have a right to privacy regarding their personal medical information.” “If the employee's doctor has found that the employee can return to work with certain restrictions or limitations, the employer will need to know what those restrictions or limitations are to assess the employee's job duties.” Grover V. National Research Council of Canada 2005 PSLRB 150 (See Item “V”) http://canlii.ca/t/1m9ws “[94] The Board determined that in the case of a medical examination for the purpose strictly to test the truth of a medical certificate and asserted illness or injury, there is no basis for this implied management right.” The IBEW LU 424 is doing exactly this to me they were presented a letter from my doctor stating I was cleared to return to work and are now trying to test the truth of a medical certificate. If this had of been anyone else other than me they would have been returned to work again.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover, 2007 FC 28 (CanLII) (See Item “X”) http://canlii.ca/t/1q9rf “The “mere possibility” that an employee may be ill or otherwise presents a safety risk does not amount to “reasonable and probable grounds” for so believing.” Indeed, in the words of one arbitrator, “An employer may not refuse to allow an employee to return to work on the mere possibility of medical problems in the future.” [66] It does not follow that an employer can automatically demand that an employee undergo a medical examination. Rather, to balance the employee’s right to privacy and bodily integrity, the employer must explore other options to obtain the necessary information. http://www.ehlaw.ca/whatsnew/jan06/GrovervNRCC.pdf (See Item “AC”) “Further, the adjudicator held that this discipline was unwarranted. In this regard, it found that the employer did not have the grounds to request an independent medical assessment of the grievor: "It was admitted that the employer did not know what the medical situation of the grievor was. It was speculating. Furthermore, it was in a contradictory position, both questioning the grievor's illness and medical certificate and at the same time suspecting that his health was so deficient that he should not present himself at work until the employer was reassured as to his fitness to work. The grievor's responsibilities did not warrant such a measure, as opposed to an employee with suspected back problems who is expected to lift heavy equipment regularly." Canadian Pacific Railway Company v National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada, Local 101), 2011 CanLII 38424 (CA LA) (See Item “Y”) http://canlii.ca/t/fm34c “I turn to consider the merits of the dispute. It should be noted that boards of arbitration have traditionally exercised extreme caution in dealing with the right of an employer to require an employee to be subjected to a medical examination, including a psychiatric assessment.” “It is well established that persons do not by virtue of their status as employees lose their right to privacy and integrity of the person. An employer could not at common law assert any inherent right to search an employee or subject an employee to physical examination without consent: Latter v. Bradell et al. (1881), 50 L.J.Q.B. 448 (C.A.). Thus there is nothing that can be described as an inherent management right to subject an employee to what would otherwise be a trespass or an assault upon the person.” “In my view, in the circumstances of this case, it was unreasonable for the employer to insist on the significantly more intrusive approach of requiring a psychiatric examination without first exploring the less intrusive options.” Even if Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy are trying to question my fitness to work that once again falls under the IBEW Constitution article XXV section 1(o), again Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy have never followed the proper procedure in this matter by giving me a charges in writing, and hearing and an appeal process. The bottom line is here you cannot leave someone out of work for over two years now with no appeal process and deny all the medical information presented to them! It is clear that both Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann have no intention of being fair to me in this matter and this should have gone to a

hearing / trial immediately and they should not have been dealing with this matter due to past issues we have had. I had every right to have a hearing the same as every other member of the IBEW LU 424 but I have been denied that right by Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy. The IBEW Constitution clearly outlines the steps which should have been taken by Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann have failed to follow and therefore they are negligent in their duties. It has been way longer than 60 days now since the alleged acts have taken place. This occurred back in 2012. I should have had a trial within 45 days then of the charges being filed. http://ibewminuteman.com/ibew constitution/article-25.php (o) Failure to install or do his work in a safe, workmanlike manner, or leaving work in a condition that may endanger the lives or property of others, or proving unable or unfit mentally, to learn properly his trade. http://ibewminuteman.com/ibew constitution/article-25.php Article XXV sections (3), (4), (5), (6) Sec. 3. All charges against a member or members must be presented in writing, signed by the charging party, and specify the section or sections of this Constitution, the bylaws, rules or working agreement allegedly violated. The charges must state the act or acts considered to be in violation, including approximate relevant dates or places. Sec. 4. Charges against members must be submitted to the R.S. of the L.U. in whose jurisdiction the alleged act or acts took place within sixty (60) days of the time the charging party first became aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the alleged act or acts. The charges shall be read out but not discussed at the next regular meeting of the L.U. following the filing of the charges. The R.S. shall immediately send a copy of such charges to the accused member at his last, known address together with written notice of the time and place he shall appear before the trial board. Sec. 5. The trial board shall proceed with the case not later than forty-five (45) days from the date the charges were read at the L.U. meeting or Executive Board meeting. The board shall grant a reasonable delay to the accused when it feels the facts or circumstances warrant such a delay. The accused shall be granted a fair and impartial trial. He must, upon request, be allowed an active I.B.E.W. member in good standing to represent him. Sec. 6. When the trial board has reached a decision, it shall report its findings, and sentence, if any, to the next regular meeting of the L.U. Such report or action of the board shall not be discussed or acted upon by the L.U. The action of the trial board shall be considered the action of the L.U., and the report of the board shall conclude the case, or cases, except for the accused having the right to appeal to the I.V.P., then to the I.P., then to the l.E.C. and then to the I.C. However, the board may reopen and reconsider any case or cases when it feels the facts or circumstances justify doing so any time within thirty (30) days from the date decision was rendered. The board shall reopen any case or cases when directed to do so by the l.V.P. or the I.P.

The policies created against me by Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann are discriminatory there is more than enough cause to continue with charges against both Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann by demanding an IME since the start which Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy have done here they have created a policy which discriminates against me and has caused me a loss of income by not being allowed to take calls from the hall. The IBEW constitution or the IBEW LU 424 collective agreement would never allow for discrimination against a member based on a protected ground which is what Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann are doing here. Also therefore the policy created by Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann are null and void as per Article XV section 6 of the IBEW Constitution. If this had of been you Larry Schell or Bill Daniels you would have been granted a full and fair hearing so why that is right as an IBEW member not extend to me. Why have I been treated differently than any other member of the IBEW? I have clearly been treated differently here and the IBEW Constitution which is supposed to be “supreme” has not been followed in this case. So why it is that only some people’s rights are observed but not others under the IBEW Constitution. By continually denying all medical information put in front of them it shows that both Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann have no intention of resolving this issue. The IBEW LU 424 has not explored other options and has continually demanded an IME. If Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann were actually co-operating they would have given me the list of medical information or questions that they need to be able to return me to work again. (See Item “Z”). There is ample case law provided above which clearly state that Mr. Levy and Mr. Begemann should have been trying other means to get the needed information but they have not so because of that I have suffered and been unable to work due to the Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy suspending my ability to be able to take calls from the hall. Clearly Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy have erred in their decision and I have suffered because of their decision financially and as well as being able to advance my career as an electrician. For the above reasons charges need to be brought against Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann under Article XXV section 1 (g) of the IBEW Constitution. If Mr. Daniels is open to discussion this matter can still be resolved without court intervention here. All I want to do is return to work. Obviously Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy are going to continue to be unreasonable and refuse to provide me direction as to what information or testing they need when I request that information from them. Clearly Mr. Begemann and Mr. Levy has not followed proper procedure here, to be allowed to keep some one out of work for over two years now with no charges being brought against them and no hearing or appeal process violates all the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice and is discriminatory.

I would ask that Bill Begemann and Kevin Levy not be allowed to use the lawyers hired / paid for by the IBEW LU 424 in this matter to do so would be extremely unfair. Both Kevin Levy and Bill Begemann has wasted enough of the dues of the hard working members of this hall and ask that they not be allowed to further abuse their positions.