Ontario union OPSEU alleges former executives took bribes in $24 million lawsuit

One of the province’s largest public sector unions has launched a $24 million lawsuit against three former senior employees and at least 15 people or companies it alleges they had undisclosed ties to, accusing them of a scheme that includes pay for bogus jobs. or unfinished, as well as bribes. .

The claim statement, which has not been proven in court, was filed Thursday by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and comes amid its ongoing financial forensics audit and just two months after it filed a case. of more than $6 million in the Superior Court of Ontario. also alleging financial irregularities.

Two of those named in the first case, former first vice president/treasurer Eduardo Almeida and Maurice Gabay, a former manager of the union’s financial services division, are also named in Thursday’s lawsuit.

The third, Stephen Ward, held various positions with the union, becoming an operational services supervisor in 2018 until he was fired last December, the claim statement says.

They could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a memo to members sent Thursday afternoon, President JP Hornick and First Vice President Laurie Nancekivell said, “Because we have initiated legal action, we remain very limited in terms of what we can repeat or comment publicly at this time. However, as was the case previously, presenting our claims in a public forum, such as a court of law, will shed light on these issues and what we are doing to meaningfully address them.

“We know these kinds of updates can be unsettling, but we think it’s important that you, and all members, know what’s going on, so we can continue to build trust and transparency across the organization.”

The claim brief alleges that the three “caused the syndicate to hire and pay the defendant vendors a total of more than approximately $30,000,000, while they owned an ownership interest in and/or were related to those vendors…received payments, or ‘kickbacks’ from accused sellers, including as wages and dividends… (and) took steps to conceal their conduct, including circumventing the union’s purchasing and bidding policy, manipulating estimates submitted as part of any bidding process, manipulating bills to fall within the $50,000 approval threshold to avoid oversight” by the board.

The complaint brief also alleges that they “caused the union to pay the defendant vendors for products and services that were not actually provided and/or overpaid for any products and services that were provided, including through significant rate increases.” price and surcharges; and caused the union to transfer vehicles, or pay for vehicles that were registered, to some of the sued sellers.”

The claim brief alleges that “at no time did Almeida, Gabay and Ward disclose to the union their relationships with the defendant suppliers and their clear conflict of interest,” as required.

The sellers being sued are businesses located in Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Grimsby, Barrie and Toronto, the lawsuit says.

The union alleges “that Almeida, Gabay and Ward carried out their scheme with suppliers of different products and services to the union, including construction, security, travel, marketing and union-branded merchandise.”

In the January lawsuit, OPSEU alleged in its claim brief that Almeida, Gabay, as well as former president Warren “Smokey” Thomas withdrew money from the strike fund without explanation, received unexplained compensation, and transferred numerous union-purchased vehicles to themselves and their families.

But Thomas has said the lawsuit brought by the new leaders of the 180,000-member union he has led for nearly 15 years is politically motivated, according to his defense statement and the $5.5 million counterclaim he has filed.

His defense statement says the January lawsuit “culminates a long-running campaign by Mr. Thomas’s political rivals…to degrade him, destroy him politically, and cause irreparable emotional and reputational damage to him and his associates. It has no basis in reality and is completely fabricated.”

The allegations in the January statement of claim and the answer and counterclaim brief have also not been proven in court.

SHARE: