UNION PROTESTER SENTENCED FOR TRESPASSING

n a 2022 Supreme Court case, the defense argued on behalf of the accused, who had been convicted of trespassing on a building during a demonstration. They claimed the prosecution violated the accused’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled that the accused’s actions had obstructed a construction company from conducting its promotional activities at a trade fair held in a private venue (“Private Venue”). The court considered this obstruction a valid reason to restrict the accused’s right to demonstrate inside the Private Venue and eventually remove them from the premises. The court emphasized that the freedom to demonstrate is not an absolute right and must be balanced with the rights of others. The court highlighted that the accused had been offered a reasonable alternative to continue their demonstration outside the Private Venue, which they refused without providing a valid reason. This led the court to conclude that there was a compelling societal necessity to limit the accused’s right to demonstrate inside the Private Venue after they refused to cooperate, rendering their presence there unlawful. The “stubborn” union member(s)  were found guilty of trespassing. Perhaps they will consider a criminal conviction and their newly acquired criminal record worthy of their “sacred” cause. Or maybe it will encourage a moment of reflection or a moment of education for these union members.

Recently, I encountered an incident where the Federacion Di Trahadornan Arubano (FTA) union leaders also trespassed on private property when promoting a strike. While this is disappointing, it follows a certain history of ill conduct by FTA’s union leaders. FTA leadership should also reflect on this decision and learn to understand that their rights are not absolute and that they are not above the law. #UnionCowboys #Bullys. This FTA action reminds them of certain negotiations, again with the FTA, in which the (then) union leader chose to raise his voice in a disproportionate matter – pretty rude. After I asked him twice to lower his voice, I canceled and walked out of the meeting with my client. He went ballistic and yelled that he wouldn’t leave the ballroom and that I had to call the police. I didn’t. We just turned off the light on our way out, and l left him in the dark ballroom. Eventually, when he came to his senses, he left the hotel on foot. #anotherunioncowboy #Bully

Unions and employees have the right to collective action and unionization to protect their interests, and it is crucial to respect the boundaries of private property rights and the need to balance competing rights and interests. In this case, the court upheld the restriction of the accused’s right to demonstrate inside a private venue due to the interference with the rights of others and their refusal to cooperate with reasonable alternatives. Union members should demand more professionalism from their union leaders. After all, the membership pays their salaries, benefits, and fancy union conferences overseas.

#YourFavoriteColumnist #YourFavoriteLawyer

Unions can take collective action, and employees can unionize to protect their rights and interests in the workplace. However, this doesn’t allow them to trespass on an employer’s property. A recent legal case in the Netherlands illustrates this point.

In a 2022 Supreme Court case, the defense argued on behalf of the accused, who had been convicted of trespassing on a building during a demonstration. They claimed the prosecution violated the accused’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled that the accused’s actions had obstructed a construction company from conducting its promotional activities at a trade fair held in a private venue (“Private Venue”). The court considered this obstruction a valid reason to restrict the accused’s right to demonstrate inside the Private Venue and eventually remove them from the premises. The court emphasized that the freedom to demonstrate is not an absolute right and must be balanced with the rights of others. The court highlighted that the accused had been offered a reasonable alternative to continue their demonstration outside the Private Venue, which they refused without providing a valid reason. This led the court to conclude that there was a compelling societal necessity to limit the accused’s right to demonstrate inside the Private Venue after they refused to cooperate, rendering their presence there unlawful. The “stubborn” union member(s)  were found guilty of trespassing. Perhaps they will consider a criminal conviction and their newly acquired criminal record worthy of their “sacred” cause. Or maybe it will encourage a moment of reflection or a moment of education for these union members.

Recently, I encountered an incident where the Federacion Di Trahadornan Arubano (FTA) union leaders also trespassed on private property when promoting a strike. While this is disappointing, it follows a certain history of ill conduct by FTA’s union leaders. FTA leadership should also reflect on this decision and learn to understand that their rights are not absolute and that they are not above the law. #UnionCowboys #Bullys. This FTA action reminds them of certain negotiations, again with the FTA, in which the (then) union leader chose to raise his voice in a disproportionate matter – pretty rude. After I asked him twice to lower his voice, I canceled and walked out of the meeting with my client. He went ballistic and yelled that he wouldn’t leave the ballroom and that I had to call the police. I didn’t. We just turned off the light on our way out, and l left him in the dark ballroom. Eventually, when he came to his senses, he left the hotel on foot. #anotherunioncowboy #Bully

Unions and employees have the right to collective action and unionization to protect their interests, and it is crucial to respect the boundaries of private property rights and the need to balance competing rights and interests. In this case, the court upheld the restriction of the accused’s right to demonstrate inside a private venue due to the interference with the rights of others and their refusal to cooperate with reasonable alternatives. Union members should demand more professionalism from their union leaders. After all, the membership pays their salaries, benefits, and fancy union conferences overseas.

#YourFavoriteColumnist #YourFavoriteLawyer