SMS Text group messages from HEU President, Barb Nederpel

Real-Time Vote Manipulation:

Text: "Let’s go for Ranjit 1st." Context: Coordinated vote manipulation.

Text: "Okay, people are messaging me who to vote for." Context: Clear evidence of real-time vote direction via text tree.

Text: "President Barb Nederpel: Everyone must vote Jovito!" Context: Direct interference from the President.

Text: "I tried to tell people to switch." Context: Acknowledgment of active vote manipulation during live tiebreakers.

Text: "When people try to run down, we have to stop them." Context: Suggests targeted interference tactics.

Text: "Are regional caucuses private? Am I breaking any rules discussing this here?" 

Context: Awareness of confidentiality breaches and unauthorized coordination.

Detailed Vote Coordination Examples:

Text: "How do we prevent vote splitting?"

Text: "We need to organize our team this round. Who do we vote for?"

Text: "Belina is the obvious choice."

Text: "Okay, we must coordinate round 3."

Text: "Go for Belinda, Belinda, Belinda. Congratulations Belinda. (Actually Belina)"

Text: "Jovito and Karen. Which one now?"

Text: "The President, Barb Nederpel: I love Kerri! Tina. Okay I’ve told people for Karrie all the way."

Secondary Layer of Communication (Vote Instructions):

Text: "I’m getting messages from people on who to vote for in the women’s group."

Text: "If anyone is in Van Coastal and would like to suggest who would be a great choice, text me."

Text: "President Barb Nederpel: Everyone must vote Jovito!"

Text: "Okay, for people who are messaging who to vote for, please let me know ethnic diversity."

Awareness of Wrongdoing:

Text: "I’m with the other commenter about not appropriate for either Barb or Louella to interfere or influence regional elections due to their position."

Text: "Madame Pres is it allowed to tell somebody who to vote for here while voting? Yesssssss"

Text: "Are regional Caucus private? Ie am I breaking any rules discussing it in here?"

To me, Ritu, ethicscommissioner@heu-ec.ca, Barb, Lynn, Gary, Bonnie, Diane, stxp1600@gmail.com, Mary-Ann, Bill, Betty, Chris, Olivia, Baldeesh, Barb, Phil, Lisa, Lisa, Lynn, Darlene, Cora, Maria, Charlotte, kmcllravey@heu.org, Tammy, Ethel, Anna, dbrown@heu.org, Jovit

Hello Jessie.

I find this email to be very disturbing for several reasons.

1. Why is this addressed to the entire PE? If you have concerns, there is a process as to whom to contact and address those concerns with, Ombudsman and Ethics Commissioner . The entire PE does not need to be involved in this.

2. Where or from whom did you get this information? This looks like a breech of confidentiality and a deliberate attempt to create a divide in the PE.

3. Why and how do have so much confidential information surrounding Donovan Adlams investigation into him being allegedly abused by Barb? Most of your emails involves alleged injustices that he suffered. Why are you speaking on his behalf?

4. By insinuating that the elections “were rigged”, this is insulting the over 700 HEU members that voted. This is also an insult to the delegates that won a position on the Executive, as if we did not win fair and square or are not deserving of our position.

5. This rhetoric stinks of an ulterior motive by those who sent this information to you. How did you get access to all the emails when some of us didn't get access until just recently?

I am suspicious of the true purpose of this email and the persons who are behind it and would request that you refrain from sending any further emails to the PE and instead, follow the proper procedure (Ethics commissioner and Ombudsman) going forward.

As a new member of the PE, I do not wish to get dragged into repeating last terms toxicity. I'm here to do the work for our members, not get dragged into drama. Please leave me out of it.

Please do NOT respond to this email. I am only replying because I am a recipient of your email and felt I need to voice my concerns as I see them.

Respectfully,
Ranjit Uppal
RVP Vancouver Coastal

MY RESPONSE TO RANJIT UPPAL

J. Bains <3653400@gmail.com> Sun, Nov 10, 3:09 PM (7 days ago)

To: ruppal, rmahil, ethicscommissioner, Barb, Lynn, Gary, Bonnie, Diane, stxp1600@gmail.com, Mary-Ann, Bill, Betty, Chris, Olivia, Baldeesh, Barb, Phil, Lisa, Lisa, Lynn, Darlene, Cora, Maria, Charlotte, kmcllravey@heu.org, Tammy, Ethel, Anna, dbrown@heu.org, Jovito, donaldlam@gmail.com

Hi Ranjit,

I genuinely appreciate receiving a response from a PE member, and I want to acknowledge that. I will gladly exclude you from my emails—once you’ve resigned from your position.

As an elected member, however, it’s essential to engage with all topics brought to your attention; selecting which ones to address isn’t an option.

All relevant information is included in the document, and I believe it’s the Ethics Commissioner’s responsibility to determine what’s right or wrong. You’ve raised valid points, which I encourage you to direct toward the Ethics Commissioner, rather than to me.

I’m unable to answer certain questions due to privacy constraints, but I trust you will receive responses in a timely manner—something I’ve been denied for the last six months. Lynn Bueckert, in particular, has neither replied to nor acknowledged any of my 15 emails. This ongoing lack of response is why I copy the entire PE, hoping someone will engage.

Yes, many of these emails involve alleged injustices that Donovan Adams has endured. However, my four decades as a union activist have taught me that an injustice to one is an injustice to all. A true trade unionist doesn’t just stand up for themselves but also for fellow members.Perhaps the new PE training session has yet to take place, but isn’t your role as an elected member to be a voice for others?

If you’re truly committed to addressing the toxicity from the last term, a good first step might be to review the facts outlined in the document and ask the President about her role in creating this toxic environment.

I am genuinely pleased to see a PE member willing to speak up. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant—I appreciate your honest response.

In Solidarity,
Jessie 

Jessie Bains <bainsj@gmail.com>

January 30, 2025

Dear Ethics Commission, 

I understand that you are struggling with technicalities to justify finding Barb Nederpel and her Provincial Executive team innocent of election tampering.

However, you cannot ignore these two critical sections of the HEU Code of Conduct:

4.1. Accountability and Ethics

• 4.1.1. Provincial Executive Members must act honestly and fully comply with all HEU policies and with both the letter and the spirit of all applicable laws. A failure to follow HEU policy may be a violation of the Code of Conduct.
  
• 4.1.2. Provincial Executive Members shall truly and faithfully perform the duties of their office to the best of their abilities and in accordance with the HEU Constitution and By-Laws. They must also, at all times, promote harmony and preserve the dignity of the organization’s proceedings.

By failing to address the most important aspects of this Code, your commission is effectively dismissing overwhelming evidence of election tampering. If your response is simply that this falls "outside your scope," then you are deliberately ignoring the clear ethical and constitutional violations at play.

While you may argue that you lack legal authority, your very title gives you ethical authority. Don’t let Barb Nederpel define your job or reduce you to a rubber stamp. If you fail to act, you will be seen as a compromised Ethics Commissioner—one who enables corruption rather than upholds integrity.

I encourage you to speak with Neelam Chauhan, your former colleague at Southern Butler. When faced with a similar situation, her response to me was:

"My reputation is much more important than any organization."

She lived by those words, and I respected her for it. That is what true ethical independence looks like. I urge you to follow the same standard—because your credibility is on the line.

It is clear to me that the current HEU leadership has abandoned the collective principles that this union was built on. Now, they expect you to remove the "I" from "Independent" when making your decision.You previously claimed that I am not a member, but I intend to become a member before the next convention. Moreover, I have not exhausted all legal avenues, as required by the Constitution before a member can be removed. If necessary, I can gather 100 additional members to send you this same email demanding accountability.

You only need one allegation to be true to warrant action. However, the evidence against Barb Nederpel and her allies is extensive. One key example:

• Evidence shows a coordinated "text tree" directing votes in real-time.
• Delegates were instructed on how to vote, effectively overriding their independent choices.
• Votes were strategically split or consolidated based on insider directives.

Subject: Follow-Up on Election Tampering Complaint

Jessie Bains <bainsj@gmail.com>7:56 PM (0 minutes ago)

to Ethics

Hi Ritu,

I strongly disagree with your ongoing dismissal of my complaint regarding election tampering. As a matter of law and procedure, I have more reason than any other member to know the outcome of your investigation because I was wrongfully removed from the guest area at the convention, despite being a member in good standing at the time of the alleged election tampering. My removal occurred without cause and is currently the subject of an active Section 12 application against HEU at the Labour Relations Board (LRB). For your records, I have also formally filed an additional Section 12 application this week specifically addressing the issue of election tampering.

From the outset, I have expressed legitimate and well-founded concerns regarding your independence as the HEU Ethics Commissioner. Your affiliation with an NDP/Labour-union-aligned law firm casts serious doubt upon your neutrality, particularly considering HEU leadership's known use of political action funds exclusively to support the NDP. Additionally, your appointment was directly influenced by the very individuals you are tasked with investigating, specifically HEU President Barb Nederpel.

It is clear that Barb Nederpel has repeatedly employed delay tactics to evade accountability whenever allegations have arisen against her, and it appears you are facilitating these tactics rather than confronting them directly. It is unacceptable that individuals accused of serious misconduct continue to operate without restrictions. In the interest of fairness and adherence to procedural integrity, I firmly believe these individuals should be suspended immediately until your investigation concludes. With 27 capable vice-presidents within HEU, the organization's functionality would remain intact, possibly even improving through a demonstration of true accountability.

I once again request an immediate update on your investigation and reiterate that, as a member affected by these actions, I have both standing and a clear legal interest in this matter.

In solidarity,
Jessie