Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

July 14, 2024

Algonquin Township Road District vs. Union 150 – Court Transcript- the truth

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On January 19, 2019

McHenry Co. (ECWd) –

As promised, the transcript of the recent Union 150 case against the Algonquin Township Road district has arrived and available for download at this link or viewed below.

Most telling is the fact it does not contain many of the allegations we heard locals spreading on social media.  There are several very interesting points made of which we point out a few below.  We urge everyone to read it to get the truth as to what went on in court rather than listening to a bunch of gossip on social media.

  • Local 150 filed three motions seeking money, specifically:

1) Motion for Sanctions $159,095.00  (Denied)

2) Motion for Attorney Fees under the Open Meetings Act  $161,106.50 (Denied)

3) Motion for Attorney Fees under the Freedom of Information Act (One Count) $52,095 (Awarded  $31,850.)

  • Local 150 also filed a motion to hold Andrew Gasser in Contempt. (Denied)
  • Local 150 asked for costs totaling $1,756 and was awarded costs of $451. (25%)

Out of claims totaling $374,308, the Road District was ordered to pay $32,301, or only 8.6% of the money Local 150 demanded.

Does Local 150 have any order that allows the Union to have an employee restored to employment?  No, contrary to claims from the social media warriors reporting otherwise.

What is the focus of NWH reporting, – Rob Hanlon is late and Andrew Gasser has 21 days to pick an arbitration panel.

What would the NWH headline be if the court awarded all of Local 150’s fee demands?  Hanlon caused $400,000 in more legal fees……

While the entire transcript is very interesting reading, two things jumped out at us.

  • Union 150“We think that there’s no way that they could have been terminated for just cause”

They think?  How interesting that they did not say they “know”. 

  • The Judge“I do look at the September 20 order, and it is not as precise or specific as in retrospect it should have been, in my opinion. And so I’ve listened to your testimony under direct and cross-examination as well as your statement. I don’t find your conduct to be contumacious or disrespectful to the Court. So for those reasons, I am not going to — I’m denying the Petition for Indirect Civil Contempt.”

So it was the judge’s order on September 20 that was not precise, rather than Andrew Gasser ignoring the courts as has been claimed.  Go figure, truth prevails once again.

84 - Transcript of Proceedings of 1-10-19 not filed (002)


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


No Comments

Post A Comment