TEAMSTERS (IBT)
Clinton Protester Cleared in Philadelphia
Don Adams, a Clinton protester viciously assaulted by a mob of Teamsters
during a Clinton fundraising visit to Philadelphia on Oct. 2, 1998, was
found not guilty Jul. 8 of trumped-up charges of assaulting a Teamster.
It was the first step toward justice in this Orwellian case.
Adams was part a large Clinton protest and held a sign calling Bill Clinton a "Liar, Pervert, a National Shame." Teamsters wearing "TEAMSTERS FOR CLINTON" t-shirts approached Adams. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 115 boss John Morris reportedly "marked" Adams for violence by placing his hat on Adams' head. Then several Teamsters kicked and punched Adams. He suffered two black eyes, bruises, and a concussion. The incident was videoed by TV news cameras (see http://www.ijot.com/DonAdams/index.htm).
Two Teamsters, Marc Nardone and Kevin McNulty, were charged with assaulting Adams. In response, Morris claimed that he put the hat on Adams to stop him from punching two Teamsters. Then Heather Diocson, Morris' driver, filed a private criminal complaint claiming Adams punched her. Philadelphia Dist. Atty. Lynne Abraham then charged Adams with assault, inciting a riot and reckless endangerment. Adams filed a similar complaint against Morris, but Abraham rejected it because of "contradictory statements" by participants. Adams said "Abraham added salt to the wound by approving...Diocson's false private criminal complaint that I somehow hit her. There was no video or other evidence to substantiate that claim... In fact, the DA's office withheld vindicating evidence, a signed statement by a Philadelphia police officer clearly indicating that I did not hit anyone."
In Jun., Adams and his attorney met with Asst. Dist. Atty. Bruce Sagel. Sagel reportedly said, "everyone knows [Adams] did not strike anybody." But later Sagel said he was merely stating his personal opinion and even later denied it altogether. Adams said after his trial, "I believe [Abraham's] office owes me an apology. This is a definite case of malicious prosecution."
Nardone and McNulty pled guilty in Jun. to criminal conspiracy, riot and simple assault. Morris and the other Teamsters haven't been charged at all. But, Teamsters boss James P. Hoffa is reportedly considering internal union charges against Morris. As for the Dist. Atty.'s Office, Adams is considering not only a state malicious prosecution suit, but also a federal Section 1983 civil rights suit. Section 1983 provides citizens a civil remedy for law enforcement misconduct. [Wall Street Journal 7/7 & 7/9/99]
Hoffa to Start "In-House" Anti-Corruption Effort
IBT boss James P. Hoffa announced Jul. 6 the imminent appointment of
Edwin H. Stier to head a new in-house anti-corruption effort. Stier successfully
rooted out corruption from IBT Local 560, a N.J. local notorious for mobsters.
For decades, the local was controlled by Anthony "Tony Pro" Provenzano,
who was convicted of murder and who law-enforcement say had a hand in the
1975 disappearance of Hoffa's father. Stier is also an ex-federal prosecutor.
The move, which has won praise and drawn criticism from labor "experts," is widely seen as part of Hoffa's attempt to end the federal government's supervision over IBT. Stier's job would include educating members about ethical standards and training them to investigate accusations of corruption. Such an "in-house" anti-corruption effort sounds eerily close the failed "internal reform effort" of the Laborers' Int'l Union of No. Am. Hopefully IBT and the Dep't of Justice avoid the errors of the Laborers' fiasco. [N.Y. Times 7/7/99, BNA 7/13/99]
LABORERS (LIUNA)
Boss Drops Frivolous Suit Against Connecticut Dissident
Laborers' Int'l Union of No. Am. Local 230 Boss Charles LeConche withdrew
a lawsuit Jul. 2 against dissident Stephen Manos. It stemmed from a heated
election campaign in 1997-98 in which Manos challenged LeConche's grip
on the Hartford local. Manos secretly recorded a Jul. 30, 1997 meeting
of Local 230's executive board at which LeConche reportedly threatened
and assaulted Manos.
According to the tape, LeConche said, "Steve, you are about this [expletive] close to me coming over there and ripping your [expletive] throat out!" (A potential violation of the Hobbs Act.) Then, Manos said, LeConche rushed at him, and LeConche associate, Frank Freeman, threw him out the door. LeConche's last words to Manos were: "We own you now!" In addition to local bosses present, LIUNA vice-president Vere O. Haynes saw the incident. Manos posted the tape to the internet and gave it to law enforcement (see http://www.laborers.org/).
In Mar. 1998, LeConche sued Manos alleging "personal, professional and pecuniary harm" saying that he had made false statements to the FBI, Hartford Police and media. After Manos testified before the U.S. House in May 1998, LeConche accused him of "unfounded allegations of criminal conduct."
LeConche settled the suit days after Manos served a subpoena on him in a separate suit. Manos and two other dissidents, Gary Wall and William Cooksey, are suing Local 230, LIUNA, its ethically-challenged "in-house prosecutor" Robert D. Luskin and others under the federal racketeering laws. That suit was unaffected by LeConche's settlement. Manos said the only concession he made was to not sue LeConche's attorney, Patrick Tomasiew-icz. Manos said, "[I]t was just a matter of time before Charlie would fold up like a cheap suitcase. [He] doesn't have the guts to face me in any legal forum." [Manchester Journal Inquirer 7/3/99]
ELECTIONS & POLITICS
Union Soft Money to RNC?
The Republican Nat. Committee received $15,000 in soft money from the
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union on May 5. Yes, you
read correctly; the RNC got money from one of America's most corrupt unions
according to a recent report from Public Disclosure, Inc. HERE was one
of four unions cited for corruption by President Reagan's Commission on
Organized Crime in 1986. The Commission said HERE was "substantially influenced
and/or controlled by organized crime." HERE has been linked to the Bruno-Scarfo,
Colombo and Gambino crime families in government lawsuits. And just last
year, Kurt W. Muellenberg, a U.S. Dist. Court-appointed monitor, issued
a scathing report on corruption within HERE.
This is the same RNC which in a recent fundraising letter said: "Now [the liberals are] going all-out to seize monopoly control of the government! ...Big Labor, trial lawyers, and the entire array of powerful left-wing interest groups are spending hundreds of millions on a vicious campaign of attack ads targeting Republicans nationwide!" The letter also said, "[Dick] Gephardt has made a career of catering to Big Labor [and] Education Unions...all-owing them to rewrite legislation and dictate how your taxes are spent."
To be fair, unions soft money to Democrats far out-paces contributions to Republicans this election cycle. The corrupt Am. Fed. of State, County & Municipal Employees alone has already given $410,000 to Democratic committees. But RNC committees also received $40,000 from the Nat. Education Ass'n on Feb. 18 and $15,000 from the Service Employees Int'l Union on Mar. 23. [http://www.tray.com/fecinfo/00sft.htm]
Bosses Cash in on Gore Promise
Attempting to legislate labor law by regulation, the Clinton Adminstra-tion
took the first formal step toward giving union bosses the ability
to destroy any federal contractor they don't like. The proposed blacklisting
rule comes more than two years after Al Gore shamelessly tried to gain
favor with union bosses by promising the blacklisting rule at AFL-CIO's
1997 meeting. The AFL-CIO has yet to endorse any candidate for President
in 2000. With Gore fading and ex-Sen. Bill Bradley looking like the front-runner
for the Democratic nomination, Gore has resorted to anti-business schemes
to secure Big Labor's support. Randel Johnson, of the Chamber of Commerce
said, "We think Vice President Gore has promoted issuing these regulations
as a payoff to the unions."
The blacklisting rule is anti-business for many reasons including the fact that contractors will be vulnerable to false allegations from competitors and disgruntled employees. According to Stephen E. Sandherr of the Asso. Gen. Contractors, the rule "does [not] ensure that the contractor will have the right to rebut...charges, or even know the source of the allegations." Sandherr said the Gore rule is unnecessary because existing laws already protect the government from rogue firms. David Bush of the Asso. Builders & Contractors said the rule "will give organized labor an increased ability to use federal agencies as a coercive tool against [nonunion] construction contractors." [N.Y. Times 7/9/99, BNA 7/12/99]
One issue that no one has commented on is how the Gore rule benefits organized crime. Crime bosses who control union bosses can use the Gore rule to run clean contractors out of business by simply having trumped-up charges brought against competitors. Mob-dominated contractors could break labor laws left and right and be insulated from rules because of mouth-piece union bosses protecting them.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFSCME)
More Trouble on DC37's Horizon
Despite suffering an embarrassing 27 indictments
in recent months, the Am. Fed. of State, County & Municipal Employees
Dist. Council 37's corruption parade may not be over. Reportedly, Manhattan
Dist. Atty. Robert M. Morgenthau plans to empanel a new grand jury in Sep.
to hear new evidence about wrongdoing by DC37 bosses. In addition to more
vote fraud investigations, Morgenthau is also reportedly examining alleged
kickbacks from insurance firms and union attorneys. Prosecutors are
also investigating allegations of mob-influence within some DC37's locals.
[N.Y. Times 7/12/99]
Morgenthau is also reviewing expenses of Local 420 headed by reputed-reformer and 27-year incumbent James Butler. The probe reportedly include Butler's expenses, which appear to be personal, and building fund that paid for demolition work that apparently never occured. [N.Y. Post 7/7/99]
QUOTABLE QUOTE
"As long as you have a pulse and pay your union dues, the AFL-CIO is
there to wipe up your drool."
- Columnist Tom Knott on the Metro. Wash. (D.C.) Council AFL-CIO's mindless
support of the bloated D.C. municipal government. [Washington Times 7/8/99]
- - - - -
ADDITIONAL BRIEFS NOT INCLUDED ON THE FAX EDITION OF THIS UNION CORRUPTION UPDATE:
- - - - -
TEAMSTERS (IBT)
Washington Local Put in Trusteeship
Days after Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 556 ended a month-long strike
at the IBP processing plant in Pasco, Wash., the IBT boss James P. Hoffa
announced Jul. 12 that it has placed the local under a temporary trusteeship.
The trusteeship was imposed at the request of the local union's executive
board, according to IBT spokesman Chip Roth. He said the strike was very
"divisive" and the local's bosses didn't feel they could "adequately police
and enforce the new agreement." Roth added that when the strike ended about
400 workers had crossed the picket lines and the atmosphere between those
workers who had not gone back to work and those who had was "emotionally
charged." Contending that the employer was aware of the charged atmosphere
and could possibly take advantage of the situation, Roth alleged that the
international placed an "emergency" trusteeship on the local to "protect
the interests of the members." Hoffa appointed Allen Hobart, secretary-treasurer
of Local 760 in Yakima, Wash., as temporary trustee.
A group called the IBP Workers Committee for a Just Contract along with
the far-leftist Teamsters for a Democratic Union charged that the trusteeship
was imposed to protect unpopular local officials from participating in
an election they were sure to lose. According to TDU radical and Hoffa-hater
Ken Paff said at the end of the strike that they would run a team of candidates
against the current local officers in an election scheduled for Oct. because
of the lack
of support for the strike by local bosses and the IBT. "Just days after
the strike leaders announced they would run for office, Hoffa imposed this
trusteeship to try to delay the election," Paff claimed. He said TDU will
do everything possible to ensure that members' rights for a democratic
election are respected, adding that TDU is looking at various
options. Roth, however, denied that the imposition of the trusteeship
was political. Noting that the election for officers is still three months
away, Roth said the action is "not political at all. It's in the interest
of our members." [BNA 7/16/99]
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION (ALPA)
Ex-Bosses Sue Union for Defamation, Win Appeal in Illinois
Frederick Dubinsky and Roger Hall, ex-union bosses, won an appeal in
their suit against the Air Line Pilots Ass'n and several other union bosses
for defamation and invasion of privacy. The two charged that a letter by
boss Richard Hurst falsely accused them of criminal conduct related to
two attempts to buy United Airlines stock under an employee stock ownership
plan. ALPA moved to dismiss the suit, alleging that the two failed to state
a viable claim for relief.
The Aug. 1994 letter accused the two of wrongdoing in connection with the buyout plan and related payments to ALPA's staff attorney Charles Goldstein. Goldstein collected a fee that more than doubled his salary in 1984, with the first buyout attempt, and again in 1994, when employees successfully took control of United. Hurst wrote, "I believe that federal laws have been broken;" comparing the matter to Watergate and suggesting that the Dep'ts of Labor and Justice investigate. Hurst charges used excerpts from the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Org. Act, as well as a chart summarizing possible" RICO charges. The Jenner & Block law firm was hired to investigate the payments to Goldstein and ultimately reported in Sep. 1994 that neither Dubinsky and Hall broke any laws and that the ALPA attorney never actually collected the purported $2 million fee following the 1994 buyout. ALPA and Hurst's motive for the allegations was not reported.
The trial court dismissed Dubinsky and Hall's suit, but an Illinois Appellate Court reversed in part. Justice Margaret O'Mara Frossard said, "We agree that a jury could find that being falsely accused of the criminal activity at issue here would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Finally, plaintiffs pleaded defendants knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were true or false, thus satisfying the actual malice standard. Whether in fact defendants acted with actual malice remains a jury question." [Chicago Daily Law Bulletin 7/9/99]
UNION DUES / GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
California State Employees File Class-Action Suit
Nat. Right to Work Foundation (NRTW) filed a federal class-action suit
Jul. 15 on behalf of all Cal. state employees whose First Amendment rights
have been violated by the Gov. Gray Davis (D) Administration and Professional
Engineers in Cal. Gov't (PECG) union officials. In addition to compensatory
and punitive damages, the employees seek a court order enjoining the State
of Cal. from collecting union dues until the employees' rights are respected.
The charges were filed on behalf of all non-member government workers under the PECG's memorandum of understanding (MOU) - also known as a collective bargaining agreement - who have been illegally forced to pay for union political activities. The class in this case would include employees of state agencies such as CALTRANS, the Cal. Water Quality Control Board, and the Cal. Resources Board, to name a few. The number of workers included in the class-action suit could reach into the thousands statewide.
On Apr. 1, 1999, newly elected Davis signed the MOU which forced all workers under the agreement to pay illegally high dues to PECG union officials. "With a single stroke of his pen, Governor Davis handed California's union brass hundreds of thousands of dollars in compulsory dues which will be used on politics and other activities to which state employees object," said NRTW spokesman Stefan Gleason. NRTW is providing free legal aid to the Cal. employees.
According to the constitutional protections construed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the NRTW-won decisions of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, the union may not collect compulsory dues spent on activities unrelated to collective bargaining. Politics, lobbying, organizing, public relations, and other non-bargaining activities are explicitly non-chargeable to employees who have exercised their right to refrain from union membership. Further, the NRTW-won Supreme Court decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, requires union bosses to provide independently audited disclosure of their books and justify expenditures made from forced union dues seized from the employees.
The suit claims that PECG bosses provided the state employees insufficient disclosure with no evidence that PECG's expenditures were independently audited. The disclosure provided by union officials showed a hideous disregard for workers' rights by overtly charging for activities listed as "Initiatives," "Legislative/Political Action," "Member-Only Services," "Legislative Activity Related to Collective Bargaining," and other activities which the Supreme Court has already found to be violations of workers' First Amendment rights. "This union is so shameless that it didn't even try to disguise its illegal demand for forced dues spent for political activities," added Gleason. [http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_154.htm]
IRON WORKERS (BSOIW)
Illinois Local Loses Appeal of Unfair Labor Practice Complaint
Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local
386 committed an unfair labor practice by distributing handbills that resulted
in a secondary boycott at a construction site according to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Dist. of Columbia Circuit decision on Jul. 12.
Even though the handbill specifically stated that the union did not intend to encourage a work stoppage made little difference, the court said, citing substantial evidence in support of the inference that the union sought to induce the neutral employees to walk off the Warshawsky & Co. job site. Judge Laurence H. Silberman criticized the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which the Nat. Labor Relations Board adopted, for relying too heavily on the First Amendment in concluding that the union didn't induce or encourage the employees to engage in a secondary strike.
According to the decision, Warshawsky & Co., which sells automobile parts and accessories, was constructing a warehouse and mail order facility in LaSalle, Ill. Warshawsky's general contractor, G.A. Johnson & Sons, subcontracted with various other companies, all of whom maintained collective bargaining agreements with the building trade unions. In Mar. 1997, Warshawsky retained Automotion, Inc. to install rack and conveyor systems on the site. In response, Local 386, representing Automotion's workers, engaged in "area standards" picketing of Automotion at the construction site. One day later, the union stopped picketing when it learned that Automotion was not yet working at the site.
Local 386 received a letter from Warshawsky stating that a "reserve gate" had been established at the site for Automotion, and that any subsequent picketing should be done only when Automotion was working on the site. Automotion's hours were Monday through Friday from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. and all day Sunday. The hours for Johnson and the subcontractors were 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. weekdays and an occasional Saturday.
A day after the union received the letter, union agents distributed handbills to employees of Johnson and the subcontractors as they drove into the construction site. The handbill stated that Automotion was "[d]estroying the standard of wages for hard-working union members," and that it "pays substandard wages and fringe benefits." The handbill warned that "[i]gnoring the area standards threatens the efforts and sacrifices of all union members." At the bottom, in smaller print, the handbill stated that the union was "appealing only to the general public. We are not seeking any person to cease work or to stop making deliveries." In addition to passing out the handbills, the union agents also spoke to the employees.
As a result, Johnson employees and its subcontractors refused to enter the site. The union agents did the same thing on four of the next six days, and each day, employees refused to work. None of the handbilling occurred while Automotion or its employees, suppliers, or subcontractors, were working at the site.
The Nat. Labor Relations Act prohibits unions from inducing or encouraging anyone to refuse to work for his employer to force that employer to stop dealing with another employer. "[T]he First Amendment does not protect communications directed at -- and only at -- the neutral employees merely because the form of communications is handbilling and conversations," Silberman said.
Silberman said the evidence pointed to the inference that Local 386
induced the secondary boycott. "The handbills themselves, the time, place
and manner of their distribution, the simultaneous conversations between
the union agents and the neutral employees, and the subsequent response
of those employees all combine to paint
only one plausible picture. The ALJ unreasonably took each piece of
the evidence, analyzed it separately -- not even accurately in our view
-- and concluded that no one piece sufficed, never asking whether the totality
of facts pointed in only one direction." The disclaimer at the bottom
of the handbill did not insulate the union from the unfair labor practice
charge. The court pointed out that the "main language of the handbill contained
a strident attack on Automotion's substandard wages and, most significantly,
the lugubrious prediction that 'Ignoring the Area Standards Threatens the
Efforts And Sacrifices Of All Union Members,' which clearly tells the recipients
of the handbill that they should regard this matter as one in which they
as union members have a stake." [BNA 7/13/99]
OPERATING ENGINEERS (IUOE) & STEELWORKERS (USWA)
New Jersey Local Loses Appeal of Sexual Harassment Case
The N.J. Superior Court has ordered a new trial in a suit brought by
three female construction workers who claimed they were sexually harassed
by members of a rival union picketing their worksite. Reversing judgment
for the Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 on the women's state
law claims, the state's appeals court held that they should not have been
required by the trial court to prove that the harassment was the proximate
cause of an injury to them.
In their 1990 suit against Local 825 and two of its members, the three women, George Harms Construction Co. employees and United Steelworkers of Am. members, claimed they were sexually harassed by IUOE members each day as they entered and left their worksite in Morristown, N.J. Local 825 picketed the highway construction project over an 18-month period because of a dispute over a collective bargaining agreement.
In Apr. 1997, after two delaying appeals, the three testified they were subjected on a daily basis to obscene sexual language and gestures by the picketers. Although they said the experience was "degrading" and "humiliating," none of the plaintiffs sought medical or psychological treatment, missed work, lost income or was treated differently by their employer or co-workers because of the harassment, according to court records.
The jury rejected two of the plaintiffs' claims entirely, found in favor of one individual defendant (the other was dismissed by the court), and found that the union was liable for its pickets' conduct toward one plaintiff, but that she could not be awarded damages because its violation of the N.J. Law Against Discrimination (LAD) had not caused her injury. Ruling on the plaintiffs' post-trial motions, the trial court entered judgment for IUOE and denied attorneys' fees for both parties.
The plaintiffs appealed, seeking a new trial on their claims against Local 825 only. IUOE cross-appealed the trial court's failure to dismiss the suit on the merits and, alternatively, to rule that it is protected against liability for picket-line conduct under the First Amendment. On appeal, the Local 825 laughably argued that the plaintiffs' suit is groundless because the picket-line conduct was directed at all Harms' employees, regardless of gender.
The appeals court responded that while some of the picketers' comments were not directed to a member of a specific sex, "it is abundantly clear that other comments were not gender-neutral but, in fact, were gender-based as being inapplicable to men and only applicable to women." Whether the alleged conduct was "severe or pervasive," is a factual determination to be made by the jury. It is not necessary that the plaintiffs show they experienced an adverse job action because of the harassment, rather the court said "[a] plaintiff in a sexual harassment action need only prove that the conduct complained of would make a reasonable woman believe that the conditions of employment had been altered to the extent that the workplace environment had become hostile or abusive." The court noted that the evidence shows that the three women could meet this standard, given that they had never been subjected to sexually oriented taunting on the job until the IUOE began picketing.
The appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs that a new trial is warranted and that the trial court's use of the "proximate cause" standard in the jury instructions and questionnaire "completely eviscerates the purpose of the LAD." A plaintiff alleging a sexually hostile work environment must simply prove that the workplace was permeated with sexually discriminatory "intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment," the court explained. A plaintiff is not also required to prove that "she was subjectively harmed to establish a LAD violation." The appeal court further directed the trial court on retrial to allow evidence of all activities on the picket line to establish the union's liability which may make IUOE liable for non-employees' conduct if they "act[ed] for and on behalf of the union in furthering the ultimate goal of the labor activity," the court held. [BNA 7/7/99]
In addition to the unions and organizations covered in this Union Corruption Update, readers can look forward to news and information on other corrupt and abusive unions in future editions.
All back issues of the Union Corruption Update can be viewed at NLPC's website (www.nlpc.org). Also available is a union-by-union and state-by-state index of all Union Corruption Update articles.
If you have story ideas or suggestions for future editions of Union Corruption Update, please email NLPC at nlpc@nlpc.org. Thank you.
Union Corruption Update is part of NLPC's Organized Labor Accountability Project which is investigating and exposing corruption and extremism in the Teamsters, LIUNA, AFL-CIO and many other union organizations. NLPC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation promoting ethics and accountability in government through research, education and legal action.
Union Corruption Update Article Index (by Union)
Union Corruption Update Article Index (by State)
Organized Labor Accountability Project