December 9, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
William Haley
1037 St. Julian Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23323
David A. Vinson, President
Teamsters Local Union 822
5718 Bartee Street
Norfolk, VA 23502
Carol Dillon
Teamsters Local Union 822
5718 Bartee Street
Norfolk, VA 23502
James Wright
Teamsters Local Union 822
5718 Bartee Street
Norfolk, VA 23502
Mark Lusk
Teamsters Local Union 822
5718 Bartee Street
Norfolk, VA 23502
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1215-LU822-SEC
Gentlepersons:
William Haley, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 822, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International
Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Local Union 822 President
David A. Vinson and Local Union 822 secretary Carol Dillon are retaliating against him for filing the protest in Haley, Post-25-LU822-SEC (June 20, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 206 (KC) (June 28, 1996). That protest arose from Mr. Haley’s termination for protected political activity and the Election Officer ordered reinstatement. In this protest, Mr. Haley alleges that Mr. Vinson and Ms. Dillon are actively trying to create artificial grounds to justify another termination.
All charged parties deny that they are working in concert to cause Mr. Haley’s termination.
Adjunct Regional Coordinator Maureen Geraghty investigated this protest.
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
As set forth in the Post-25-LU822-SEC decision in March 1996, Mr. Haley gave another Local Union 822 member a campaign postcard in the Local Union 822 delegate election, on which Mr. Haley had blacked out the name of an alternate delegate candidate, Mark Lusk, and replaced it with another name.
On March 22, 1996, Mr. Vinson announced to the Local Union 822 Executive Board that he was exercising his right as local union president to fire Mr. Haley from his position as Business Agent effective immediately. In statements given to Adjunct Regional Coordinator Geraghty during the investigation, Mr. Vinson listed the reasons for Mr. Haley’s termination as disloyalty to the informal slate of delegates. The Executive Board members also told the Adjunct Regional Coordinator that Mr. Vinson told the Executive Board about his dissatisfaction with member complaints about Mr. Haley and that Mr. Haley had complained to the IBT about the administration of the local union.
The Election Officer found that “[t]here is no question that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the discharge decision” and granted Mr. Haley’s protest. Mr. Vinson appealed and the Election Appeals Master affirmed, stating:
Mr. Vinson’s characterization of the expression of a member’s political choice as actionable disloyalty to the local union powers is both astonishing and intolerable. It is beyond dispute that a member’s political choice in a union election is utterly and absolutely protected activity. The Election Officer has properly defined this right in both her convincing analysis and her ultimate resolution of this matter. The timing of Mr. Haley’s termination is suspect, and the lack of prior discipline against Mr. Haley impeaches Mr. Vinson’s claim of ongoing deficiencies in
Mr. Haley’s work. The words chosen by Mr. Vinson in his written statement to the Executive Board, and his statements confirmed by eyewitnesses to his oral presentation at the Local Union Executive Board Meeting, make any claim to the contrary completely untenable.
Mr. Haley alleges that after his reinstatement, Mr. Vinson and Ms. Dillon have continually harassed him and are attempting to establish a written record in order to justify his termination. In support of his claim of retaliation and reprisal, Mr. Haley relies on the testimony of two former employees of the local union, Jennifer Kleps and Marcia Huizenga. Ms. Kleps
and Ms. Huizenga worked at Local Union 822 until September 1996, when they resigned after Mr. Vinson denied their request for union representation with the OPEIU and threatened them with discharge.
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
Ms. Kleps and Ms. Huizenga testified that immediately after Mr. Haley was reinstated to his position as business agent by the Election Officer, Messrs. Vinson and Lusk entered the office where they were working and stated, “It is going to take all of us working together to get rid of Bill [Haley].” Mr. Vinson then stated, “I want you both to document everything so that we can create a paper trail.” Mmes. Kleps and Huizenga further state that he told them to take every available opportunity to make Mr. Haley look bad and appear incompetent.
Mr. Vinson told Ms. Kleps and Ms. Huizenga that whenever Mr. Haley said he would arrive at the office at a certain time, they should write it down and keep a log. He told them that if Mr. Haley did not report to the office exactly at the time when he said that he would, they should call him on his beeper and when he called back, they should trace the origin of the call by using the *69 return call feature on the telephone. A review of the local union’s telephone bills for the months of June through October 1996, confirms that the return call feature was used several times each month from the local union’s offices. Both women testify that they were not instructed to keep a similar log for any other business agent and that in their experience, business agents do not always report to the office exactly when promised. Ms. Kleps and Ms. Huizenga also state that they did not believe that Mr. Haley was any tardier than other employees or that he was out of touch with the office any longer than other employees.
Mr. Vinson admitted to the investigator that he had instructed Ms. Kleps and
Ms. Huizenga to trace Mr. Haley’s calls and that he did not instruct them to trace any other employee’s phone calls.
In addition, Mr. Vinson instructed Ms. Kleps and Ms. Huizenga to do Mr. Haley’s work last and that when they were typing his work that they were not to correct any of his spelling or syntax errors. Mr. Vinson did instruct them to correct other employees’ errors.
The Election Officer credits the testimonies of Ms. Kleps and Ms. Huizenga.
Mr. Haley also alleges that Mr. Vinson instructed Ms. Dillon, the secretary and TITAN operator for Local Union 822, to refuse to cooperate with Mr. Haley, to falsely impute mistakes to Mr. Haley and to make him appear incompetent. Mr. Haley states that Mr. Vinson and
Ms. Dillon are working together to create documents which contain false accusations, so that
Mr. Vinson will have documentation to justify discharging him from his position once again.
Ms. Dillon wrote memoranda to Mr. Vinson on October 9, 17, 23 and 29, 1996 complaining of Mr. Haley’s behavior towards her, stating that Mr. Haley is harassing her
and that she is unable to perform her job because of him. Amongst her allegations against
Mr. Haley, Ms. Dillon states that he “crashed” the office computer, hid local union bills, miscalculated pension contributions and physically threatened her, and that he is unsuitable for the positions of business agent and secretary-treasurer of the local union. Mr. Haley cites the memoranda Ms. Dillon wrote to Mr. Vinson as an example of Ms. Dillon’s and Mr. Vinson’s false documentation. The investigation revealed that Ms. Dillon had little direct evidence to support her criticisms of Mr. Haley and could only make generalized conclusions regarding his unsuitability for the positions of local union secretary-treasurer and business agent.
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
Ms. Dillon denies that she and Mr. Vinson are working together to set Mr. Haley up for discharge and denies Mr. Vinson has told her to use the *69 feature when Mr. Haley calls. However, the investigation revealed that someone at the local union has continued to use the feature to trace incoming phone calls. Ms. Dillon states that she wrote her memoranda criticizing Mr. Haley in response to his mistreatment of her and because she is certain he is incompetent to perform the duties of secretary-treasurer.
Ms. Dillon also states that she is afraid of Mr. Haley because he told her that he has a
9 mm pistol. Mr. Haley admits that he told her that he had a pistol but states that it was in response to a discussion about the fact that the local union could no longer afford to hire a private security service to transport checks to the bank and that Mr. Haley was going to take the checks to the bank personally from that time onward. He states that he told Ms. Dillon that he was not afraid because he carried a 9 mm weapon.
The Adjunct Regional Coordinator interviewed Local Union 822 member John Thorn and Local Union 822 Trustee Mario Lisi regarding Ms. Dillon’s memorandum to Mr. Vinson where she accuses Mr. Haley of sabotaging her attempt to successfully perform her job and of being disrespectful of her in front of local union members.
Mr. Thorn was a witness to one of the incidents Ms. Dillon cites in her memorandum. Mr. Thorn states that Ms. Dillon agreed to fax a document for him, but when she found out that he was a “Haley supporter” that she made him wait over an hour before she assisted him with the fax.
Mr. Lisi disputes Ms. Dillon’s statement that she is unable to perform her work because of Mr. Haley and states that the reason she cannot perform her work is because she is having great trouble understanding and using TITAN. This was corroborated by Joyce Ludwig, a field employee in the IBT’s System Information Office (TITAN). Ms. Ludwig spent four weeks working with Ms. Dillon at the local union, updating the TITAN records and training Ms. Dillon. Ms. Ludwig states that Ms. Dillon is indeed having trouble with TITAN and states that one of the key reasons Ms. Dillon appears to be having difficulty with her job is that she is easily distracted.
The Election Officer does not find Ms. Dillon’s testimony to be credible. She has no direct knowledge of Mr. Haley’s duties as a secretary-treasurer or business agent, and the Election Officer finds that her complaints against Mr. Haley are exaggerated.
Finally, on October 25, 1996, Mr. Vinson sent Mr. Haley a letter informing him that he “discovered” that the local union’s financial records for the 1995 calendar year were not in the safe room or the record storage closet. He states that he paged Mr. Haley and informed him of this “serious circumstance” and that Mr. Haley had not wanted to “immediately join [him] in the search as [he] expected.” In addition, Mr. Vinson cites the local union’s bylaws, which state that the secretary-treasurer “shall keep itemized records, showing the source of all moneys received and spent, and shall keep records, vouchers, work sheets, books and accounts and all resolutions to verify such report.” In his letter, Mr. Vinson demanded that Mr. Haley submit the following:
· all financial records and books for calendar year 1995;
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
· an itemized list of all of the local union’s assets, including account numbers and amounts as of September 1, 1996; and
· a copy of the signed Financial and Trustees report for calendar year 1995.
In addition, Mr. Vinson states in his letter that this is such a serious situation that he “will be notifying the International Brotherhood of Teamsters immediately of these developments.”
Mr. Haley replied to Mr. Vinson’s letter that same day, reminding Mr. Vinson that he does not have a key to either the safe room or the record storage room. Mr. Haley states that
Mr. Vinson personally authorized the release of the financial records to Jean Jackson, an accountant, and that furthermore, Mr. Vinson told Ms. Kleps to take them to Ms. Jackson and personally helped Ms. Kleps load the boxes of documents into her car. In addition, Mr. Haley states that he had already called the accountant to confirm that she still had the financial records in her possession and informed Mr. Vinson that she still had them before Mr. Vinson wrote his October 25, 1996 letter to Mr. Haley.
Mr. Vinson admits that he ordered Ms. Kleps to send the documents to the accountant after he fired Mr. Haley as a business agent and that he helped her load the documents into her car. He also admits that he never received information that the documents had been returned to the local union. Furthermore, Mr. Vinson admits that he never issued a letter to the IBT or to Mr. Haley informing them that the problem had been resolved and the records located.
The Election Officer finds that the testimony of Mr. Vinson is not credible.
Mr. Vinson made several allegations against Mr. Haley, which he rescinded upon being interviewed by the Adjunct Regional Coordinator.
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules states:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
The Election Officer finds that there is ample evidence of retaliation by Mr. Vinson against Mr. Haley based upon the initial order to reinstate him by the Election Officer.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is GRANTED.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may
take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
William Haley
December 9, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer orders the following:
1. Mr. Vinson shall immediately cease and desist his retaliatory actions against
Mr. Haley.
2. Mr. Vinson shall immediately withdraw all disciplinary-related notes, memoranda or letters that he may have filed or sent with respect to Mr. Haley since June 28, 1996.
3. Within two (2) days of the date of this decision, Mr. Vinson shall post the attached “Notice to Local Union 822 Members and Employees” on all bulletin boards in the Local
Union 822 office. Within two (2) days of completing the posting, Mr. Vinson shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer demonstrating his compliance with all aspects of the orders in this matter.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Maureen Geraghty, Adjunct Regional Coordinator
NOTICE TO LOCAL UNION 822
MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
The Election Officer has found that I have retaliated against Secretary-Treasurer and Business Agent William Haley, in violation of the Election Rules.
All local union employees have the right to engage in activity protected by the Election Rules without fear of retaliation or intimidation.
I will not retaliate against Mr. Haley or any other local union employee for engaging in protected activity.
____________________ ______________________________
Date David A. Vinson, President
Teamsters Local Union 822
This is an official notice which must remain posted for thirty (30) days. This notice must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.
Approved by Barbara Zack Quindel, IBT Election Officer.