June 20, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
William Haley
1037 St. Julian Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23323
David A. Vinson, President
Teamsters Local Union 822
5718 Bartee Street
Norfolk, VA 23502
Re: Election Office Case No. Post-25-LU822-SEC
Gentlemen:
William C. Haley, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 822, filed a protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against David A. Vinson, president of Local Union 822. The protester alleges that Mr. Vinson retaliated against him, in violation of the Rules, by terminating him from his position with the local union as business agent because he failed to support a candidate for alternate delegate supported by Mr. Vinson. Mr. Haley charges that he was terminated because Mr. Vinson believed he had allegedly altered a campaign postcard supporting a slate of candidates supported by Mr. Vinson.
Mr. Vinson denies that he violated the Rules. He states that he terminated Mr. Haley because of his disloyalty and insubordination. The IBT asserts that it concluded, after sending a representative to investigate Mr. Haley’s discharge, that the alteration incident merely precipitated the discharge, which would nevertheless have occurred due to a series of disputes between Mr. Vinson and Mr. Haley preceding and including that incident.
Regional Coordinator J. Griffin Morgan investigated the protest.
William Haley
June 20, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Vinson became president of Local Union 822 and Mr. Haley became secretary-treasurer on January 1, 1995. Mr. Vinson is also employed by the local union full time as a business agent. Prior to March 22, 1996, Mr. Haley also worked full time for the local union as a business agent. On March 22, 1996, Mr. Vinson terminated Mr. Haley from his position as business agent.
Mr. Vinson and Mr. Haley have had a number of disputes dating back to at least the Fall of 1995. For example, some time during the last three months of 1995, Mr. Haley complained that Mr. Vinson purchased coffee cups for the local union which bore
Mr. Vinson’s name and title as president, but omitted the names and titles of the other local union officers, including Mr. Haley. Mr. Haley also lodged a similar complaint concerning the local union stationery. Prior to March 22, 1996, Mr. Haley had received no discipline in connection with his employment by the union.
President Vinson called for a special meeting of the Local Union 822 Executive Board to be held on March 22, 1996, at which he announced his intention to terminate Mr. Haley effective immediately. In statements made to the Regional Coordinator during the investiga-tion of this protest, Mr. Vinson and other members of the Executive Board stated that the first reason Mr. Vinson gave to the Executive Board at the March 22, 1996 meeting for
Mr. Haley’s termination was his disloyalty to the informal slate of delegates consisting of
Mr. Vinson, Mr. Wright and Mr. Lusk, as well as Mr. Haley. Mr. Vinson told the board that after the local union delegate election on March 5, 1996, a local union member showed
Mr. Vinson a campaign postcard listing the names of Mr. Vinson and Mr. Haley as delegates and James Wright and Mark Lust as alternate delegates. However, on this particular card,
Mr. Lusk’s name was blacked out and above the marking the name “Ron Farlow,” another candidate for delegate, had been handwritten. The member told Mr. Vinson that Mr. Haley had given him the altered postcard.
The Executive Board members told the Regional Coordinator that Mr. Vinson also told the 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. However, the witnesses concurred that during his discussion of Mr. Haley’s termination, Mr. Vinson placed the most emphasis on Mr. Haley’s lack of loyalty as reflected in the alleged alteration of the postcard.
After his termination, Mr. Haley filed internal union charges against Mr. Vinson, alleging that the termination was in retaliation for Mr. Haley’s exercise of rights protected by the IBT Constitution. In a May 24, 1996 letter by Mr. Vinson to the local union executive board responding to these internal union charges, Mr. Vinson wrote:
William Haley
June 20, 1996
Page 1
As you all know, on the evening of March 22, 1996, I, as principal officer, discharged William C. Haley as a Business Agent for Local No. 822. At that time I graphically showed that Mr. Haley showed blatant disloyalty to myself, Mark Lusk, and James Wright by altering campaign literature. I presented ample evidence that this had, in fact, occurred and that I considered such action gross insubordination. I went on to detail how
Mr. Haley had been insubordinate toward myself and the Local by calling the IBT and attempting to bring reproach upon myself and the Board. Numerous other actions were brought up that evening along with the unquestionable fact that constitutionally, the principal officer had the right to take such action [citation to local union bylaws]. Mr. Haley’s political beliefs and/or views, were not questioned nor were they an issue.
Mr. Vinson told the Regional Coordinator that the alteration of campaign literature by Mr. Haley was dishonest, and that dishonesty of Mr. Haley, as also reflected in his failure to disclose that he altered the literature, was a justification for his termination. Mr. Vinson also stated during the investigation of this protest that there were other reasons for Mr. Vinson’s termination apart from the postcard or the phone calls to the IBT. Mr. Vinson stated that
Mr. Haley was terminated because he solicited a member to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Mr. Vinson failed to represent a member. Additionally, Mr. Vinson objected to Mr. Haley’s complaints to the IBT and others about the personal use of his car. The final reason given by Mr. Vinson was Mr. Haley’s unsatisfactory relationship with the local union members and his ineffectiveness as a business agent.
The Election Officer concludes that the alteration of the postcard was a predominant reason for Mr. Haley’s termination, but not the sole reason. This conclusion is supported by an April 26, 1996 report to President Carey from an International Representative sent to investigate the termination after Mr. Haley complained to the IBT that he had been removed as business agent for political reasons. The Representative’s report contains a chronological listing of incidents involving Mr. Haley and Mr. Vinson. In this chronology there is no mention of phone calls made by Mr. Haley to the IBT, or a breach of the duty of fair representation charge against Mr. Vinson. The report does state that Mr. Haley raised questions concerning Mr. Vinson’s car during January 1996. However, the only incident reported after the dispute about the car in January 1996 and prior to the March 22 termination is the alleged alteration of campaign literature.
The right to campaign freely and openly on behalf of candidates for delegate and International office is one of the fundamental guarantees of the Rules. See Article VIII, Section 11. It is a violation of the Rules for the union or an employer to discriminate against an IBT member because they have engaged in activity protected by the Rules. Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides:
Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union . . . [or] any member of the IBT . . . against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.
William Haley
June 20, 1996
Page 1
To demonstrate retaliation, a protester must show that conduct protected by the Rules was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute. The Election Officer will not find retaliation if she concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct. See Gilmartin, P-210-IBT-NYC (December 5, 1995); Leal, P-051-IBT-CSF (October 3, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 30 (KC) (October 30, 1995); Wsol, P-095-IBT-CHI (September 20, 1995), aff’d,
95 - Elec. App. - 17 (KC) (October 10, 1995). Cf., Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982). The Election Officer has found that “it is not a violation of the Rules to remove a member from an appointed position if there was a basis for doing so independent of the election process.” Wsol, supra.
Here, it is clear that Mr. Vinson viewed the alteration of the postcard by Mr. Haley to evidence “disloyalty” to a slate of candidates. A member’s support of a slate of candidates is certainly protected activity. There is no question that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the discharge decision. Mr. Vinson effectively acknowledges this motivation in his May 24, 1996 letter. Further, the evidence establishes that, while Mr. Haley and Mr. Vinson had a number of disagreements prior to Mr. Haley’s discharge, the primary reason for
Mr. Haley’s discharge was his alleged alteration of campaign material listing candidates in the delegate election supported by Local Union 822 President Vinson.
The Election Officer rejects the argument of the IBT that the nature of the precipitating incident is immaterial because any misconduct occurring after the series of disputes between Mr. Haley and Mr. Vinson would have precipitated Mr. Haley’s discharge. The Election Officer concludes, based on the timing of Mr. Haley’s discharge, the lack of any prior discipline, and the decision maker’s statements at the Executive Board meeting and his letter of May 24, 1996 referring to the alteration of the postcard, that Mr. Haley would not have been terminated at this time but for the accusation involving alteration of campaign material.
The Election Officer is mindful that by decision dated June 3, 1996, the Local
Union 822 Executive Board decided that President Vinson did not have “political” reasons for discharging Mr. Haley. However, the Election Officer retains the right to consider the matter without being bound by a decision in another forum. Golubovic, P-025-LU710-CHI (July 21, 1995); Star Market, P-760-LU25-ENG, aff’d, 91 - Elec. App.- 187 (SA) (September 18, 1991), aff’d, U.S. v. IBT, 776 F.Supp. 144 (S.D.N.Y. October 29, 1991), aff’d, 954 F.2d 801 (2d Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED.
William Haley
June 20, 1996
Page 1
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. If the Election Officer finds that an IBT member has been disciplined or discharged in violation of the Rules, the Election Officer can order a remedy nullifying the discipline or reinstating the member with full back pay. In re: Henderson, 91 - Elec. App. - 187 (SA) (September 18, 1991) (reinstatement with back pay); In re: Tuffs, 91 - Elec. App.- 191 (SA) (March 15, 1991) (removal of warning letter from personnel file).
The Election Officer orders Local Union 822 to reinstate Mr. Haley to his position as business agent within five (5) days from the date hereof, with back pay decreased by any interim earnings. Within two (2) days of Mr. Haley’s reinstatement, Mr. Vinson is ordered to submit an affidavit to the Election Office attesting to the compliance of the local union with order of the Election Officer.
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
J. Griffin Morgan, Regional Coordinator