AUDLinks

Previous Article: IBEW delegates demand due process in hiring

Next Article: AUD construction conference report

Is the Teamsters Union safe for dissenters? An exchange.

Bradley T. Raymond is an attorney who, as he informs us, has represented the Teamsters union. He takes umbrage at our story in UDR No.142 entitled "Teamsters union: still dangerous for dissenters."

"As a reader of Union Democracy Review, and the attorney who represented the IBT in a number of protest cases during the 2000-2001 election, I offer the following personal observations in regard to your recent article entitled, "Teamsters Union: Still Dangerous for Dissenters":

"1. Your attack against Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy for his decision in the Armadeo Bianchi matter is wholly unjustified. As you know, Conboy rejected the attempt by IBT Election Administrator William Wertheimer to attribute the dismissal of Mr. Bianchi by Roadway Express to his political support for Tom Leedham. Conboy made this decision because there was no evidence supporting Wertheimer's findings. Conboy, who previously served as a distinguished federal judge in the Southern District of New York, was first selected to serve as Appeals Master during the 1995-96 Teamster's election by the Carey administration and the U.S. Attorney. The Hoffa administration and the Government readily agreed to request that he again serve in this capacity during the 2000-2001 election. His record of balanced and even-handed consideration of literally hundreds of election appeals during both elections, as well as during the 1998 re-run, is beyond any serious challenge.

"2. Although the IBT took no position on the merits of the Bianchi matter, Judge Conboy's subsequent reversal of Mr. Wertheimer's decision on the merits was anything but "technical," as you have suggested. Rather, he noted that, despite a probing investigation, Mr. Wertheimer was unable to adduce any proof that the members of the grievance committee that rejected Bianchi's grievance had acted with political motives. He also rejected Mr. Wertheimer's reliance on an alleged comment by a Local Union business agent purportedly reflecting personal (not political) hostility toward Bianchi (which had supposedly been overheard by another person), since neither party to the conversation in which the comment was supposedly made confirmed that it was, in fact, made. In my experience in handling numerous Teamster election appeals dating back to 1995, Judge Conboy does not "demand as evidence a still hot smoking gun, a victim's warm body, and a perpetrator's insistence that, yes, he did the job." Rather, he has consistently required, and required here, that findings be supported by more than speculation, supposition and shoddy reasoning. I find it surprising that anyone would demand less, particularly in cases like this in which the Election Administrator's remedy would likely have encountered significant difficulties in the courts.

"3. The IBT took a number of steps throughout the 2000-2001 electoral process to ensure that all members were free to participate or not to participate in the election process, free from retaliation or discrimination of any kind. After all, the IBT participated, not only in selecting Judge Conboy to serve as Appeals Master, but also in suggesting William Wertheimer for the position of Election Administrator. Although we had our disagreements with Mr. Wertheimer on a number of fronts during and after the election, the election, this time, was concluded at less cost and certainly with less controversy than any of the previous ones held under the Consent Decree. Of course, the Union needs to remain vigilant in ensuring that free and open debate continues to flourish in IBT politics. Your article, however, does a disservice to the IBT and its rank-and-file members by suggesting that there was a whitewash in the Bianchi matter, when, in fact, no such thing occurred. His attorney's stubborn insistence on pursing a dubious and factually unsupportable theory of political retaliation (rather than bringing charges against the Company before the NLRB as I explicitly suggested she consider) sealed his fate; nothing more than this.

"I am writing solely from my personal perspective, and do not mean to suggest that my views have necessarily been endorsed by the IBT. If you do decide to print this letter, I request that you print it in its entirety. If you do not print it, I will be disappointed, but not surprised." -- Bradley T. Raymond

---------
Editors comment:

Insofar as your letter seems intended to express admiration for Conboy, I will not comment; because what is involved is not the content of his character, but the color of his decision. When I first wrote about his finding, I felt it was merely a serious error. Upon reading your letter and reconsidering, I am now convinced it was outrageous.

The underlying fact of this case is basically quite simple: a member of Local 390 suddenly experienced severe chest pains on the job, ending in the hospital where it was discovered that he had suffered a work-related stress injury. For whatever reason, the company wanted the incident recorded, not as a worker's comp injury, but as an illness to be reported to the Central State Welfare Fund. The company position was backed by Raymond Marr, Local 390 secretary treasurer and business agent. (Marr is a key figure in this case.)

Bianchi, an insurgent in Local 390 and a supporter of Leedham against Hoffa in the last election, was a chief steward and, in that capacity, represented the worker. He advised him that it was improper, perhaps fraudulent, to report the event as an illness to the welfare fund. On his advice, the worker reported an injury. In retaliation, the company fired both Bianchi and the injured worker on charges of making a false report. It was a surprisingly vindictive penalty for Bianchi who had worked 23 years for the company at the time of his 2001 discharge.

Curiously, when their separate grievances came before the standard Teamster joint union-company hearing committee, the worker was found not guilty and reinstated. But Bianchi's discharge was upheld when both the management and the union representatives on the committee voted against him. Ordinarily, that would be the end for Bianchi; it would have been another sad example of how the Teamster joint-committee system enables the union and the companies to collude in victimizing an independent-minded union member. But the Teamsters union is still under government monitorship; Bianchi had the right to appeal to the court-appointed election monitor, arguing that the union representatives on the joint committee had acted against him in retaliation for his support of the opposition in the recent Teamster election. His appeal was election-related.

In short, Wertheimer, the election administrator, upheld Bianchi's complaint and ordered him reinstated with back pay. Wertheimer based his decision on the following findings:

* Bianchi has a long record of election opposition to the local and international leadership, including his opposition to Raymond Marr, the local secretary treasurer.

* Marr, who was responsible for representing Bianchi at the joint committee, had lied about Bianchi in an earlier election case. There was credible hearsay evidence that Marr had decided to simply go through the required motions at the joint committee; and, in fact, wrote Wertheimer, Marr "breached his duty to representing Bianchi fairly by presenting evidence and arguments he knew were false and knew, or should have known, would cause the panel to view Bianchi's conduct unfavorably."

* Both union representatives on the joint committee, who voted against Bianchi, were part of the Hoffa team.

* There is no rational explanation of the outcome of this case except that it was retaliation for Bianchi's political activity.

Any one with half a brain able to add two and two, with the other half unprejudiced by the result, can easily see that Wertheimer's decision is based upon the sordid reality. And yet, somehow, Conboy found a way to overturn it and in effect to validate Bianchi's discharge. Who is Conboy and how does he get into this act? Conboy is the election appeals master. And since this case came to him formally as an appeal in an election context, he could evade the basic issue that triggered this case: the preposterous grounds for Bianchi's discharge.

Conboy simply ruled that there was no demonstrated connection between the union-company joint victimization of Bianchi and his political activity. To reach that bizarre conclusion he relied upon a standard of credibility which discounted the evidence on Bianchi's behalf and accepted as good coin all the professions of Bianchi's enemies.

And so it came about that union and company representatives could agree to the discharge of one of the union's own stewards, one with 23 years of seniority, just because he used his own best judgment in advising a constituent in a workmen's compensation case. Yes, as we wrote in UDR, "It's dangerous for dissenters in the Teamsters union."

Articles on RISE and Teamster reform:
RISE uncovers corruption before its demise (9/04-10/04)
RISE and Teamster reform at Cornell University (1/04-3/04)
Can the IBT police itself?(9/03-10/03)
The Transmogrification of Teamsters Local 854(9/03-10/03)
Is Teamsters Union safe for dissenters? An exchange (10/11 2002)
The vindication of Ron Carey (12/1 2001-2002)
"The Fox and the Chicken Coop" -- comments on the proposed Teamsters Ethics Code. (3/4 2000)
"Some Modest Proposals for a Teamster Code" (3/4 2000)

back to top

Previous Article: IBEW delegates demand due process in hiring

Next Article: AUD construction conference report

AUDHome; Legal Rights; Education; Union Democracy Review; Books; AUDLinks

Page designed by Matt Noyes, National Writers Union/UAW, and Rachel Szekely
The Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org
104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114; info@uniondemocracy.org

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Use the following credit line on the materials you use:
"From the website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email: info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114"

Please notify us at websteward@uniondemocracy.org when you use material from the site.

Send comments or suggestions on the website to websteward@uniondemocracy.org.