Previous Article: USAS endorses union democracy

Next Article: SAG members nix merger

Teamsters, get all the news: SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!

Time to end the consent decree in the Teamsters Union? -- two articles

1. Can the IBT police itself?

Teamster President James Hoffa says that federal prosecutors have come up with a proposal that would end the consent decree of 1989 under which the union agreed to submit to close government oversight. During the last 14 years, federal monitors have supervised international union elections; a court-appointed Independent Review Board has driven corrupt officials out of the union, including associates of organized crime.

It's been a long time. But before the current setup can be eliminated, one massive problem, among many, remains-for both Hoffa and the feds: Despite the union's own highly touted RISE program, without the IRB and without the constant pressure of government, the union, under Hoffa, has displayed a total incapacity to deal adequately with corruption. Here, among many, are two recent examples:

On August 22, Federal Judge Loretta Preska, upheld the IRB's expulsion of William Hogan and Dane Passo from the union. Hogan, a Teamster powerhouse, was one of Hoffa's most important supporters. Passo was a top Hoffa aide whom he had appointed as international representative. They were expelled because they had colluded with a non-union company to undercut the contractual standards enforced by a Teamster local. The non-union company had a suspect background of racketeer connections; and Hogan's brother was one of the its officers.

The Hoffa administration could not or would not deal with this scandalous affair. When the IRB gave the union a chance to process the charges itself, it failed; it turned the case back to the IRB. The question is inevitable: suppose there were no IRB?

On January 27, in a second case, the IRB recommended that Hoffa impose a trusteeship over Local 522, a catchall 1,800-member local in Jamaica NY. The chief local official at the time was the son of a former Luchese crime family underboss. Earlier, the IRB had removed a previous local president for association with organized crime. "Local 522," the IRB reported, "has a long history of ties to organized crime." This time, the union agreed to act. Still it was only on March 10 that Hoffa appointed a trustee. And still there was work to do for the IRB. On March 14, the IRB wrote to Hoffa proposing charges against two of the local's incumbent benefit trustees and one former trustee. They were accused of improperly funneling about $1,500,000 from the benefit funds into the union treasury. (These people deal with more than small change!)

2. The Transmogrification of IBT local 854
According to a report issued by RISE, an officially sanctioned Teamster research and reform project, Local 854 was once "under control of the Gambino crime family," but "is now democratic." The report lists it among locals "reclaimed from the grip of organized crime," one of the locals "where opposition slates emerge with no fear of reprisal or retaliation."

Yet, this same Local 854 is now the target of multiple complaints filed by the National Labor Relations Board against it and its largest contracted company accusing them of common responsibility in a campaign of harassment, punitive discipline, and violent assault against job stewards and their defenders who stand up against the union and company.

If these NLRB charges are well-founded, the earlier RISE report could have been the flawed product of overoptimistic wish-fulfillment. Or, on the other hand, it may demonstrate that even a local which appears, on first examination, to be "reformed" can rapidly degenerate if it functions in a racket-dominated industry.

Local 854 is a 1,900-member catch all local in New York City. One of its largest contracted employers is Consolidated Bus Transit, a company which is retained by the NYC Board of Education to bus children to school. According to RISE, the Board required that the company be unionized in order to get its lucrative busing contracts. The CBT owner "was able to use Local 854 to organize his companies because of his relationship with Gambino crime family members." At the time, Local 854 was brought into the picture precisely because it was conveniently racket dominated. Since then, according to RISE, Local 854 has been freed of Gambino control. But there are no reports of any possible corresponding positive changes in the corporate setup. The role of CBT is a critical element in this story because all Local 854 members involved in these events were employees of that company.

The status quo in the relations between CBT and Local 854 was rudely disrupted in early 2002 when Jona Fleurimont, Jose Guzman, and others circulated a petition in the union calling for the election of a shop steward and assistant at the CBT's Bronx facility. Fireworks exploded! What quickly happened next is suggested in charges filed by the NLRB in April, this year:
After a skirmish in the union, the two men won their point; and in June, Fleurimont was elected steward and Guzman his assistant. The local administration candidate, its appointed incumbent, was ousted. Harassment had begun instantly with the circulation of the petition. The two were subjected to company surveillance; employees were questioned about the peti-
tion and threatened with discharge and arrest. Those who signed were "verbally harassed and insulted." Some of this, according to the NLRB complaint, took place in the CBT Bronx office in the presence of representatives of Local 854.

Harassment worsened after the steward election. The company threatened to close the Bronx facility. Employees were threatened with physical assault for union activities. Fleurimont was forced to undergo a physical examination. The company repeatedly suspended Fleurimont and Guzman. In sum, the NLRB charged that CBT "engaged in [this] conduct because Fleurimont and Guzman were elected shop stewards and engaged in concerted activities and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities."

So far, all this seems like the normal activities of an abnormal company whose owner once had relations with an organized crime family. However, the union has presumably been freed of racket control. Nevertheless, as the NLRB complaint indicates, the union joined the company so actively in the harassment that it is hard to distinguish one from the other:
According to the NLRB charge, Daniel Gatto, Local 854 president, confronted Fleurimont in November 2002 at the Bronx facility, where he "verbally harassed and insulted Fleurimont," threatened to assault him, actually physically assaulted him, and threatened to have him disciplined by the company. The NLRB charges that Fleurimont has been victimized by the union because he filed unfair labor practice charges against Local 854, because he "sought the assistance of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union, and because he had "ousted Local 854's incumbent shop steward."

The NLRB charges that Ann Stankowitz, local 854 secretary treasurer, joined in the campaign to harass CBTemployees. According to the complaint she failed to represent workers who are threatened for discharge and arrest by the company and subjected to intimidating interrogation and surveillance. But more. She, herself, actually participated in the interrogation.

So much for the NLRB complaint which awaits trial, but the story continues. What follows next, is based on an account by TDU:
Fleurimont has been discharged by CBT, charged with being involved in a minor accident while driving his bus. He says that the incident never took place, that it is a complete fabrication and frame up. Contemplating the history, one finds him credible. With Fleurimont discharged, he was replaced as acting steward by Guzman, his assistant.

A petition was circulated calling for the removal of Fleurimont as steward and for a new election. Two leaflets distributed to Bronx CBT workers denounced Fleurimont and Guzman. One by the company, on official CBT stationery, read, "Hopefully, the silent majority will overrule the loud, violent and selfish minority and take a stand to protect their job and their future." A second, with unclear sponsorship, announced, "The company needs 150 signatures to remove Jona from his Shop Steward position....If the company doesn't collect these signatures by Tuesday 1/18/03 they are going to send 80 buses to Brooklyn. The base is going to be relocated to Red Hook."

In a letter to Gatto, assistant steward Jose Guzman charged, "In addition to these illegal threats, management was directly involved in the petition effort. Workers were instructed to come to the office. When they arrived they were presented with the petition in the presence of management personnel and asked to sign ...." Nevertheless, the local did schedule a new election.

And now, in response to a complaint from Fleurimont supporters, RISE was moved to return to what it had hoped was the scene of eradicated crime. At this point, the role of RISE in the Teamsters' union is ambiguous. It was initially retained by General President Hoffa as a kind of research and consultant group to formulate a union self-reform proposal that would convince the Department of Justice to end federal monitorship over the union. By now, however, it has taken on investigative responsibilities that suggest an enforcement role but do not explicitly declare it.

A RISE representative did meet several times with the complainants and recorded the story of their ordeal. He assured them that he would look into the internal union disputes but that their charges against the company, a collective bargaining issue, were outside the RISE jurisdiction. It is too early to know whether the investigation, when completed, will bring relief to the Local 854 activists; but the entry of RISE prompted a new attack on them. At local meetings, President Gatto announced the RISE investigation; and in a flyer he denounced "A few of our members who have decided to attack our local union in what appears to be an effort to destroy what we have built over the past few years."

In its extensive report, "The Teamsters: Perception and Reality," RISE cautioned, "In some cases, despite efforts by government prosecutors and court-appointed monitors, there are still conditions outside the local that could enable the return of a racketeering culture. This occurs in locals ... that have members working in industries that are still influenced or controlled by organized crime ...." An effective investigation into the complaints of Local 854 members would have to take that RISE warning into account.

Teamsters Independent Review Board
The IRB reported in January that it had received approximately 90 calls reporting alleged improprieties since its last report two months earlier. The toll free line to report Teamster impropriety is: 1-800-225-547

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)

find links to TDU and other Teamster websites on our links page

back to top

Previous Article: USAS endorses union democracy

Next Article: SAG members nix merger

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.