June 6, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Mary Strzezewski
440 E. Montrose #205
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Re: Election Office Case No. P-416-LU705-CHI
DECISION ON REMAND
Gentlemen:
This pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Mary Strzezewski. She alleged that she had been discharged from her employment at Local Union 705 in retaliation for her support for delegate candidates on the Hoffa/Hogan slate, and for James P. Hoffa and William Hogan, candidates for International office.
Ms. Strzezewski was employed for 19 years by both Local Union 705 and the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds (“Funds”). At the time of her termination, she was Supervisor of the Union Dues department for the local union, overseeing that portion of the local union’s clerical operations pertaining to membership records and dues. As to the funds, she was manager of the contributions department, which ensured that the employer was billed for and properly remitted amounts to the funds for new members. On February 2, 1996, Local Union 705 President Gerald Zero sent Ms. Strzezewski a letter informing her of his decision to terminate her for “unsatisfactory job performance and, additionally, because I would no longer entrust you to carry out union policy in the future . . .”
Mary Strzezewski
June 6, 1996
Page 1
On March 20, 1996, the Election Officer issued a decision on the protest finding that Ms. Strzezewski had not provided sufficient evidence to show that her discharge had been for retaliation in violation of the Rules. On April 8, 1996, the Election Appeals Master remanded the case to the Election Officer for further investigation and to make appropriate findings and resolution of the protest. In Re: Strzezewski, 96 - Elec. App. - 162 (KC) (April 8, 1996).
Regional Coordinator Julie Hamos conducted an additional investigation of the case on remand.
In examining the allegations of the protester, the Election Officer has reviewed her contentions in the light most favorable to her claim of retaliation. When the IBT established a trusteeship over Local Union 705 in 1993, Ms. Strzezewski was retained as a supervisor, even though the trustee terminated the employment of several other employees. While the local union contends they were dissatisfied with her job performance for the three years prior to her termination, Ms. Strzezewski claims this contention is belied by the fact that she continued to receive good evaluations from her immediate supervisor, Barbara Reynolds, did not receive feedback from Mr. Zero that her work was less than satisfactory, and received pay increases. She points out that the termination occurred in 1996, three years after the trusteeship was instituted, and only after she began to support the Hoffa/Hogan slate and Messrs. Hoffa and Hogan. Ms. Strzezewski supports the claim that her discharge was in retaliation for her political support of certain candidates by pointing to the alleged statement of her supervisor, Ms. Reynolds, who Ms. Strzezewski claims advised her that she was being discharged for “political reasons.” Therefore, Ms. Strzezewski contends that the Election Officer should conclude that the local union chose to fire her during the midst of hotly contested delegate elections due to her political support of the local union officers’ opponents and that their proffered reasons are a pretext.
The local union contends that since the institution of the trusteeship, it had been engaged in a concerted effort to organize, systemize and regulate membership records and dues procedures. During this period, according to the local union, not only had
Ms. Strzezewski failed to make the necessary changes, but her attitude had been necessarily disruptive and uncooperative. Ms. Strzezewski had refused to provide the officers with information on how the membership dues system operated and impeded the implementation of various changes. Over the same period and particularly after the local union officer’s election in April 1995, the local union contends it became “increasingly apparent that the membership records were inaccurate and incomplete.” The local union points to delays in integrating new members into the system, Ms. Strzezewski’s failure to issue withdrawal cards and her issuance of irrelevant arrearage notices. The local union also asserts that Ms. Strzezewski refused to provide important information to officers and staff.
The local union contends that although it began seeking a replacement for
Mary Strzezewski
June 6, 1996
Page 1
Ms. Strzezewski in the summer of 1995, it was difficult to fill her position which required “an individual who had experience in the labor field, supervisory and leadership experience and capabilities and who had some degree of computer efficiency.” The local union states that it identified a replacement in October 1995, but was reluctant to act at that time because of the delegate elections and Ms. Strzezewski’s political alignment with the Real Teamsters of Local 705 (“Real Teamsters”) who recently became Hoffa supporters. In January 1996, the local union states that an incident which occurred that caused the local union to accelerate the discharge of Ms. Strzezewski. According to the local union, Ms. Strzezewski admonished one of the employees she supervised for providing certain eligibility information to the Election Office and then told the employee not to speak directly to any of the local union officers. When the local union discovered that Ms. Strzezewski had given this instruction, it determined to fire her as soon as a replacement could be hired and report to work. A replacement was then hired, but could not report to work until February 1996.
The local union admits Ms. Strzezewski was a known supporter of the Hoffa/Hogan slate and Messrs. Hoffa and Hogan, but contends that she was discharged for her inability to do her job.
At the hearing in this matter, the Election Appeals Master was concerned with the lack of factual investigation into the protester’s contentions that: (1) she was discharged shortly after her open display of support for the Hoffa/Hogan delegate candidates and Messrs. Hoffa and Hogan and (2) there were witnesses named by the protester and not interviewed by the Regional Coordinator, who the protester asserted could provide direct evidence connecting her termination to her political support of these candidates.
On this remand, the Election Officer conducted a further investigation of
Ms. Strzezewski’s claims and interviewed or attempted to interview all of the witnesses named by Ms. Strzezewski. During the hearing, Ms. Strzezewski stated that she had been told by her supervisor, Ms. Reynolds, that she was discharged for “political reasons.” As part of her investigation, therefore, Ms. Hamos telephoned Ms. Reynolds on four occasions prior to her retirement from Local Union 705 on May 1, 1996. Ms. Reynolds failed to return any of these calls. On May 20, Ms. Hamos obtained Ms. Reynolds’ home telephone number from the protester and left a message for her there. Again, Ms. Reynolds failed to return the call. Thereafter, Ms. Hamos advised the protester of her difficulty in interviewing Ms. Reynolds. The burden was on the protester to present Ms. Reynolds to support her contention that she was discharged in violation of the Rules.[1] Ms. Hamos interviewed other witnesses identified by Ms. Strzezewski including John Krok, Bobby Hayes, Jr., Tom Malden, Bruce Paulis and Danny Mousette.
Mary Strzezewski
June 6, 1996
Page 1
Based on this investigation, the Election Officer finds the following facts. On June 15, 1993, General President Ron Carey placed Local Union 705 in trusteeship in response to an investigation conducted by the Independent Review Board which found extensive and continuing financial fraud and malpractice against six former officers of Local Union 705. During the trusteeship, Trustee Harold Burke carried out an extensive reorganization of the local union’s affairs, a process which included terminating many employees.
Also as part of the reorganization, Mr. Burke undertook reform of the local union’s records and file management, which was supervised by Ms. Strzezewski. The local union also provided evidence to show that the portion of the local union records for which
Ms. Strzezewski had long been responsible had been inadequately maintained during her time there.
The local officers who had been removed from office by Mr. Burke, together with those fired by Mr. Burke and those who opposed the reforms implemented by Mr. Burke, organized themselves, eventually taking the name “Real Teamsters.” Ms. Strzezewski was an active and vocal supporter of this group. The Real Teamsters ran a slate of candidates in the April 1995 local union officers election, which lost to the current incumbents, including respondent Gerald Zero, the secretary-treasurer of Local Union 705. In April 1995, after the local union election, the trusteeship was lifted.
The same group that ran local union officer candidates under the title Real Teamsters became supporters of Mr. Hoffa, and some of these same people were delegate candidates on the Hoffa/Hogan slate. The local union does not deny that it was aware of Ms. Strzezewski’s outspoken support of this group. The local union contends, however, that it had no direct knowledge that Ms. Strzezewski engaged in open campaigning for Mr. Hoffa, only of her past support for local union candidates. During the investigation, Ms. Strzezewski admitted that she did not wear any buttons or display literature for Mr. Hoffa or the Hoffa/Hogan slate. She states that she attended rallies for these candidates, but was not aware whether the local union knew of these activities.
When Ms. Strzezewski was discharged, the reasons given were her unsatisfactory performance and her resistance to the reforms in record-keeping undertaken during and after the trusteeship. The investigation on remand is to determine whether this was a pretext for retaliation in violation of the Rules--including whether Ms. Reynolds had told Ms. Strzezewski that she had been fired for political reasons.
As noted above, the investigation has been unable to contact Ms. Reynolds. None of the witnesses contacted during the follow-up investigation identified any political activity by Ms. Strzezewski in the delegate or International officer elections. Other witnesses report second and third-hand rumors: first, that Ms. Reynolds had resisted firing Ms. Strzezewski and second, that Ms. Strzezewski had been fired because of her political support for the Real Teamsters.
The local union presented information documenting meetings with Ms. Strzezewski and memoranda sent to her regarding her failure to issue withdrawal cards and to promptly integrate new members into the system, and to timely add new members to the roster.
Mary Strzezewski
June 6, 1996
Page 1
The local union also provided items documenting an incident which occurred on January 19, 1996. The first is a report written by Local Union 705 Administrator Jo Pressler dated January 22, 1996. The report states that Ms. Strzezewski yelled at an employee because the Election Office had called for eligibility information and the employee had provided them with the requested information. As written, the report stated that Ms. Strzezewski advised the employee that if she is unavailable when the Election Office calls, the employee “should only answer specifically what EO asks and do not offer any additional info.” The report continues that the employee explained to Ms. Strzezewski that Ms. Pressler had told her to give the Election Office whatever they requested. The report then states that,”MS told her in future, if Zero, Franks, McCormick or Shaefer wanted info she was not to talk to us but to refer us to M.S.” A second note dated January 22 is from a local union employee to Jo Pressler. The employee reports that she met the employee (who Ms. Strzezewski had spoken to) in the elevator and the employee was very upset because Ms. Strzezewski had “let her have it.” The note continues, “Mary S. told her she is not to talk to any of us--you, me, Jerry, John and that she better not do it again. If we have any questions we should talk to Mary.”
Ms. Strzezewski denies that she ever told any employee not to speak to the Election Office, the local union officers or Ms. Pressler.
Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules prohibits any retaliation against anyone by the Union or its agents for exercising any right guaranteed by the Rules.[2] 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-032-LU245-PNJ (January 5, 1996), aff’d 95 - Elec. App. - 75 (KC) (February 6, 1996); 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.
Applying the above test, the Election Officer finds that the local union had a basis for discharging Ms. Strzezewski independent of the election process.
Mary Strzezewski
June 6, 1996
Page 1
Ms. Strzezewski occupied a sensitive supervisory position in the local union and for the funds. The local union had long been unsatisfied with her lack of cooperation in the transition period following the trusteeship and would have terminated her in the summer of 1995 but for the difficulty of finding a replacement. Having located a replacement in the fall of 1995, the local union wavered in terminating Ms. Strzezewski due to concerns over the upcoming delegate election and the union’s desire to avoid the political controversy it anticipated
Ms. Strzezewski’s termination would spawn. However, when Ms. Strzezewski instructed one of the employees she supervised not to speak to local union officers, and the local union perceived that she might be interfering with the eligibility information being provided to the Election Office, the local union determined that it must terminate her service, despite its concern that such an action would be perceived as “political.”
The evidence in this case fails to show that the local union’s motivation was to retaliate against Ms. Strzezewski for her political support of the candidates on the Hoffa/Hogan slate or Messrs. Hoffa or Hogan. While the local union was long aware of her political views, her dismissal occurred in February 1996 due to the actions reported to the local union in
January 1996 and the local union’s previous difficulty in finding a suitable replacement.
The local union’s efforts to avoid political controversy which would result from
Ms. Strzezewski’s termination ultimately gave way to the local union management’s view that it could no longer tolerate or trust a key employee. As stated in Wsol, “[r]emoval from an appointed union position because of personality conflicts or political rivalry is not prohibited,” citing Cremen, P-425-LU311-MID (March 11, 1991), aff’d 91 - Elec. App. - 101 (SA) (March 19, 1991); see also DelGallo, P-1042-LU294-PGH (November 14, 1991), aff’d
91 - Elec. App. - 234 (SA) (November 25, 1991).
The Election Officer finds that the local union would have terminated Ms. Strzezewski even if she had not supported Messrs. Hoffa and Hogan and the delegate candidates supporting them. The Election Officer does not find that the local union’s previous hesitation to terminate her supports her claim that the termination was retaliatory. There was a basis independent of the election process for Ms. Strzezewski’s removal. Therefore, the actions of the local union were not retaliation in violation of the Rules.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
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:
Mary Strzezewski
June 6, 1996
Page 1
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
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator
[1]During the initial investigation of this protest, Ms. Hamos did interview
Ms. Reynolds. When she asked Ms. Reynolds whether the protester was fired for political reasons, Ms. Reynolds replied, “I cannot say that.”
[2]Article VIII, Section 11(f) 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.