February 8, 1999
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
Eloise Hanson
1332 Bunbury Drive
Whittier, CA 90601
Annette Candelaria
846 S. Greenberry Drive
West Covina, CA 91790
Irene Mata
633 N. Howard Avenue, # 309
Montebello, CA 90640
Michael J. Riley, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 986
1616 W. Ninth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Mary Lou Salmeron
2359 N. Cameron Avenue
Covina, CA 91724
George Pappy, Esq.
Pappy & Davis
2550 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 501
Burbank, CA 91505
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-147-LU986-PNW
Gentlepersons:
Eloise Hanson, Annette Candelaria and Irene Mata, members and employees of Local Union 986, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against “all the officers . . . and staff members” of Local Union 986. The protesters provided sworn statements in an investigation which, in part, was the basis for the Election Officer’s decision in Moriarty, PR-056-LU986-EOH (April 27, 1998), aff’d, 98- Elec. App. 353 (KC) (June 3, 1998). The protesters, individually and collectively, alleged that the charged parties have retaliated against them due to their participation as witnesses in Moriarty by the following actions:
(1) Reprimanding Ms. Candelaria and warning Ms. Hanson for actions without just cause;
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
(2) Manufacturing and reporting minor incidents of possible misconduct and including the reports in the protesters’ personnel files to facilitate and justify their eventual termination;
(3) Depriving Ms. Candelaria of current work duties and assigning her lower-graded work;
(4) Depriving the protesters of privileges granted to the other clerical employees, including participation in work-sponsored birthday parties and overtime work;
(5) Furthering a hostile working environment by distributing letters to the entire staff of Local Union 986 that criticized the protesters’ actions in making witness statements; and
(6) Engaging in employment practices that serve to harass and to intimidate the protesters.
Local Union 986 admitted and denied the allegations as follows:
(1) Local Union 986 admitted reprimanding Ms. Candelaria, but denied any connection between the reprimand and Ms. Candelaria’s protest activity and denied warning Ms. Hanson;
(2) Local Union 986 denied manufacturing incidents to report on the protesters in order to facilitate and to justify their eventual termination;
(3) Local Union 986 denied changing Ms. Candelaria’s work duties in response to her protest activity;
(4) Local Union 986 denied the charge of denying the protesters work privileges granted to the other clerical staff;
(5) Local Union 986 admitted to circulating the letters in question but denied any retaliatory motive in the circulation; and
(6) Local Union 986 denied engaging in practices to harass the protesters.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Christine Mrak and Director of Campaign Finance Leslie Deak. During the investigation, Ms. Mrak took statements from the protesters, took the depositions of several local union officers and employees and reviewed hundreds of other documents.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
I. Statement of the Case
During the investigation of Moriarty, the Election Officer was advised by the Independent Review Board (“IRB”) that it had received and was investigating a complaint that the clerical staff of Local Union 986 had been coerced into contributing to an independent committee that was controlled by Mary Lou Salmeron, then-candidate for International trustee and the office manager of Local Union 986. Due to the serious nature of the allegations, the Election Officer included them in the investigation.
In his decision dated April 27, 1998, the Election Officer concluded that Ms. Salmeron had coerced employees under her direct supervision into making contributions to her campaign and that of Mr. Hoffa. The Election Officer based his finding that Ms. Salmeron coerced her subordinates largely on the testimony of the protesters. Ms. Salmeron was disqualified as a candidate in the International Officer Rerun Election due to her coercive actions.
In the initial decision, the Election Officer did not identify witnesses by name, referring generally to the testimony of clerical workers at Local Union 986. The Election Appeals Master remanded the case to the Election Officer for more detailed responses on specific issues, after which, the Election Appeals Master affirmed the decision in its entirety. In the remand decision, the Election Officer identified the three protesters as three of the five witnesses to the coercion and credited their testimony. Neither Ms. Salmeron nor any aggrieved party, appealed the Election Appeals Master’s affirmance to the District Court.
The protesters filed the instant allegations of retaliation, which they allege began shortly after the remand decision in Moriarty issued.
II. Findings of Fact
On January 1, 1998, the IRB notified the employees at Local Union 986 that they would be conducting depositions on January 13, 1998. Among those notified of the depositions were the three protesters, Helen Bryant and Anne Kyle, then clerical employees of Local Union 986, Carol Collins, a clerical worker at Local Union 986, Theresa Chambers, a secretary at Local Union 986, Carmen Lopez, the bookkeeper at Local Union 986, Ms. Salmeron, and Michael Riley, the secretary-treasurer of Local Union 986. On January 6, 1998, the local union held a general staff meeting with its attorney, George Pappy, who informed the employees that he would represent them in the depositions. In the depositions on January 13, all the clerical employees and all the managers of Local Union 986 were represented by Mr. Pappy except for the three protesters, Ms. Bryant and Ms. Kyle.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
On April 27, 1998, the Election Officer issued Moriarty, disqualifying Ms. Salmeron. The protesters stated that after the decision was issued, Ms. Salmeron, Fay Powell Riley, the executive secretary for Local Union 986, the other clerical workers and even a number of the business agents ostracized them for their statements to the IRB. According to Ms. Hanson, Don Thornsberg, a business agent at Local Union 986, called the following day at 7:10 a.m. and told Ms. Hanson that the individuals who testified against Ms. Salmeron were “vicious persons who stabbed Mary Lou in the back” by testifying untruthfully that Ms. Salmeron coerced them into making campaign contributions. Ms. Hanson stated that Mr. Thornsberg stated that “we” know who testified against Ms. Salmeron because they did not have Mr. Pappy represent them.
On April 29, 1998, John Harren, the president of Local Union 986, made statements to a witness regarding the protesters. According to the witness, Mr. Harren stated that the protesters perjured themselves and “one day they’re going to have to pay for it.” On April 30, 1998,
Mr. Riley made statements to the same witness regarding the protesters. According to the witness, Mr. Riley stated that, “all those ladies lied . . . they perjured themselves. . . . You know those girls will be blackballed out of the union for what they did. No other union would ever touch these girls after what they did.” Mr. Riley denied making those statements.
The protesters state that, in general, the demeanor of managers and the other clerical workers became distinctly hostile towards them. They stated that Ms. Riley and Ms. Salmeron stopped speaking to them casually, as they had in the past, and would avoid speaking with them regarding work issues.
Starting Friday, May 1, 1998, Local Union 986 moved to a new office. All clerical workers were to work overtime on Saturday and Sunday, May 1 and 2, and workers who were not normally scheduled to work Friday received overtime for working that day. Ms. Candelaria had spoken to Ms. Salmeron on March 30, 1998, and again on April 6, 1998, about only working half a day on May 2 due to a family obligation. According to Ms. Candelaris, Ms. Salmeron had agreed both times that Ms. Candelaria could work and receive overtime for the half day. On April 30, 1998, Ms. Salmeron told Ms. Candelaria that she would have to speak to Ms. Riley about only working half a day on Saturday. When Ms. Candelaria spoke to Ms. Riley, Ms. Riley first insisted that the overtime work was mandatory, but then said she would check with
Mr. Riley after Ms. Candelaria told her that Ms. Salmeron had previously given her permission to work only a half day. After checking with Mr. Riley, Ms. Riley told Ms. Candelaria that she should not work at all that day. As a result, Ms. Candelaria did not work on Saturday and did not receive any overtime pay.
In deposition testimony, Ms. Salmeron stated that she remembered Ms. Candelaria speaking to her about her conflict prior to the move. Ms. Salmeron testified that Ms. Candelaria had not stated that she could work a half day, but that she could work only a couple of hours. Ms. Salmeron testified that she therefore viewed it as not worth Ms. Candelaria reporting for work.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
As the office continued to complete the move the week of May 3, all of the clerical staff were required to work on Friday, May 8, 1998. According to Ms. Hanson’s regular work schedule, she was not supposed to work Friday, May 8. On May 7, Ms. Hanson called the office and inquired whether she should work on Friday. She was advised that she should not come in on Friday, but she could work on Saturday. As Ms. Hanson had a prior commitment on Saturday, she did not earn any overtime pay for those days.
In May, 1998, Ms. Candelaria’s job duties began to change. Ms. Candelaria had been promoted from TITAN operator to secretary in 1993, and received higher pay and a change in duties from dues posting to secretarial duties. The secretarial duties included typing correspondence, opening and distributing mail, and being responsible for office equipment.
Ms. Chambers and Ms. Candelaria were responsible for opening and distributing mail, alternating the duty and covering for each other when one was absent. Ms. Riley relied upon Ms. Candelaria, along with Ms. Salmeron, Ms. Lopez and Ms. Chambers, to complete her duties when she was absent. Prior to 1998, Ms. Riley consistently named Ms. Candelaria on written memoranda as a person responsible for her duties during her absence. Ms. Candelaria stated that she believed her promotion put her on a career track to a management position and that
Ms. Salmeron told Mr. Harren that she was management material.
However, after the Moriarty decision, many of Ms. Candelaria’s secretarial duties were removed. While previously business agents (“BAs”) had given typing work directly to
Ms. Candelaria, at least six BAs stopped giving her correspondence to type and the only typing work she was assigned came from Ms. Chambers. Beginning in May, Ms. Riley took the distribution of mail away from Ms. Candelaria, leaving Ms. Salmeron and Ms. Chambers to do it. In 1998, Ms. Candelaria was not named in any memoranda from Ms. Riley regarding additional duties during Ms. Riley’s absences. Additionally, Ms. Candelaria was assigned more dues-posting work than previously.
Ms. Salmeron testified that Ms. Candelaria’s work may have changed after January, 1998, because the workload continually varies and changes. She stated that, initially,
Ms. Candelaria was given more posting work to do because they had a vacancy in the TITAN operators. Ms. Salmeron stated that Ms. Candelaria’s mail duties were then taken away from her because it appeared that she had too much work with the additional TITAN postings.
Ms. Salmeron and Ms. Riley both denied that Ms. Candelaria’s work duties were changed due to her testimony before the IRB and the Election Officer’s decision. Ms. Salmeron denied stating that Ms. Candelaria was management material. Ms. Mata and Ms. Hanson, however, corroborate that Ms. Salmeron had made statements to this effect prior to the IRB testimony. According to Ms. Candelaria, Ms. Salmeron even suggested to her that she might one day assume
Ms. Salmeron’s job when she retired.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
On May 18, 1998, Mr. Riley informed the clerical staff through a memorandum of new lunch and break schedules. Instead of staggered lunches starting at 12:00 p.m., the memorandum stated that all clerical staff would take their lunch break from 11:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. The memorandum also stated that morning and afternoon breaks would be taken in two shifts, at set times. The staff was divided into two shifts, with Ms. Salmeron, Ms. Riley, Ms. Lopez, and the three protesters in the first shift, and the remaining clerical workers in the second shift.
The protesters claimed that the break schedule was changed in order to enable management to monitor their conversations and activity during their breaks. They stated that, for the past ten years, breaks had been staggered throughout the morning depending when it was most convenient for each worker to take their break. Ms. Riley testified in deposition that she typed the memorandum and she and Ms. Salmeron assigned the clerical workers to the break shifts. She stated that the breaks were consolidated into shifts in order to make it easier to track where the clerical staff were. She denied assigning the protesters to the break shift with herself, Ms. Salmeron and Ms. Lopez to enable them to monitor the activity of the protesters. She stated the break assignments were largely random, except that Ms. Hanson and the relief switchboard operator had to be on different shifts.
For the past ten years, the clerical staff kept a fund of five dollars per employee per month for birthdays and bought a pie on the birthday of each clerical staff member and a small gift. In 1998, the clerical workers stopped contributing to the fund, but the local union continued to purchase the pies out of the petty cash fund. Since 1994, Ms. Candelaria had ordered and picked up the pies for each of the birthdays. On June 16, 1998, Ms. Candelaria asked Ms. Lopez about the purchase of a pie for Martha Fields’s birthday the next day. Ms. Lopez told her that Ms. Riley decided to discontinue the practice of purchasing pies on staff members’ birthdays. Ms. Candelaria went to Ms. Salmeron, who confirmed Ms. Lopez’s information.
The following morning, another clerical worker, Carol Collins, arrived approximately one hour late. About half-an-hour later, Ms. Collins called all of the clerical workers except the three protesters into the kitchen and they celebrated Ms. Fields’s birthday on work time with a cake she brought with her own money.
On July 7, Mr. Thornsberg came into the office with an animal skull on a stick, waved it around, and said he was ridding the office of “evil spirits.” The protesters stated that they believed they were the evil spirits to which he referred. In his deposition, Mr. Thornsberg denied he waved the stick around the clerical area or that he said anything there about evil spirits. His testimony is contradicted by Misses Salmeron, Collins and Chambers who concede that the conduct occurred but assert that he was “just being Don” and not aiming his remarks at the protesters. Two months later, on September 30, Mr. Thornsberg brought a voodoo doll into the office to “ward off evil spirits.” He simultaneously distributed what he referred to as “lucky charms,” souvenirs from his recent trip to Africa. He gave souvenirs to every clerical employee except the protesters.
Ms. Candelaria was reprimanded for an incident that arose from an apparent attempt to respond to Mr. Thornsberg’s actions. On July 7, 1998, Ms. Chambers reported Ms. Candelaria to Ms. Salmeron for having a “secret” tape recorder in her possession which she heard when
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
Ms. Candelaria was rewinding or fast-forwarding it. Ms. Candelaria claims she was on her way to Ms. Salmeron’s office and had the tape recorder because she wanted to record her report to Ms. Salmeron of Mr. Thornsberg’s conduct that morning. After Ms. Chambers reported
Ms. Candelaria to Ms. Salmeron, Ms. Salmeron called Ms. Candelaria into her office.
Ms. Salmeron did not immediately take any disciplinary action bur advised Mr. Riley of the incident. When Mr. Riley returned to the office several days later, he summoned Ms. Candelaria to his office and in the presence of several staff members issued her a written reprimand and a verbal rebuke. Ms. Candelaria was not offered any opportunity to explain the presence of the tape recorder. Mr. Riley testified that if he had been present on the day this occurred, he would have fired Ms. Candelaria on the spot.
On September 30, 1998, Mr. Riley distributed a memo to “All Office Personnel” which stated “The attached was received in this office and is for your information.” Attached to the memo was a letter to Mr. Riley from Franklin L. Gallegos, President of Teamster Local 890. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Mike:
I have received this fax with no name on it, plus the decision of Mike Cherkasky, Election Officer, with a self righteous, biased conclusion of Mike’s decision.
While I have read the one page fax and the decision of Mike Cherkasky, I have come to the conclusion that some of the clerical were being professional, honest secretaries when they said they would contribute to that Fund without asking any questions about it, because they thought it was voluntary.
The other secretaries who thought they were not doing it voluntarily were not professional secretaries at all. They should have brought it to your attention and the attention of Mary Lou Salmeron that they did not want to participate in it and that their wages and the contribution should have been in two separate meetings. They are smart enough to know what they should be or should not be doing. By their remaining silent, it tells me they were being dishonest to their employer and to themselves.
As a result of all this, they have disqualified a more qualified person to be elected to the International Executive Board and have done a disservice to all Teamsters. Although I was a supporter of Ron Carey, I do not believe their silence justifies a disqualification.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
Attached to Mr. Gallegos’ letter was an anonymous letter which reads as follows:
I have received these documents in the mail and I feel I must share them with you. These documents are regarding the decision given by the IRB/IBT on Mary Lou Salmeron’s disqualification for candidacy for International Trustee on the Hoffa Slate.
I have read these documents through and I now understand what really transpired. I read testimonies of our Sister Salmeron and other staff members and see exactly why our sister was disqualified.
I want to share these points with you so that we can all learn form the mistakes that were made by Mary Lou Salmeron and her advisors.
The first lesson is, make sure that you pick, very carefully, who your advisors are. The chosen ones would be well schooled in the IBT International Union Delegate and Officers Election “Rules.” Salmerons first mistake and a crucial one at that.
In reading her testimony, she herself destroyed her only chance in running for office. She was not aware of the do’s and don’ts in running for trustee.
It also, makes it very clear that the testimony of the clerical staff is secondary. I learned not to take the chance in placing yourself or your staff in a predicament that Mary Lou Salmeron and her advisors put them in.
If Mary Lou Salmeron and her advisors had read and followed the rules and regulations as set forth for anyone that makes the decision to run for office, then there would not have been an investigation that opened the doors to questioning the staff on the issues that were in question.
On October 5, the following letter came to Local Union 986 through the U.S. mail. Mr. Riley admits that he had the letter copied and distributed to the entire office staff:
OPEN LETTER
ANNETTE CANDELARIA -- HELEN BRYANT -- ELOISE HANSEN -- ANNE KYLE -- IRENE MATA
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
Having read a copy of the Election’s Officer report and testimony on why Mary Lou Salmeron has been disqualified to run for Trustee in the IBT election, I feel compelled to write this letter.
I am a long time Hispanic member of the Teamsters Union and have watched people come and go -- but I have never read anything so vindictive and self-centered as the testimony given by you 5.
You 5 are a disgrace to your race -- you are a disgrace to the Teamsters -- and a disgrace to the Teamsters womens movement.
If you are privileged to have had children -- you are a disgrace to your children.
If you are married, you are a disgrace to your spouse.
I can only assume you were “paid” to say what you did, otherwise, the assumption must be that you 5 are so unintelligent and uneducated as to understand that giving false testimony is perjury.
It would have been a wonderful tribute to our Hispanic Community as well as the Teamsters Union to have a high caliber individual like Mary Lou Salmeron as the first Hispanic Woman on the IBT Executive Board, a tribute to your Local 986, a tribute to your Joint Council 42.
You 5 should crawl back under the rocks you came from and stay there as there is not a place for you in the Teamsters Union. Since you 5 put yourselves ahead of the good of the organization and your brothers and sisters of the Teamsters Union you no longer have any value or worth to anyone in this union or any organization.
UNSIGNED (as I am sorry to admit that you 5 have made the need for such a letter to be written)
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE TO ALL TEAMSTERS.)
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
There are numerous other incidents involving rudeness, unnecessary use of commanding or accusatory tones or giving the protesters the “cold shoulder.” It also appears from the protesters’ personnel files that Ms. Riley began making documented entries into their files critical of them after they gave testimony to the IRB. Ms. Hanson alleges that she has had several accusatory conversations with Ms. Riley, Mr. Thornsberg and Ms. Salmeron regarding her message taking. For example, on August 7, 1998, Ms. Hanson was called into a meeting with Ms. Riley, Ms. Salmeron and Ms. Lopez and accused of taking notes on work time, have medical restrictions due to carpal tunnel, being forgetful and being rude. Ms. Salmeron and
Ms. Riley testified that this was non-disciplinary.
III. Conclusions
The Rules are very explicit on the subject of retaliation for the exercise of political rights. 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.
Retaliation is a violation considered so serious that it available to members post-election regardless of whether it meets other post-election protest criteria. See Article XIV,
Section 3(a)(3). To demonstrate retaliation, the protesters must show that conduct protected by the Rules, such as providing evidence for a protest decision, was a motivating factor in the adverse decision or conduct in dispute. The Election Officer will not find retaliation if he concludes that the union officer or entity would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protester’s protected conduct. See Eckstein, PR-135-IBT-SCE (August 14, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 369 (KC) (September 8, 1998).
This protection is juxtaposed against the right of the local union to conduct its legitimate business and to set its priorities during the International Officer Rerun Election process. Id.
It is sometimes difficult to discern what activities are within management’s prerogative and what is truly retaliation. This case, however, is replete with examples of retaliatory conduct that occurred after the Election Officer’s decision to disqualify Mary Lou Salmeron based on the protesters’ testimony. While Mr. Riley and the other managers of Local Union 986 do not control all conduct which occurs in the local union, after the protesters provided testimony and after the decision in Moriarty identified the protesters, the evidence summarized here shows that Mr. Riley either fostered or permitted an atmosphere of intimidation, harassment and retaliation.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
An example of this conduct is Mr. Riley’s distribution to the entire staff of the letters that criticized the protesters for their role in the investigation of Ms. Salmeron’s coercive extraction of campaign donations. Although Mr. Riley claimed this was to advise the staff of members’ views, the letters on their face had no purpose other than to criticize the protesters for their participation in an investigation that exposed serious misconduct. These letters were attacks on the protesters’ loyalty to their boss, and argued that good employees would have concealed the truth about coercion for the benefit of their superior. Mr. Riley’s sponsorship of the letters shows that he intended to intimidate and to isolate the protesters’ for their actions, and to discourage others from cooperating with the Election Officer or the IRB. Moreover, the local union has tolerated management officials, without recourse or discipline, referring to the protesters as “evil spirits,” “liars” and other labels.
There also appear to be several instances when the protesters were singled out for verbal reprimands, discussions or work load assignments which were not given to other clerical employees. While the Election Officer recognizes that the local union needs to be able to discipline and to reprimand where just cause exists, the occurrence of this conduct after the Election Officer’s ruling in Moriarty is probative of a retaliatory motive.
The Election Officer points out the tape recorder incident with Ms. Candelaria as an example. Ms. Candelaria was not observed taping anything -- she merely had a tape recorder in her possession. There appeared to be no local union rule against tape recorders. Yet, Ms. Candelaria was reprimanded for the conduct. While the local union is certainly entitled to issue a non-disciplinary letter of instruction to all employees, the reprimands were harsh, unprecedented and unjustified.
Therefore, the Election Officer specifically finds that the following incidents occurred to retaliate and to harass the protesters’ due to their testimony to the IRB supporting the Moriarty decision: 1) threats and harassment by Mr. Herran, Mr. Riley and Mr. Thornsberg; 2) increased criticism of work and denial of overtime; 3) changes in work load and assignments;
4) dissemination of letters and memos critical of the protesters and 5) the unjustified discipline of Ms. Candelaria.[1]
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED as to the findings set forth above.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, he “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.
Accordingly the Election Officer orders that Mr. Riley and Local Union 986 take the following actions:
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
1. All Local Union 986 officers, staff and business agents, will cease and desist from :
a) referring to any of the protesters as liars, saboteurs or any similar language with regard to any conduct or testimony given to the Election Officer or the Independent Review Board;
b) discriminating against the protesters with regard to overtime opportunities, work assignments, promotions and sick leave procedures (any policy adopted must apply equally to all clerical staff employees);
c) harassing or reprimanding the protesters for minor conduct which was previously not criticized or is not recognized and dealt with equally among all clerical employees.
2. All Local Union 986 officers, staff and business agents will cease and desist from disseminating and distributing letters and memoranda to staff which are critical of the protesters conduct in filing protests or providing evidence to the Election Officer or the IRB.
3. Within five (5) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Riley will sign and post the following “Notice to all Members and Staff of Local Union 986” on all bulletin boards inside the local union’s offices and halls. The notice shall remain posted for 90 days.
4. Within five (5) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Riley will expunge the reprimand involving the tape recorder from Ms. Candelaria’s personnel file and any other employment files. The reprimand may not be used or referred to in any future personnel actions involving Ms. Candelaria.
5. Within five (5) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Riley will expunge the following documents from the personnel files of Annette Candelaria, Irene Mata and Eloise Hansen and any other employment files.
a) Regarding Annette Candelaria, the following documents shall be expunged:
1) memo dated July 7, 1998 with an unknown author involving the discovery of a tape recorder;
2) memo signed by Mary Lou Salmeron describing the event of July 7, 1998, involving the tape recorder;
3) memo of July 7, 1998 authored by Carol D. Collins;
4) memo dated July 21, 1998, involving a meeting between Mr. Riley and Ms. Candelaria authored by Ms. Lopez; and
5) memo dated September 8, 1998 with an attached letter regarding Ms. Candelaria alleged failure to get out a letter.
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
b) Regarding Eloise Hansen, the following documents shall be expunged:
1) document from mls which states “4/30/98 Cautioned Elosie [sic] of date stamping grievances incorrectly, a grievance was received in 986 on April 30, 1998 and date stamped May 4, 1998 (Richard Sena/ Arco member);”
2) undated document from setting forth “incidents” involving Ms. Hansen on 5/7/98, 5/13/98, 6/3/98, 6/4/98, 6/11/98;
3) document dated 6/4/98 from mls regarding an “incident” involving a telephone call from Danny Cortez; 3) document dated July 22, 1998, involving messages left for “MJR” on Ms. Hansen’s desk;
4) memo dated 8/7/98 from Carmen Lopez involving “incident” between Mr. Riley and Ms. Hansen; and
5) undated and unsigned document listing “incidents” on 6/3/98, 6/4/98, 8/3/98, 8/4/98, 8/10/98, 8/12/98, 8/13/98 and 8/20/98.
c) Regarding Irene Mata, the following documents shall be expunged:
1) a document dated June 24, 1998 entitled “Office Memo” to “Faye, Marylou , Marti” authored by Ms. Mata with a note from “flp.”
These documents shall not be used or referred to in any future personnel actions involving the protesters.
6. Within ten (10) days of the date of this decision, Mr. Riley shall file an affidavit with the Election Officer detailing his compliance with this order.
Finally, as this retaliation and harassment arises out of testimony given to the Independent Review Board, the Election Officer also refers this matter to the IRB for any other further action which may be appropriate.
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).
Eloise Hanson
February 8, 1999
Page 1
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Charles M. Carberry, Office of the Chief Investigator, IRB
Christine M. Mrak, Regional Coordinator
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND STAFF OF LOCAL UNION 986 |
IBT Election Officer Michael G. Cherkasky has found that the officers and staff of Local Union 986 have harassed and retaliated against Local Union 986 clerical staff members Eloise Hanson, Annette Candelaria and Irene Mata for testimony they each provided to the Independent Review Board which was relied upon in a case decided by the Election Officer in Moriarty, PR-056-LU986-EOH (April 27, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 353 (KC) (June 3, 1998).
The Election Officer has ordered me and the local union to do the following:
1) Cease and desist from referring to any of the protesters as liars, saboteurs or any similar language with regard to any conduct or testimony given to the Election Officer or the Independent Review Board;
2) Cease and desist from discriminating against the protesters with regard to overtime opportunities, work assignments, promotions and sick leave procedures (any policy adopted will apply equally to all clerical staff employees);
3) Cease and desist from harassing or reprimanding the protesters for minor conduct which was previously not criticized or is not recognized and dealt with equally among all clerical employees. In addition, I have been ordered to cease and desist from disseminating and distributing letters and memoranda to staff which are critical of the protesters.
Finally, I have been ordered to remove the reprimand in Ms. Candelaria’s personnel file and other documents from the personnel files of the protesters.
________________________ _____________________________
Date Michael Riley
Secretary-Treasurer
This is an official notice which must remain posted for ninety (90) days from the date of signing. This notice must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.
Approved by Michael G. Cherkasky, IBT Election Officer.
[1] The Election Officer does not find that the change in break times which applied to the entire staff, or failure to include the protesters in a private birthday celebration, are evidence of retaliation or harassment.