Disgruntled Autoworker
<< Back to Homepage

NLRB Update, Appeal

In my previous Newsletter, DA # 38, I wrote that on 01.09.07 I went to the Baltimore Region 5 office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to file an unfair labor practice charge against UAW President Gettelfinger and International Rep Rick McKiddy. On 03.30.07 Region 5 sent me a Decision to Dismiss Letter. The following edited appeal letter was sent to the Washington DC NLRB office on 04.09.07. 


Dear General Counsel, I do hereby appeal NLRB Region 5’s decision to dismiss this Case.

          According to Region 5’s Dismissal Letter dated March 30, 2007, their reason to dismiss was predicated on the following assumption, “Here, although the April 4 statement made by Richard McKiddy was not complete or entirely accurate, and did not distinguish between preferential recall rights under area-hire provisions and recall rights under extended-area hire provisions, there is insufficient evidence to show this was anything more than an inadvertent error, not an attempt to purposely mislead employees by misrepresenting facts.”

          On April 4, 2006, UAW International Representative Richard McKiddy did state, matter of factly in front of 200 union members that, “Yes, you will have recall right to Allison Transmissions in White Marsh, MD if you are forced to the Wilmington plant,” and he did so as a GM Corporate Representative looked on and said nothing to correct or dispute his statement. (The GM Rep’s name is, should be, available through the Local via a video recording of that April 4th Union Hall meeting.)

          Two months later, on June 16, 2006, with Allison’s Plant Manager and Human Resource Manager looking on, Local 239 President Swanner stated that, “Yes you will have recall rights to the Allison plant if you’re forced to the Wilmington plant.” Again, GM/Allison’s Reps did not dispute or correct Swanner when he made the above statement to over two hundred of my coworkers who attended the Special June Meeting that was purposely scheduled to answer our questions that specifically related to Allison recall rights.

         Therefore, GM/Allison’s Reps should have had their facts straight about area-hire and extended-area hire provisions prior to that June meeting. It’s important to note that a video tape of that special June meeting and the April meeting are in the possession of the Local Communications Officer.

          Region 5 ruled to dismiss two previous Cases because, according to 10.26.06 letters, Local President “Fred Swanner mistakenly advised employees forced to Wilmington that they had recall rights to the White Marsh facility.” Those Cases are currently being appealed because my coworkers and I don’t believe Swanner mistakenly advised us at the June 2006 meeting, and several times prior to that meeting, that he was only repeating what McKiddy had said during the April 4, 2006 meeting.

          We don’t believe Swanner made a MISTAKE or that McKiddy made an INADVERTANT ERROR when they informed us of our recall rights, especially in light of the fact that a GM Corporate Rep was present at the April meeting and Two Allison Reps were present at the June meeting and neither the Corporate nor Company Reps corrected or disputed Swanner or McKiddy’s statements. Therefore, we do not believe Region 5 investigators gave serious consideration to the fact that the Corporate and Company Reps didn’t dispute or correct the misinformation my coworkers and I were given at those meetings.

          Furthermore, it is the Corporate and Company Reps and Swanner and McKiddy’s jobs to Know the UAW-GM National Agreement, and therefore their jobs to interpret and distinguish that which applies to our direct questions related to recall rights under area-hire or extended-area hire provisions of said National Agreement, regardless as to whether said National Agreement applies to the Allison plant, a fifty mile radius is still a fifty mile radius.   

          NLRB investigators need to subpoena the tapes of the April and June meetings and view them to understand that the line of questioning relating to recall rights were direct and to the point; and that Swanner and McKiddy’s answers were delivered in a matter of fact tone that left no room for misinterpretation by anyone present, especially by the Corporate and Company Reps. We believe the tapes will reveal that if MISTAKES or INADVERTANT ERRORS were made by Swanner or McKiddy, they were deliberate, because those same Corporate and Company Reps looked on and did not correct or dispute what we were told, and that which we believe they knew was false and misleading.

          Therefore, the odds are astronomical that All Five Reps, Two UAW, One GM Corporate and Two GM/Allison, made MISTAKES or INADVERTANT ERRORS when they informed us of recall rights, be they under area-hire or extended-area hire provisions. We believe this to be a blatant misrepresentation of the facts by All Five Reps for 7,000,000 reasons listed below.

          Unfortunately, Region 5’s investigations into the two previous Cases are focusing on the UAW’s secrecy surrounding the Allison Recall List, and its failure to provide requested documentation that extended our area hire status, both a concern to us; however, it fails to see that these incidents are but the tip of the iceberg that we believe hides the UAW-GM conspiracy to defraud 150 of my coworkers so GM can save approximately seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00) in transfer and attrition fees.

          I cite the $7,000,000 and the following as motivation to defraud. It is a known fact that U.S. Unions; UAW, Teamsters, SEIU, Carpenters, etc., have Cooperation Agreements with their Corporations or Companies. The Union’s primary obsession today is in saving their Corporations or Companies money, membership representation is secondary. The NLRB, DOL, DOJ, and most Government Officials know this to be true. Having stated that…………

          Based on the information my coworkers and I received from International and Local Reps with a GM Corporate Rep present at the April meeting, and Two Allison Transmission Reps present at the June meeting, we made the following life altering decisions;

The majority of my production coworkers decided to wait until March of 07, or March of 08, when the Allison jobs become available, to put their names on the List to transfer to the Allison plant because;

          Had coworkers known that they would not have recall rights to the Allison plant if they were forced to Wilmington; several stated they would have put their names on the List sooner and bumped those who had suspiciously added their names to the List at the last minute, indicating that *some may have had inside information about the forced transfer to Wilmington without recall rights. (*Our Shop Chairman, as well as elected, appointed, and several supporters of Local officials who may have had inside information about the forced transfer without recall rights, because they suddenly and without notice, retired, quit, or transferred and thereby collected lump sums of $35,000 to $140,000.)

          Or had coworkers known that they would not have recall rights to the Allison plant if they were forced to Wilmington, several said they would have taken advantage of the Special Attrition Program and retired or sold their time and collected lump sums of $35,000 to $140,000.

          Or had coworkers known that they would not have recall rights to the Allison plant if they were forced to Wilmington, several said they would have relocated to another plant under the UAW-GM National Agreement’s extended area hire program and collected $67,000 in relocation fees from the corporation.

          Therefore, while we appreciate that the Appeal of the two previous Cases are focusing on unfair labor practices we had overlooked, we request that the appeal of this Case focus on what we believe was deliberate deception and misrepresentation of the facts by UAW International and Local Reps, as GM and Allison Reps looked on, for the explicit purpose of saving GM seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00) in relocation and attrition fees when it forced 150 of my coworkers to Wilmington.

          In conclusion, based on the above, and on behalf of my coworkers, I ask the General Counsel to review this Case and reverse Region 5’s decision to dismiss and reinvestigate for reasons stated.

                                                                                                  Sincerely, Doug Hanscom






<< Back to Homepage