We Lost Our Jobs In An Unfair Labor Practices Strike - The Union Sold Out On Us!!

[earlcirelandjr]

What is the name of your state? I LIVED IN CONNECTICUT AT THAT TIME, BUT RECENTLY MOVED BACK TO NEW YORK.

Earl C. Ireland, Jr.
78-13 91st Avenue
Woodhaven, NY 11421
(718) 296-4281
Cell # (718) 640-5404
[email]earlcirelandjr@yahoo.com[/email]

September 14, 2005

WE HAVE SEARCHED, BUT ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY FINDING AN ATTORNEY WHO WILL TAKE OUR CASE. BUT WE ARE SO DETERMINED TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER THAT WE WILL SUE WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY IF POSSIBLE OR NEEDED. OUR CASE IS PRESENTED BELOW:


RE: Connecticut Limousine vs. Teamsters Local 443

Many of us drivers have long complained about the Teamsters Union, as (until a few weeks before the strike) it had always seemed rather lackadaisical in fairly representing us. However, because CT Limo (headquartered in Milford, CT, with offices in Hartford, and Jamaica, NY) had engaged in unfair labor practices, we ultimately decided to side with the union and go on strike 4 years ago. (Likewise, as a matter of principle, we believe that as long as we were forced to pay dues as a condition of employment, we were entitled to fair representation.)

Our strike began on 5/12/01, ostensibly because the company refused to continue to recognize,or negotiate with the union. In Sept. 2001, the NLRB ruled in favor of the union, and that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices. However, we soon began to suspect that there has been collusion or a sweetheart deal between CT Limo and Teamsters Local 443. In early March 2002 we were called to a meeting at the union hall, in which the union announced that the strike was over, ostensibly to allow us to return to work until a new contract could be negotiated. Of course, we know both sides have been in contempt, and have not negotiated.

Despite an agreement between the company and the union, only 2 of about 60 of us were ever called back to work. We were also told at the meeting that there would be no negotiating committee, other than by Sec. Robert Bayusik himself. (This alone suggests collusion. Not only does it violate the IBT principle of members' participation in the negotiation process, but if we cannot witness negotiations, how do we know what they are negotiating, or if they are even negotiating at all??) Although the NLRB ruled that the company and union must negotiate, we know that neither side is in compliance. The union has refused to communicate with us, its members, since the 3/6/02 meeting. Simply put, although the union won the case, it appears that they are now siding with the company (i.e. Telling us this line of drivel that the company has no jobs available, when in fact, we know that they have been advertising and hiring). I've written several letters to the office of James Hoffa, but they simply forward a copy to Bayusik, who then writes a response to me, and sends a copy to Hoffa's office.

In his letters, Bayusik is acting highly defensive, as well as evasive. Not only does he lie and distort certain facts, but he fails to answer our serious questions, i.e., Why is there no negotiating committee? Why have they refused to communicate with us, or give us any information (on "alleged negotiations") at all since 3/6/02? Why have they failed to file further charges against the company when it's obvious that the company is continuing to engage in unfair labor practices, and is not bargaining in good faith? As per the NLRA, the company has broken the law by not re-instating us. (It's important to remember that this was an unfair labor practices strike, not an economic strike. Therefore, we do have greater recall rights.) But the union has taken no action against the company on this. We believe the answer to our questions is that there is collusion or a sweetheart deal, even if we only have circumstantial evidence of it. Bayusik also fails to say why he added frivilous "Runaway Shop" charges to an appeal to the NLRB for retroactive pay for us. (We suspect he did it deliberately to cause the NLRB's denial, and thus sabotage our chances of returning to work with back pay.)

What is outrageous is the fact that this union forced us to pay dues and fees, and called on us to strike. Perhaps the strike was nothing more than a smoke screen to conceal their collusion. Even if by some chance there is no collusion, we still say that the union was negligent and irresponsible, in that it knew that CT Limo was so desperate to eliminate the union that the union would be unable to enforce a settlement. Collusion or not, the proper thing for the union to have done would have been to issue a disclaimer of interest, and not call a strike, in which case we would not have lost so much money.

The fact is, we believe the union is almost totally to blame for our situation, and we do want to sue the union for a reasonable amount to recover our financial loss from the strike, but are having a difficult time retaining an attorney without up-front fees. I spoke to at least one lawyer who agrees that we have a good case (the union has obviously breached its duty of fair representation of its members).

We have also contacted the Independent Review Board (Joseph Di Genova, et.al.). However, they do not disclose much information, and it is our understanding that their investigations may take a long time.

Considering the circumstances described above, I believe there is a good chance that Local 443 or Bayusik may want to avoid going to trial by settling this matter out of court. We just need to initiate a lawsuit.

What we really want is some form of compensation for our lost pay during the strike, and all the time in which the union failed to deal with the fact that we were never called back to work. If you know of any attorney who can help us, please let us know.

Sincerely,
Earl Ireland, et. al.