|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Please review the Dave Sparks, International Rep case, (One of their own) that took sixteen years in court to vindicate his claim he was wrongfully discharged (Failure of Duty of Fair Representation) by the International.
Other than the cesspool politics of the International and Staff Council, they practice on themselves, the same lies, deception, etc., that they use on us I believe beyond a shadow of doubt, the May 13, 1983 letter signed by Stephen P. Yokich, VP of the UAW at that time, establishes the International bought into Joint Programs to save themselves, and we became a company Union. According to affidavits in this court documentation, staffing levels were at 1000 members. It has to be remembered that the Canadian Auto Workers did not leave the UAW until 1985 and probably accounted for, around 200-250 International Staff Reps. Today's staffing levels according to DOL 5500 reports stands at approximately 486. International Reps assigned, paid by and through GM, Chrysler and Ford Joint Funds, is probably around 250-300 International Reps. Joint Funds comes from our overtime penalty money.
In 1983, this was either a cosmic event (I don't believe in coincidence) or it happened through design, the International bought into Joint Funds arrangements (advancing the companies agenda) that averted massive layoffs and retirements of International Staff. The self serving interests, political corruption and corruption, in the International have compromised the very foundation of what UNIONS as a whole and what our UAW should stand for. Only hand full of us saw it for what it really was. What are the damages to the membership? We should be receiving higher pay. Better retirement benefits (Other major Unions are receiving $3000 a month plus their SS on top of that. We are getting $1200 a month and SS.) Wide disparity. You can't afford to retire. The Auto Companies had the money in this last contract and our Int. failed to raise our retirement to levels of other major Unions. Our International and Representatives are receiving phenomenal retirement benefits and have had COLA on their pensions since 1976. We still do not have COLA.
Tom Adams's assessment of the role Joint Funds played in his Buick Labor History Project and paper on UAW Inc.: The Cooperative Politics and Ideological Realignment of the UAW, is just the start of telling the story of a Union that had its soul sold.
If we can prove with the Joint Fund information, we have coming, the relationship between the International Union, Staff Council and Company influenced our right under 1959 Labor Management Reporting Act, 433. SEE attached information of, Report of employers: (b) ...............
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1996
UAW settles lawsuit
Will pay ex-labor leader $553,013 in damages
BV RICK ZARBAUGH
Chief Reporter and Political Writer
Dave Sparks' 13-year long battle with the united Auto Workers to prove he was unjustly fired ended yesterday when the union chose to pay Sparks $553,013 in damages and drop an appeal to the U.S. Supreme court. The former labor leader, who lives in Amherst, sued the union in U.S. District Court shortly after he was fired as staff representative for the UAW's Cleveland regional office by former director William Casstevens. " I am happy with them paying off," said sparks " I always knew I was right and I don't like that the union waited so long to admit it."
Attorney Harold Dunn of Detroit, who represented Sparks, said he was notified by the union's staff attorney yesterday that the check for $553,013 would be in his hands today.
"We will go back into federal court at a later date and ask for legal fees estimated at $400,000," said Dunn.
It took 11 years for the case to come to trial, but in 1994 a federal jury awarded Sparks $500,000 from the U.A.W. A magistrate lowered the verdict to $375,000, but tacked on interest retroactive to 1986, which brought the total to $533,013.
The magistrate also ordered the UAW to pay Sparks $1,418 a month in pension benefits.
International Union, UAW
LM-2 1997
File No. 000-149
SUPPLEMENT TO LINE 24
1. Sparks v. UAW& Staff Council, 6th Cir. No. 97-3892. Litigation by International Representative arising out of his discharge by the International Union in 1983. Jury verdict, as affirmed by Sixth Circuit, paid. On a second remand, the trial court held the International Union liable for $188,055 in attorney fees, and co-defendant Staff Council liable for an additional $945. Sparks has taken another appeal contesting that allocation, but not the total of $189,000. The Sixth Circuit has not yet decided this appeal. In the opinion of counsel, the International Union's liability will not exceed $189,000.
FILES: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit, 524 U.S. Post Office &
Courthouse, Cincinnati, OH 45202
2. Tort Cases in Central Illinois: The International Union, UAW is one of the defendants in a series of cases, brought at various dates in 1993 and 1994, by plaintiffs who crossed the picketlines in the UAWs labor dispute with an employer. The litigation is, we are informed, funded by the employer itself, through a trust fund. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel, and the legal claims are largely identical. The claim is that the UAW and the relevant Local inflicted, or authorized and ratified the infliction of, severe emotional distress* and related injuries, on plaintiff(s) because they crossed the picketline. The cases, as listed below, are in discovery. In the opinion of counsel, the International Union has meritorious defenses, which are both legal and factual. It has and will continue to oppose these suits vigorously. The International Union's insurer is participating in the defense of these suits under a reservation of rights.
Tazewell County Circuit Court, Illinois. Ten (10) of the cases remain pending in this Court: Webb v. UAW & Local 974, No. 93-L-66; Cashion v. UAW& Local 974, No. 93-L-174; Owens v. UAW& Local 974, No. 93L-173; Hageman v. UAW & Local 974, No. 94-L-35; Roberts v. UAW & Local 974, No. 94-L-36; Frakes v. UAW & Local 974,- No. 94-L-39; Mangan v. UAW& Local 974, No. 94-L-48; Stanton v. UAW& Local 974, No. 94-L-49; Buysee v. UAW& Local 974, No. 94-L-50; Wade v. UAW& Local 974, No. 94-L-160.
FILES: Circuit Clerk, Tazewell County, Courthouse, Pekin, IL 61554
Peoria County Circuit Court, Illinois. Ten (10) of the cases remain pending in the Court: Mustard v. UAW & Local 974, No. 93-L-644; Haynes v.
IN THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID J. SPARKS,
Plaintiffs,
VS. CASE NO. C66-1154
INTERNATIONAL UNION,UAW, ET AL,
Defendants,
DEPOSITION OF GARY BRANDT
Gary Brandt taken on Direct Examination before Bonnie L. Sabados, a Notary Public for the State of Ohio, by the Defendant in this case, pursuant to stipulations of counsel hereinafter set forth at the offices of Bobulsky, Grdina & Altier, 2036 E. Prospect, Ashtabula, Ohio, on Friday, September 10, 1993 at 4:00 p.m.
Bonnie L. Sabados
Court Reporter
804 Detroit Street
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
(216)593-3089
12
1 Q. Were you familiar with the existence of
2 Such funds in all of the other regions of the
3 International Union?
4 A. I heard -- I wasn't personally aware of
5 them, but I heard other regions did have flower
6 funds, yes.
7 Q. What were the purpose of those funds,
8 Mr. Brandt?
9 A. Generally, it was for the use of doing
10 things at conventions, and doing things for members,
11 and Used it sometimes to defray staff meetings, and
12 used it for summer schools, at least that was my
13 knowledge of it.
14 (Off the record.)
15 BY MR. BOBULSKY:
16 Q. Who maintained and administered that
17 fund, Mr. Brandt?
18 A. The Regional Director.
19 Q. And was that the case throughout the
20 period of time that You were on the staff of Region
21 2?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I want to ask. YOU specifically whether
24 contributions to that fund were, mandatory on the part
25 of the staff representatives of Region 2?
13
1 A. No, they were not mandatory.
2 Q. And in fact, were you directly familiar
3 with various staff International representatives who
4 did not contribute to that fund?
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Were those funds -- contribution to those
7 funds mandatory anywhere in the United Auto Workers
8 International Union that you were familiar with?
9 A. None that I was familiar with, no.
10 Q. And, in fact, Mr. Brandt, did you always
11 contribute yourself to that fund?
12 A. Not always.
13 Q. Were those contributions, Mr. Brandt, an
14 expression of anything an the part of the people that
15 chose to contribute to it?
16 A. It was generally noted that that was a
17 way of saying that you supported the administration.
18 They had administration caucuses. They had regional
19 caucuses. And that was one way of showing support
20 for the director.
21 Q. And was that always your understanding of
22 it, sir?
23 A. yes.
24 Q. And was that the understanding that the
25 staff in general had, if you know? 6 Q , I ro
THE UAW STAFF COUNCIL
8731 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 49214
Phone: (313) 9265573 or 926 5574
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE STAFF COUNCIL MEETING
HELD IN DETROIT AUGUST 24th & 25th - l983
The Officers elected for the upcoming term were:
DARRYL GREER - Chairman
PAT CLANCEY - Vice Chairman
HARRY HUFFMAN - -Secretary-Treasurer
TOP COMMITTEE
GENE POHL
OWEN HAMMONS
ELWOOD BLACK
BRAD STEWART
FIRST ALTERNATE - TOP C0MMITTEE - JERRY BALE
SECOND ALTERNATE - TOP COMMITTEE - DOUG CARRAVIAGGIO
The only oppositions to the slate were:
HARRY DAVIS Region 2A, Staff Rep. for TOP COMMITTEE
JOHN COLLINS, Staff Rep. out of AG-IMP DEPT. for FIRST ALTERNATE
I cast Region 2's 17 votes for both Harry Davis and John Collins;
however, both were beaten by a 4 - 1 margin.
The major discussion of the two-day conference centered around the first arbitration case held in Cleveland by Theodore Dykes concerning Dave Sparks' two weeks disciplinary layoff. There was much argument raised against Darryl Greer for the way in which he handled this case. The general consensus was that once he had committed a case to arbitration he should have stayed and argued the case. Failing to do this, he should have withdrawn the grievance from arbitration not allowing Arbitrator Dykes to rule on the matter. Darryl agreed that he made a mistake and in the future they would screen grievances more prudently as well as being more selective in choosing arbitrators.
Darryl Greer, Chairman Harry Huffman Secretary-Treasurer
Pat Clancey, Vice-Chairman
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE STAFF COUNCIL MEETING
HELD IN DETROIT AUGUST 24th & 25th - 1983
Page 2
The other matter of discussion pertained to Dave Sparks' discharge. There was a lot of argument pro and con on the way this grievance was handled. The general consensus of the Committee is that Roy Goforth acted within his power to withdraw the grievance without prejudice; however, his motive for withdrawing the grievance is held in suspect by some of the members.
A telegram from Dave Sparks was read to the Council in-which he appealed for their support. He apologized for not being there in person, but he sustained a plant injury and was unable to travel.
A motion was made and approved by the entire Council that Dave Sparks' grievance be appealed to the President's Office for reopening. -How successful this request will be depends on the I.E.B., if the I.E.B. believes in its own directive i.e., that all Local Union contracts should have a reopening clause on grievances that are appealed and upheld by governing bodies.
The above is a very brief summary of what occurred. Officially, there was a lot of discussion pro and con on the matter that I will report in full detail at our next Staff meeting which I will hold immediately following the first Staff meeting called for by Director Warren Davis.
Fraternally yours,
Joseph S. Goclano,
Staff Council.Rep.
Region 2
JSG/lh Opeiu 494
I Or
THE UAW STAFF COUNCIL
8731 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48214
Phone: (313) 926-5573 or 926-5574
September 12, 1984
TO: ALL UAW STAFF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Once again the International Union has used a double standard; one standard for Officers, Board Members and administrative staff and another standard for members of the Staff Council. For years the International Union has had a policy requiring everyone not taking early retirement to retire on the first of the month following the month in which he or she reaches sixty-five (65) years of age. The Staff Council has always supported this policy and still does so even though the federal law allows an individual to remain at work until age seventy (70). With only one exception to date, all members of the Staff Council have retired in line with this policy.
But now, the International Union is allowing Art Miller, Administrative Assistant to Secretary-Treasurer Ray Majerus, to remain on the payroll past September 1, 1984 even though he was sixty-five (65) on August 25th of this year. The reason given is Brother Miller's desire to await the outcome of the present GM negotiations. Now Brother Miller has made a fine contribution to the international Union and the International Union, in return, has been good to him. But the Officers ought not bend the retirement policy just to suit his wishes. The International Union's policy on retirement is a good policy, one which the Staff Council fully supports, and the Officers should be consistent with their own policy. Unfortunately, my request that this policy be applied to Brother Miller was rejected by both the Presidents' and Secretary-Treasurer's office.
Another double standard concerns E.T. Michael, who resigned as Director of Region 8 for health reasons. He also has made a fine contribution to the International Union and all of us in the Staff Council wish him well. But instead of going on sick leave, as all Staff Council members must who are ill, he was placed on special assignment at full Regional Director's salary. Here, as in Brother Miller's case, everyone should be treated the same.
The use of a double standard is bad enough, but now the Officers are using non-UAW personnel as interns in the Arbitration and organizing Departments. The increasing use of non-UAW personnel within the International Union is of great concern to the Staff Council. One of the things that has made the UAW as great as it is, is the fact that the UAW has been led and staffed by men and women who have risen from the ranks of the union. These two examples, and others that can be mentioned, indicate that our historic strength may be in danger. The argument from the Officers that some work requires a college degree, thus it must hire nonUAW personnel, does not hold water. These days thousands' of UAW members either hold or are working toward a college degree. Many of them can easily fulfill the needs of the Social Security, Research, Health and Safety and other Departments that utilize non-UAW personnel. It is time the Officers begin to search our own ranks before going outside the UAW.
One final item. As reported at the previous Staff Council Committee meeting, Dave Sparks, Region 2 Service Representative, was discharged over a year ago. His grievance was withdrawn by ROY Goforth, Region 2 Alternate Staff Council Representative, without any consultation with the Chairman of the Staff Council. This is the first time since the Staff Council was formed that a discharge grievance of a member of the Staff Council- was not processed to the Chairman's level. In an attempt to see that Brother Sparks gets his day in court on the merits of his discharge, I filed a policy grievance protesting his discharge. But the President's Office refused to honor the grievance. Brother Sparks then filed a suit in federal court.
- more -
About a month ago, Federal Judge Thomas D. Lambrose, in Cleveland, Ohio, ordered the International Union and the Staff council to arbitrate Brother Sparks' grievance. The Staff council is willing, but once again the International Union refused. After this ruling, the International Union asked the court for a stay of the order, which the court refused. Now the International Union is requesting reconsideration from the court. The International Union is going to great lengths to avoid hearing the Sparks discharge grievance. Why? What complicates Brother Sparks' case is that the President's Office refuses to give the Staff Council a clear reason for the discharge; and Goforth refuses to turn over to the Staff Council any of the documents in his possession. This includes any documents used by the International Union in its justification of the discharge and any documents used by Goforth in withdrawing Brother Sparks' case. Here again we have to ask why?
The problems I have described are serious enough to warrant this letter. I can only hope that the officers recognize that these problems are serious and are willing to seek a satisfactory solution.
Fraternally,
Darryl Greer
Chairman
UAW Staff Council
DG: erg
opeiu494
ccls:
Art Miller
E.T. Michael
TO Dave Sparks
From Bill Casstevens
Subject: Termination Notice
May 17, 1983
. Personal & Confidential
Your attitude and actions over the past several years have made you totally incompatible for continued employment with the UAW. You are, therefore, being terminated as of May 22, 1983.
I note that you have eight (8) weeks of banked vacation and current three (3) weeks unused for this year. Even though your termination is effective May 22, 1983, we will continue your leave of absence, with the Ford Motor Company, for eleven (11) weeks beyond May 22, 1983, to afford you the opportunity to use up the vacation time you have coming, if you so desire.
I am going to take the liberty of setting up a meeting with your Staff Council Representative and afford you the opportunity to be present, where the reason for your termination will be discussed in detail.
Roy Goforth
Alternate Staff Council
UAW Region 2
300 Liberty Plaza
5000 Rockside Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44131
October 30, 1985
Darryl Greer, Chairman
UAW Staff Council
8731 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48214
Dear Brother Greer:
It is with deep regret and only after many days of thoughtful reflection, that I concluded that it would be contrary to the best long term interest of the Staff Council if I failed to record my objection to the conduct and activity of the spokesman for the Staff Council in the Dave Sparks' Arbitration Hearing held in Cleveland on October 1 and 2, 1985.
The Submission Statement offered by Brother Dunne states in part:
. . . it must be stated that the Staff Council, through its agent Goforth, acted in a hostile and discriminatory manner; that it failed to exercise good faith and honesty; and that it, in fact, failed in its duty of 'fair representation'."
That statement also contains the following:
"At this point it is important to state that the arbitrator is not being asked to decide whether or not the Staff Council violated its duty of fair representation, for as already stated, the Staff Council, through its agent, did violate its duty of fair representation. This is not to say that an arbitrator is precluded from determining whether or not the duty of fair representation has been breached. But, for the present case, the Staff Council admits it breached its duty. Obviously, the Arbitrator is not being asked to accept the Staff Council's admission of its breach simply on good faith. All that has been said of Goforth's actions clearly make out a prima facie case of breach of duty of fair representation by the Staff Council."
Those statements were patently false and there was not one parcel of evidence that was offered to support those dangerous, reckless and irresponsible charges. I assume that you were aware of, or at the very least should have been aware of the contents of the Staff Council's Submission Statement before it was made a part of the arbitration proceedings.
Continued......
Darryl Greer, Chairman 2 October 30, 1985
UAW Staff Council
That statement, coupled with your previous statement to the "Forty-Three-Man Committee" that I only spent 15 minutes considering the Sparks' Grievance prior to my decision to withdraw it on its merits, violates the most basic elementary rule of honesty and fair play. In discharging your responsibilities as Chairman of the Staff Council, your conduct should meet the highest standards of integrity because the members of our Council place the highest possible values on integrity and fair play.
In response to Dave Sparks' $500,000 lawsuit against the Staff Council and the UAW, I was informed that you told Frank James, and perhaps others, something to the effect that Dave Sparks "could have the Treasury of the Staff Council." If that information is correct (and I certainly hope that it is not) then I think your conduct may well establish a reckless disregard for your fiduciary responsibilities.
It would seem that your conduct and positions with respect to the Dave Sparks, matter leaves adequate room for legitimate speculation that there may be some inappropriate collusion between you and Dave.
I sincerely believe that the overwhelming majority of our Staff Council members would not approve of your paying many thousands of dollars to an attorney (whose anti-union activities are well established) to achieve nothing more than the right to arbitrate the following restricted issues:
a) Whether the alternate Staff Council Grievance representative had the authority to settle the David Sparks' grievance, and
b) Whether the phrase "withdrawal without prejudice" means that there was a final settlement between the parties of the Sparks' grievance.
I submit that many staff members would endorse my conclusion that your conduct in this matter represents a reckless disregard for both the Staff Council funds and the integrity of the grievance process. You had complete knowledge of the facts that Dave Sparks refused, on more than one occasion, to even participate in those meetings which were scheduled to discuss his grievance, and that there has not even been one member of the Region 2 staff that has ever raised a claim of impropriety on my part in the handling of his grievance. Those two facts alone should offer a sufficient basis to question your motives and the appropriateness of your conduct in this matter.
Your obvious disregard for the truth in making those statements contained on pages 16 and 17 of the "Preliminary Statement" (a copy of which is attached), which were submitted to the Arbitrator, should require an open apology to the entire membership of our Staff Council. continued . . . . .
Darryl Greer, Chairman - 3- October 30, 1985
UAW Staff Council
After having allowed the transfer of so much of our treasury for unnecessary legal fees, why would you be a party to the reckless activity which may be construed as an invitation to others to make a claim on the Council treasury including future dues?
As a member of Region 2 staff, I have taught classes on duty of fair representation, and there has been no evidence presented which would indicate that I violated any of my responsibilities and obligations in the handling of Dave Sparks' grievance. I submit that you owe the entire Staff Council an open apology for the statements contained in documents submitted to the Arbitrator during the proceedings of the Dave Sparks' case.
This will place you on notice that I may seek legal advice in order to determine remedies that may be available to me and/or other members of the Staff Council who have been or could be harmed by your conduct in this matter.
Fraternally,
Roy Goforth
Alternate Staff Council Rep.
UAW Region 2
CC: Members of the Forty-Three-Man-Committee - please circulate to the staff council members that you represent.
PHONE 13131 926-5000
UAW INTERNATIONAL UNionWTE0 AUTOMORILF. AEROSPACE & AGRIMTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA-UM
DOUGLAS A. FRASER, PRESIDENT RAYMOND E. MAJERUS, SECRETARY-TREASURER
VICE-PRESIDENTS
OWEN F BIEBER DONALD F EPHLIN - MARTIN GERBER . ODESSA KOMER - MARC STEPP ROBERT WHITE STEPHEN P YOKICH
March 29, 1983
Mr. Darryl Greer, Chairman
Staff Council, UAW
8731 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48214
Dear Brother Greer:
During these negotiations, the Staff Council expressed concern over what it considered unusual usage of certain retired staff members to an excessive decree. Specific citation was made of several retired Auditing staff members.
The International Union informed the Staff Council that highly unusual circumstances, i.e., a number of necessary unforeseen audits involving charges of improper expenditures of funds of local unions, breaking in new Auditing personnel and other unscheduled matters, including Labor
Department cases, etc., had required the use of retired auditors, rather than utilize outside CPA firms.
The Secretary-Treasurer of the International Union has reviewed this_ complaint and has given assurance that such usage will be monitored by his office and will be held to the minimum necessary to assure compliance with legal requirements and Constitutional requirements.
If, after a reasonable period of time, the Staff Council feels that this is still a continuing problem, then a meeting to further discuss the situation will be held with representatives of the Secretary-Treasurer's Office present in an attempt to resolve the matter.
Fraternally,
Frank James
Administrative Assistant
to the President
FJ:is
opeiu494
8000 EAST JEFFERSON AVE.
DETROIT. MICHIGAN ASI14
PHONE 13131 920-5000
DOUGLAS A. FRASER, PRESIDENT ' RAYMOND F_ MAJERUS, SECRETAAY-TREASURER
VICE-PRESIDENTS
OWEN r SIEBER - DONALD r EPHLIN - MARTIN GERBER - ODESSA KOMER - MARC STEPP * M09ENT WHITE & STEPHEN P YOXICH
May 13, 1983
Mr. Darryl Greer, Chairman
UAW Staff Council
8713 East Jefferson
Detroit, Michigan 48214
Dear Brother Greer:
During the 1983 negotiations, the Staff Council expressed an interest in creating incentives for early retirement.
The International Union pointed out that it was already committed to place an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of payroll into the Staff Pension Fund and for the past several years had been placing an amount equivalent to twenty-seven percent (27%) of payroll into the Fund.
This-is, of course, a percentage greater than the norm in any corporation or similar organization.
The International Union, UAW assured the Staff Council that in the event a staff layoff appeared imminent during the term of the Agreement, discussions would be held at that time between the two groups of bargaining representatives. The purpose of these discussions would be to determine a mutually agreeable method of encouraging early retirement among eligible staff or other mutually agreeable arrangement of the sort commonly referred to as "a Golden handshake" in order to minimize or negate such contemplated layoff.
Fraternally,
Stephen P.Yokich
Vice President, UAW
SPY:ijs
opeiu494
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
EASTERN DISTRICT
DAVID J. SPARKS,
Plaintiff, CASE NO: 1:86-CV-1154
V.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
JACK B. STREEPY
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, and
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF
Defendants.
The UAW Staff Council
is in Error on the Law
In its brief in chief, Defendant Staff Council ("Staff Council") concedes it is obligated to pay
attorney fees in this case. The only issue raised by the Staff Council is the amount of attorney fees
it should pay. This concession is stated as follows:
The Staff Council and Sparks have already stipulated that Sparks's attorneys' fees
total $189,000.00. However, as will be discussed below, an award against the Staff
Council of this or any similar amount is contrary to the facts of this case and would
constitute an abuse of this Court's discretion. (Staff Council's brf., p 2).
Thus, the Staff Council's argument is centered on seeking relief from its previous stipulation
to the $189,000 as reasonable attorney fees for Sparks.
None of the cases cited by Staff Council as justification for reducing the amount of attorney
fees, are relevant to this case. The Staff Council first refers to Title VII cases; 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Section 1988 states that in a civil rights case, "[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing
party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." This statutory
language does not apply to the prevailing party under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185.
As pointed out in his brief in chief, Plaintiff David J. Sparks ("Sparks") is entitled to attorney fees as part
of his damages arising from his union's breach of the duty of fair representation in his pursuit of a
wrongful discharge claim against his employer. Wilson v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 83 F.3d 747 (6" Cir.
1996). Thus, the award of attorney fees to Sparks is mandatory, otherwise a prevailing party in a 301 suit
would not be able to recover all of his damages.
Hence, the Staff Council' sole argument is it is a "small union with very limited funds"; and payment of
the $ 189,000.00 "would cripple [its] ability to effectively serve its membership." (Staff Council brf. P 6).
Before responding to the claim of inability to pay, it is first necessary to comment on the Staff Council's
reference to one footnote in a 26 year old case that did not pertain to a 301 suit.
After referring to Title VII cases the Staff Council points to Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1(1973) as its only
case to argue, under the LMRDA, that it would be an abuse of discretion not to take into account a union's
financial condition when awarding attorney fees. The problem with the Staff Council's argument is the
Hall case was not under § 185, and the court's comment was in a footnote (Note 9, at p. 13), which does
not carry the force of law as claimed by the Staff Council. Under 29 U.S.C. § 185, a successful plaintiff is
entitled to an award of the full amount of the determined "reasonable attorney fees"; and a union's ability to pay is not to be considered by the court.
In fact, the Staff Council's brief is devoid of any reference to cases under § 185 where the
courts considered a union's ability to pay in awarding the successful plaintiff attorney fees - not a
-2-
single case for that matter. The Staff Council is asking this Court to ignore all of the 6h Circuit's § 185
decisions where attorney fees were awarded against a union, to ignore the same § 185 decisions in every
other Circuit, and to make new law. The law is against the Staff Council on this issue as well as the facts,
which appear below.
The Staff Council Can
Pay its Legal Obligations
The Staff Council's Activities
Will not be Hindered
Paying Sparks the attorney fees to which he is entitled will not hinder the Staff Council in its collective
bargaining activities with the UAW International Union. The Staff Council is not the typical union; it is a
small union, but with extremely high wages and a sweetheart deal with the UAW actually paying for
almost all of its expenses.
Curtis McGuire places a Staff Council member's cash salary at $80,000 yearly, wages, car allowance, and
in-town expenses. (McGuire Affidavit, Ex. A, par 6). Yet, this highly paid union member (of the Staff
Council, not the UAW) pays only $60.00 in yearly dues to the Staff Council. (Affidavit of Harold Dunne,
Ex. B, p 6). In contrast, an auto worker pays a minimum of $480.00 yearly in union dues at one/half the
salary of a UAW Representative. (Ex. B, p 24).
McGuire is quite accurate in estimating a Staff Council (active and retired) of 1,000 members. But since
the dues of the active members have risen to that astronomically high monthly sum of $5.00, he is a little
low in his estimate of the Staff Council's yearly income. (Ex. A, par 7-10). According to the Staff
Council's Brief, Ex. 1, the Staff Council's income in 1998 from the active staff was $35,000; which
means, at $60 yearly, a membership of about 580 active members.
McGuire also points out that the Staff Council has little expense to its operations. (Ex. A, parl 1); and that
the Staff Council members regularly assess themselves $ 100 to $3 00 as part of maintaining the UAW's
political system. (Ex. A, par 15). McGuire's estimates are supported by Dunne's, affidavit. (Ex. B, par
1-12). The Exhibit to the Staff Council's brief supports the affidavits of McGuire and Dunne.
In its disbursements, the Staff Council does not list any salary for its full-time officials; nor wages for its
secretarial staff; nor for office rental; nor for the usual expenses expected of a union. For example,
consider the line item of "Postage" in the amount of $10.45. At the first class rate of 33 cents per letter,
this line item means the Staff Council mailed out 3 1 letters during the entire year of 1998. Common
sense says this is nonsense. What this line item means is that McGuire and Dunne are right, which is the
UAW pays the freight for the Staff Council.
Thus, with no costs for salaries for its elected officials, for its secretarial staff, for office rental, for general
expenses, etc., etc., etc., the Staff Council would not be inhibited if its had to pay its entire yearly income
to Sparks until the "reasonable attorney fees" are paid - however long that would take.
Methods of Payment Insurance
The fifth line item on its Summary of Disbursements for 1998 is "Insurance. Liability Bonding." This
indicates the Staff Council is insured for the wrongful conduct of its elected officials. Sparks must assume
that Liability-Bonding insurance means what it says; which is the Staff Council has insurance to cover
any wrongful act of its representatives. If it means something other that what it implies it can only be
clarified at an evidentiary hearing. Otherwise the court should
-4-
assume what Sparks assumes, which is the Staff Council has insurance to cover the $189,000.00 plus in
legal fees.
A Sizeable Down payment
With Monthly Payments
The Staff Council presently has $50,000.00 in assets. According to the affidavits of McGuire and Dunne,
these are assets which it does not need. This would be a sizeable down payment on its legal obligation for
breaching its duty of fair representation. The Staff Council could then make monthly payments to Sparks
until the legal debt is paid. After all, Sparks waited 16 years to collect his lost wages from his employer -
the UAW - discharge in 1983, a successful appeal in 1990, a successful trial in 1993, a successful appeal
in 1993 and payment of his lost wages in 1993. After collecting $50,000 now from the Staff Council,
waiting a few years while the Staff Council pays off its remaining debt by monthly installments would not
be a problem for Sparks.
Assessment
Under the unique conditions between the UAW and the Staff Council, it is not improper for the active
Staff Council members to assess themselves approximately $400, on a one time basis, to pay for a legal
obligation it incurred by breaching the duty of fair representation, thus forcing Sparks into a sixteen year
long fight to vindicate his rights. This Court cannot, of course, order the Staff Council to assess each of its
active members $400 to pay the Stipulated $189,000, plus the additional fees for a successful appeal, and
interest on the original $ 189,000. But the Staff Council can, and very easily.
The Staff Council is not a union in the true sense of the word. As noted by Dunne in his affidavit, it is
more akin to a company union. (Ex. 13, par 22). Which poses a question that is not
-5-
before this Court, but needs to be raised; which is, if the Staff Council is, under federal law, a company
union, then the UAW might be liable for the Staff Council's debts irrespective of the 6th Circuit's decision.
A Larger Staff Council
There have been discussions between the UAW, the Steel Workers, and the IAM . (Ex. B, par 25); which
would mean merger negotiations between the staff councils representing all three union. (Ex. B, par 26 -
28); which then would mean the UAW's Staff Council's debt to Sparks could be paid sooner than later.
Failure to inform this Court of the merger possibilities simply means the Staff Council is intentionally
misleading this Court into thinking the Staff Council has limited funds now, and will not have the ability
to obtain sufficient funds in the future.
Sparks did Confer a Common Benefit
Sparks did directly confer a common benefit on the members of the Staff Council. Some years after
Sparks filed his lawsuit Darryl Greer, then Chairman of the Staff Council, and the Staff Council
negotiating Committee negotiated a change in the UAW-Staff Council CBA whereby no Regional or
Department Representative could do what Goforth did, which was to withdraw a grievance at the lower
steps that protested a wrongful discharge. The change required that whenever a grievance is written
protesting a wrongful discharge (as in Sparks's case), that grievance must be appealed to the Chairman of
the Staff Council.
While this common benefit to the members of the Staff Council was not stated in any of the trial court's
judgments, or the decisions of the Court of Appeals, it, nevertheless, was Sparks's lawsuit that triggered
this common benefit. Hence, but for Sparks's lawsuit, it is reasonable to infer that
the CBA would not have been changed.
-6-
The Critical Question
As stated in the 6 1h Circuit's opinion, the critical question upon remand will be the extent to which
plaintiffs fees can be traced to Council's breach." (Sparks's brf, p 3). The Staff Council's argument centers
solely on the jury award of 99.5% liability against the UAW and .5% against the Staff Council. The Staff
Council's argument is misplaced.
The indisputable fact is, but for the Staff Council's breach, Sparks would not have had to undergo a
sixteen year struggle to vindicate his claim he was wrongfully discharged by the UAW. It is silly to
suggest that Greer's effort to reinstate Sparks's grievance two days after Goforth withdrew it removes the
Staff Council from liability for its Breach In spite of Greer's best efforts, and they were quite notable, the
Staff Council is stuck with federal law where the union is liable for the breach of the duty of fair
representation committed by its agent.
The sad thing is it was Greer's integrity on the Sparks case caused his defeat as Chairman of the Staff
Council.* The excuse was that the Sparks case was costing the Staff Council too much money. (Ex. B,
par 13). Nothing was said that Goforth, as agent of the Staff Council, was wrong in his conduct. The
implication is that Greer should have denied that the Staff Council, through its agent Goforth, breached its
duty. So where is the Staff Council's laudable
conduct?
This Court is well aware of the "special relationship" between the UAW and the Staff Council for it sat
through a ten day trial. Since Greer's defeat the Staff Council negotiated three CBA's with the UAW and,
1992, 1995, and 1998. There is nothing in the Staff Council's brief indicating it made any effort to get the
UAW to retreat from its untenable position that it did not wrongfully discharge Sparks, particularly in
1992 prior to the jury decision finding the UAW wrongfully discharged Sparks, and the Staff Council breached its duty to fairly represent Sparks.
-7-
The Staff Council's brief lacks any detailed explanation of what it did to ease Sparks legal burden. The
reason for this lack of a detailed explanation is that except for Greer's efforts the Staff Council did
nothing that could be considered laudable. Lacking any detailed explanation the Staff Council is hard put
to claim it is entitled to a reduction in its liability for attorney fees.
All of Sparks's attorney fees can be traced to the Staff Council's breach. For the Staff Council to argue
otherwise it would have to cite specifics; and as pointed out above there are no specifics in its brief. Also,
as argued above, Sparks has asserted that but for the Staff Council's breach he would not have had to file
a lawsuit.
When the 6 th Circuit wrote " . . . the critical question ... will be the extent to which plaintiff s fees can be
traced to Council's breach," it placed a burden on the Staff Council to show that Sparks is wrong in
claiming that but for the Staff Council's breach he would not have had to file a lawsuit against the UAW
for being wrongfully discharged. Sparks has met his burden. He has shown this Court that but for the
Staff Council's breach he would not have had to go to trial, and would not have had to appear before the
6'hCircuit three times - with all decisions in his favor - over a period of sixteen extremely long and costly
years.
What the Staff Council is really arguing is absolution for its sin in breaching its duty to Sparks. Once that
breach occurred, and not being able to turn the UAW around in its refusal to reinstate his grievance, the
Staff Council was hooked for attorney fees under the same federal law that made it the exclusive
bargaining agent for Sparks. Hence, if the Staff Council wants absolution it must look elsewhere other
than this Court, which must consider the law as is presently constituted. That law says that Sparks is
entitled to all reasonable attorney fees as part of his damages.
-8-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DISTRICT
DAVID J. SPARKS,
Plaintiff, CASE NO: 1:86-CV-1154
V.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED JACK B. STREEPY
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, and
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS N. McGUIRE
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
WAYNE COUNTY
Curtis N. McGuire, being sworn, says:
I . I am a retired UAW International Representative. I make this affidavit in support of
Plaintiff s motion for attorney fees. I am fully familiar with the facts stated in this affidavit and, if
sworn as a witness, I am competent to testify to them.
2. I was employed by the UAW International Union from September 1966 to June 1987,
when I retired.
3. During the time I served as a UAW Representative I was also a member of the UAW Staff Council.
4. I served as the Staff Council Representative in Region I -E, one of then four UAW
Regions in the greater Detroit area, from 1980 to 1985.
-1-
5. As Region I-E Staff Council Representative, I served on the Staff Council's 43 Member Board, which
was the governing body of the Staff Council.
6. As of 1999 the yearly salary of a UAW International Representative is $74,500, and $5,876 yearly in
car allowance and in-town expense; for a total yearly basic salary of $80,000.
7. The dues paid by members of the Staff Council are minimal; $2.00 per month.
8. When I was on the 43 Member Board there were approximately 900 active Staff members, which
brought in about $21,600 a year to the Staff Council; not including the $2.00 per month paid by retired
Staff Council members.
9. As of this year there may be fewer active Staff Council members, but there are more retired Staff
Council members than when I served on the 43 Member Board; so my estimate of 1,000 present active
and retired Staff Council members is close to the actual membership figure.
10. With at least 1,000 members paying $2.00 per month dues, the Staff Council collects $24,000 yearly;
a figure that is probably low.
11. This approximate $24,000 the Staff Council receives from its members is, in reality, extra money, for
the Staff Council has little, if any expenses, for the following reasons:
a. The Staff Council's full time officers are paid by the UAW for doing Staff Council work.
b. The Staff Council has free office space in the Dave Miller Building, a UAW owned office building.
C. The Staff Council' secretary is paid by the UAW.
-2-
d. The Staff Council Representative (within a Region, or a major Department,
such as the UAW's General Motors' Department) is paid by the UAW when
ever he, or she, does Staff Council work; i.e., investigating a Staff Council
member's complaint, writing a grievance, and meeting with UAW officials
to resolve that grievance.
e. The Chairman of the Staff Council travels throughout the country to meet
with Staff Council members, and all of his travel expenses are paid by the
UAW; airline tickets, hotels/motels, daily out-of-town expenses, etc.
f. Whenever the Staff Council's 43 Member Council meets, all expenses for all
43 members are paid by the UAW; same type of expenses as outlined in "e"
above.
12. My use of the term Staff Council's 43 Member Board is based on my years on the
43 Member Board.-which was before the UAW lost as many members as it has and before it reduced
the number of Regions from 16 to about 11.
13. As of today, the actual size of the Staff Council's Board may be less than 43, but it is still large - somewhere between 35 and 40.
14. As far as I know, the only expenses the Staff Council has is to pay one/half the cost of arbitrating a
grievance with the UAW, which is rare.
5. Every three years Staff Council members assess themselves in order to contribute to the reelection of
the UAW officers and Regional Directors; this amount has ranged from $100 to
$300 per member, depending oil the individual officer or Director.
-3-
16. To my knowledge, this type of assessment still continues.
17. I have been retired since 1987, therefore, it is possible some of the expenses paid by the UAW for the
Staff Council's activities has changed; but I am not aware of any such change. The Staff Council would
know if it has to pay some of its own expenses unlike the UAW paying all of its expenses as I have
described above.
Curtis N. McGuire
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
WAYNE COUNTY )
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of May 1999.
-4-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRlCT OF OHIO
EASTERN DISTRICT
DAVID J. SPARKS,
Plaintiff, CASE NO: 1:86-CV-1154
V.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED JACK B. STREEPY
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, and
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF HAROLD DUNNE
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
WAYNE COUNTY
Harold Dunne, being sworn, says:
competent to testify to them.
-1-
a minuscule increase over the amount McGuire remembers paying in the mid'80s. The monthly dues
for retirees are deducted from their monthly UAW pension check, while the monthly dues for active
representatives are deducted from their salary checks.
the Staff Council's own conventions are paid by the UAW International Union.
Council members on grievances.
rules have changed on the surface regarding who pays the expenses when the General Board meets, it is,
nonetheless, still a shell game.
-2-
union representatives, during UAW conventions, collective bargaining conferences, International
Union meetings, etc.; thus, incurring no expenses as a Staff Council since they are all paid by the
UAW during that time, including expenses for attending that UAW function.
13. Darryl Greer was Chairman of the Staff Council from 1983 to 1992. In 1992 Greer was defeated in his
reelection bid as Chairman, in major part, because of his efforts supporting Sparks; the actual campaign
excuse was the Sparks case was costing the Staff Council to much money.
14. Since Greer's defeat, there were three UAW Constitutional Conventions; meaning there
were three sets of negotiations between the UAW and the Staff Council - 1992, 1995,
and 1998.
15. At none of these three negotiations did the Staff Council make a contractual demand on the UAW to
end, in some manner, the Sparks case, because it was costing the Staff Council a great deal of money -
and could cost it an even greater amount.
16. Whether the UAW would have acquiesced to such a demand is not the issue; the issue is the Staff
Council did not make such a demand even though the Preamble to the UAW-Staff Council Collective
Bargaining Agreement states there is a "special relationship" between the Officers of the UAW and the
members of the Staff Council since they all are members of the UAW.
17. Yet, when Greer was Chairman of the Staff Council he negotiated a change in the
UAW-Staff Council CBA where, from that day forward, a grievance protesting the
discharge of a Staff Council member could no longer be withdrawn by a Regional, or
Department, Staff Council Representative (as Goforth did), but must be appealed to the
Chairman of the Staff Council, which then would be handled by the Officers of the Staff
Council.
-3-
members, and a direct result of Sparks's lawsuit.
ordered the parties to attempt to agree on the attorney fees to avoid a court hearing on the
fees.
20. Agreement was reached and, through their attorneys, the Staff Council and Sparks
agreed to reasonable attorney fees of $189,000.
21. Since then Sparks's motion has been filed requesting attorney fees in the amount of
$189,000 plus $12,939.58 in attorney fees for a successful Court of Appeals Decision,
plus interest.
22. The special relationship between the UAW and the Staff Council, where the UAW essentially pays
the Staff Council's expenses, could mean the Staff Council, is, in fact, a company union - thus, making the
UAW, liable for its debts.
23. The Staff Council, each member making $80,000 yearly as stated by McGuire, can
assess itself - on a -one time basis - $400 to pay off its legal obligation to Sparks.
24. I need to point out that a Staff Council member making $80,000 yearly pays $60 in
yearly dues, while all UAW members pay dues of two hours per month; e.g., a UAW member working at
General Motors making $20.00 per hour pays $40.00 month - and $480 yearly.
25. There have been discussions between the UAW International Union, the Steel Workers,
and the International Association of Aerospace Workers to merge into one union
sometime in the year 2001 or 2002.
26. If this were to occur then there would also be merger discussions between the staff
council of all three unions.
27. My estimate is each union has approximately the same number of representatives.
-4-
28. In a merged Staff Council union, there would be about 1,500 members.
is obvious that the larger Staff Council union would be easily able to pay off the debt it would
incur from the UAW Staff Council.
Harold Dunne MI P 36786)
Counsel for Sparks
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
WAYNE COUNTY
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th day of May 1999.
-5-