The recommendation...
(Keep in mind that it came from a guy who has his head so far up Bahr's ass he can't tell night from day!)

LETS PLUCK THE "DRAKESTER'S" TAIL FEATHERS

September 18, 1998

To: Morton Bahr
President

Subject: Charges Filed by Local 9510 President Nita Moreno, Executive Vice President Paul Fitton, and Secretary-Treasurer John Natoli Against GTE Unit Vice President Michael Drake

I was appointed by the Executive Board to be the prosecutor for the above matter on May 27, 1998.

On May 28, 1998, I notified by letter the principals making the charges as well as the charged party, GTE Unit Vice President Mike Drake, that I had been appointed and would be in touch with President Moreno to establish a convenient time for all parties so that the investigation could begin.

It was arranged for me to meet with all the witnesses and inspect all the documented evidence that might be provided by both parties at Local 951O's offices at 3602 West 5th Street, Santa Ana, California, on the dates of July 13 and 14, 1998.

I began by meeting with the charging parties on the morning of Monday, July 13, 1998. President Moreno supplied information, and I had the opportunity to talk with a number of the Local's members that she brought forth as witnesses over the course of the day. On July 14, 1998, I met at length with GTE Vice President Drake regarding his response to,the charges filed.

Investigation

The charges in this matter center around the activities of Vice President Drake. It was alleged that he issued correspondence in his official capacity with the Local which had not been typed by the Local's secretaries, members of OPEIU.

On or about February 4, 1997, secretaries of Local 9510 filed grievances regarding the work being done outside the bargaining unit by Vice President Drake, and the grievances demanded

that the work should be done under the jurisdiction of their contract with the Local. On September 24, 1997, another grievance was filed against Mike Drake who, it was alleged, continued to type official union correspondence. President Moreno had put out a memo dated March 21, 1997 (Attachment 1), in which she reiterated to all officers and Executive Board Members that all letters concerning union business must be typed on Local 9510 letterhead by one of the Local's secretaries. This was in accordance with the understanding she had reached on March 19 with OPEIU Local 537 regarding the jurisdiction of letter typing.

There was another grievance filed on or about October 8, 1997, against Vice President Drake. OPEIU claimed the issue was that he continued to disregard the jurisdiction of the OPEIU work. Copies of information typed by Vice President Drake were provided with all the grievances.

On October 22 (Attachment 2) and again on November 18 (Attachment 3), the Executive Board of Local 9510 met and discussion took place to clearly define official union business as it affected OPERU work. At the November 18 meeting the Board directed Mike Drake to cease performing OPEIU work. This is referenced in the Board Minutes under Good and Welfare.

At the December 2, 1997 (Attachment 4) membership meeting, a further motion was made, duly seconded, and passed by the membership that directed Mike Drake not to perform OPEIU work.

During my investigation, the activities and discussions that took place at the Board meetings were verified by a number of members and activists in the Local who were witnesses provided by President Moreno. Those present were firm that the issue regarding Vice President Drake and what was OPEIU work was made very clear. They further held that the motion at the membership meeting was clear, and they had heard similar discussions and attested to similar actions. I met with each person individually.

During my meeting with Vice President Drake, he clearly took the charges against him seriously. He raised a number of interesting arguments during our conversation. He feels it is inappropriate to settle grievances with the OPEIU through the charges filed under the Constitution of CWA. He further stated that the correspondence, which prompted the charging parties to file charges with the International Union, was simply a note to pass on information between himself and the workers he represents (Attachment 5). Vice President Drake maintains that nothing he did could be construed to be a violation of CWA's Constitution or the membership motion.

The memo that was the catalyst for the charges sent to the Secretary-Treasurer of CWA is dated January 18, 1998, and deals with a meeting Vice President Drake had with GTE affecting the immediate work group. (Vice President Drake, as I understand it, asserts this was not officially a document of the union but correspondence between workers in the field and their union representatives in the field.)

Conclusion

Having reviewed circumstances involved in the instant case and having talked with members involved on both sides, I have reached the following conclusion:

While a five-year suspension as remedy in this case should Vice President Drake be found guilty of breaching the Constitution through any activities in this matter is clearly overkill, I find two issues exist that should not be decided by a staff person.

First, is the document in question, because it is typed, official union work that should have gone through the office of the Local?

If this is, in fact, the case, it is a violation of a direct order. On the other hand, might this document simply be correspondence that in the past would have been handwritten by a local union official and then passed among members or put up on a bulletin board? Is this simply the use of technology, or does content and the fact that it is typed make it work now belonging to a secretary? The fact is, more and more people have access to computers and, as such, use the word processor capacity the computer provides simply to replace pen and pencil. A clear point between which is which should be determined.

Second, if in fact the correspondence is official correspondence and has violated the agreement with OPEIU, then the question becomes "Has Vice President Drake, in effect, willfully violated a motion passed by the members in an open meeting held to do the business of the Union?" This is a question that should be answered after hearing the evidence by a trial panel of elected officers.

Recommendation

I recommend, therefore, that a trial panel hears the charge filed by Local 9510 President Moreno, Vice-President Fitton and Secretary -Treasurer Natoli against GTE Unit Vice President Drake.

/s/
Hugh Leo Walsh
Administrative Assistant to the President
Attachments (5)

The trial was held on October 26, 1998. If you want to see what happened after the 'kangaroos' flew into town for court, here's another door...