From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: UAW Welcomes Auto Factory of Despair-PRB #1001 (Part 1 of 4)long
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:25:33 GMT


UAW Welcomes Auto Factory of Despair into Heart of Union Territory
               Public Review Board Case # 1001
                    Part 2 of 4
        
 
EVENTS AT MAZDA
 
     When Ronda Hauben reported to orientation on August 15, 
1988, she and other workers were given a 2 hour safety presenta
tion. Also, they were told that they should speak up and voice 
their opinions. During the safety presentation, Ronda Hauben 
realized that Mazda was claiming that if a worker is injured it 
is that worker's own fault. She spoke up and complained that if 
the corporation doesn't take any responsibility for safety, the 
workplace will be especially dangerous. 
 
     Despite the fact that she had been told there would be a 
week of training, after two days of filling out forms, Ronda 
Hauben and the other new hires were sent out to the factory 
floor. The three week training schedule that had been given to 
previous new hires, was curtailed to two days. (Record, pg. 61) 
During orientation, Jim Korowin, Vice President of Manufacturing 
explained to Ronda Hauben and other new hires "It's a bear out 
there."(Ibid.)
 
     The grievance (called problem Resolution/Complaint Proce
dure) (Record, p. 21-29) describes what happened to Ronda Hauben 
when she went to work on the floor. She was assigned to Trim and 
Final production, and she was switched around to do various 
different jobs, and then threatened that she would be terminated 
if she didn't perform under the dangerous conditions that her 
supervisor outlined. She handed in a 3 page written complaint as 
the first step of the grievance procedure. She was then made to 
suffer further retaliation and was put in a more dangerous situa
tion and given the choice of getting injured or fired. She con
tinued to try to use her statutory and contractual procedures to 
complain about what was happening to her, but in the process she 
was injured. 
 
     Her account to the International Union explains what 
happened (See Record, pg. 6-29). She writes:
 
          "On August 23, 1988, I gave a written request for a 
     grievance to Lauri Akers, my union representative in Dept. 
     13, of Trim and Final at Mazda Motor Company. The 3-page 
     grievance (Exhibit A) (now pg 16, 17 and should be pg 18 but 
     that is missing from record) concerned health and safety 
     violtions and violations under training and other UAW 
     contractual violations at Mazda."
 
          "Lauri Akers said that she would put the grievance 
     through its procedures.
 
          "Company harrassment against me grew and intensified 
     and I continued to ask for union help dealing with it.
 
          "Subsequent to threats to me by the company I was put 
     in a dangerous situation and threatened that if I pulled the 
     yellow chord more than 2 times between breaks I would be 
     thrown out of work, despite the fact that my time card was 
     coded as training, and when we were brought to work at Trim 
     and Final we were told that we should pull the yellow chord 
     whenever we needed any kind of assisatnce.
 
          "I did achieve the line speed, but at the cost of 
     getting physically injured. The company doctor put me on 
     restricted work and told me that if I didn't get adequate 
     training I would lose the use of my hands. She also said 
     that she would send me to a specialist to rule out overuse 
     of my hands. The company then said that they had no work for 
     me, and with the assistance of the union officials I was put 
     on inactive. My i.d. was taken away from me so that I was no 
     longer allowed on Mazda property. All of the union officials 
     had their offices on Mazda property so that I only had phone 
     access to them. (Events are descrived in grievance, Exhibit 
     B) (Now record, p. 6-15)
 
         "In the course of these events, I was told by union 
     official Milly Willis that when I was back at work I would 
     have my grievance dealt with. Also, I was told by union 
     official Jim Mamalakus(sp?) that he had received the written 
     grievance initiation which I had given to Laurie Akers. And 
     he claimed that he had given it to management and was thus 
     putting it through its procedures. Also, I gave a copy to 
     management.
 
          "I was out of work but called Acting President Bill 
     Judson in September to find out what was happening with my 
     grievance. He said I needed to write out further details and 
     he would send me a copy of the grievance form so I would 
     know what was required.
 
         "I received the form in the mail (in an envelope post
marked September 17 from Bill Judson - Record pg 20 - r). I typed 
out answers to the questions indicated and sent him back the 
answers with a letter dated September 25, 1988. (Exhibit B) (See 
Record, 30 for letter and 21-29 grievance form returned and pg 20 
envelop from Judson providing form)   
 
          "Per the obligatory clause in the UAW-Mazda contract I 
     assumed and was led to believe that the union submitted the 
     grievance to management. The contract states:
 
               If the employee wishes to pursue the matter, the 
               Union must file a written complaint with Labor 
               Relations on mutually agreeable forms provided by 
               the Company within five (5) working days of the 
               Step 1 (B) meeting (Article X, 2, 2, pg 18 of 
               contract).
 
     On October 6, 1988, Ronda Hauben called Bill Judson at Mazda 
and he returned her call. (Telephone Bill, Record, pg 42) An 
account of this conversation was provided to the International 
Union. The account explains:
 
     "I spoke with Acting President Bill Judson on the telephone 
     on or about October 6, 1988. He told me that with regards to 
     the complaint I had made regarding unsafe conditions, that 
     they were being investigated. The other issues in my 
     grievance had to do with my height and inserting clips and 
     cables and use of a screw driver and that these were being 
     investigated at the present time. That it was hard to prove 
     disrimination. That he agreed that it was nonsense to be 
     told I'd be arrested if I didn't turn in my i.d. because it 
     was a federal trade sub zone. That I wasn't terminated. That 
     I did successfully qualify for the work I was doing. He said 
     your grievance is being discussed. Management has not agreed 
     to recognize your grievance...they have not made a 
     decision." (Record, p. 169) 
 
     During this same period, Ronda Hauben filed a complaint with 
the Michigan Department of Labor under the Michigan Occupational 
Health and Safety Act (MIOSHA). (See Record, pg 32-41 for the 
complaint she filed which was date stamped by the Dept. Oct. 5, 
1988)
 
     The Narrative by the Michigan Dept of Labor describing their 
contact with the Local Union President at Mazda provides a 
similar account of what was happening. The narrative claims that 
the International Rep and Local Union President were contacted on 
October 7, 1988. It indicates that Ronda Hauben was a 
probationary employee and that  "The union trys to represent 
those employees but management could say no." (Record, p. 43)
 
     However, there is no such indication in the Union contract. 
The union contract, on the contrary, provides that the UAW can 
represent probationary employees. But the story provided to both 
Ronda Hauben and to the Michigan Department of Labor during this 
period is that it was up to management to determine whether they 
were going to accept the grievance she had sent to Bill Judson to 
submit. Subsequently, during her hearing at the Michigan Dept of 
Labor, the lawyer for management, Mr. Hynds stipulated that there 
was a grievance handed in by Ronda Hauben. (See Record, pg. 133)
 
     While the UAW officials failed to report any further action 
on Ronda Hauben's grievance, and the State of Michigan similarly 
took no action, the conditions at Mazda, and for Ronda Hauben 
were only worsening. Ronda Hauben was out of work, with an injury 
and with no income. Also, she found it very difficult to get 
medical care, because she had a workplace injury but Mazda was 
refusing to send her to the company doctor or to provide her with 
the medical care prescribed by their own doctor.
 
     In their book, "Working for the Japanese", the Fucini's 
describe how the conditions at work deteriorated at Mazda during 
just this period. They write:
 
     "The Michigan OSHA (MIOSHA) recordable injury rate at the 
     Flat Rock plant was 35.4 in June 1988 and 53.4 in September, 
     1988, according to a copy of the May 1988 Mazda Safety 
     Report obtained by the authors. The recordable injury rate 
     is arrived at by multiplying the number of recordable injury 
     incidents by 200,000 and dividing this by the total number 
     of hours worked at the plant. (p. 237)
 
     Thus the lack of union action on Ronda Hauben's grievance 
and the lack of action by the State of Michigan on her health 
and safety complaint were responsible for a substantial increase 
in the harm that came to her and to other Mazda workers.
 
     Ronda Hauben continued to try to find ways to fight against 
this delay. She heard that there would be an open meeting of UAW 
members to discuss their grievances and she went to the meeting. 
She managed to get the microphone and to describe how the sitdown 
pioneers who had built the UAW believed there needed to be an 
uncensored local union press to be able to publicize problems 
within the union so there could be correction of the problems. 
But that in 1951 the UAW International Convention had rubber 
stamped the censorship of the local union newspaper of the Plant 
4 Sitdowners, "The Searchlight" (UAW Local 659, Flint, MI) by 
Walter Reuther and the International Executive Board. Also, she 
described how the dangerous working conditions at Mazda were 
being covered up and large numbers of injuries were being hidden.
 
     A reporter present at the meeting from Automotive News asked 
for an interview. The reporter said that she would investigate to 
see if there were problems at Mazda, as formerly she had been 
writing articles proclaiming Mazda as the wondrous wave of the 
future. 
     Her investigation revealed that indeed there were very 
dangerous working conditions at Mazda that were being covered up. 
Her story "Injury, Training woes hit new Mazda plant" appeared in 
the February 13, 1989 issue of Automotive News on page 1. In the 
first line of her story she wrote that the large numbers of 
injuries and unsafe working conditions raised "fundamental 
questions about the much-heralded team manufacturing system, 
about the quality of training programs funded in part by the 
state and about a provision in the UAW contract that allows Mazda 
to use part-time workers who collect no benefits after they are 
injured." 
 
     Her story quoted UAW officials saying that injuries like 
those at Mazda are "an enormous problem in the auto industry", 
yet the UAW was still actively encouraging the changes in 
production practices and the lack of action on grievances like 
Ronda Hauben's that were contributing to the ever more unsafe 
conditions. The article explained that job classifications helped 
to cut down work injuries. It explained: "The high number of job 
classifications and union contract provisions at Big 3 plants 
ensure that injured workers return to less physically demanding 
jobs. But," the reporter wrote, " Mazda has no contract 
requirement to bring back injured workers. As a factor of team 
production, there are no job classifications that would ensure 
easy work for an injured worker. So an injury that could be 
nettlesome for a worker in a Big 3 plant can become debilitating 
at a team production plant such as Mazda." (Record, p. 59)
 
     The reporter went on to describe how Mazda did provide 
restrictive work to some employees, but how the practice of job 
rotation instead of classification, made the injury situation 
worse. Also, the reporter explained how Mazda workers who talked 
to her did so at the risk of losing their jobs, as the company 
handbook forbid talking to the press without first having such 
cleared with Mazda.
 
     When Ronda Hauben told one of her friends who was a sitdown 
pioneer about the story being written by the Automotive News 
reporter, he asked what was happening with her grievance. She 
told him that she had not been informed of any progress, and he 
suggested that she write a letter to the International Union. 
(See letter of January 25, 1989, Record pg 45-6) In that letter 
Ronda Hauben explained that "Bill Judson promised that the en
closed grievance would be processed, but he never informed me of 
its progress." After speaking with other UAW members, Ronda 
Hauben was told that she should have sent her letter return 
receipt requested if she expected to get an answer from the 
International Union. So she wrote the February 2, 1989 letter and 
sent that letter return receipt requested. Included with that 
letter was an updated grievance. (Record, pg 47-58)
 
     Also, in that letter, Ronda Hauben referred the 
International President to the book "Japan in the Passing Lane" 
(Japanese title "The Factory of Despair")  by Satoshi Kamata, 
(N.Y., 1982, p 211). In that book the dangerous working conditions 
and nightmarish experiences of auto workers in Japan who work 
under the team management system are exposed. Also, the weakness 
of Japanese unions in dealing with these backward and dangerous 
conditions was discussed.
 
     The story in "Automotive News" appeared on February 13, 1989 
verifying the dangerous conditions that Ronda Hauben's grievance 
had brought to light. Thus, the International Union, under the 
glare of publicity of having done nothing to challenge these 
conditions, wrote back to Ronda Hauben, in a letter dated 
February 17, 1989, that she should return to her local union and 
press her appeal: "If you have not appealed to your Local Union 
membership, it will be necessry for you to do so prior to 
appealing to this office." (Record, pg. 64) The record also 
contains a letter from the International Union to the local 
union, dated February 17, 1989, instructing the local union to 
advise the International if this was a timely appeal, and also to 
submit all the documents and records held by the Local Union on 
the grievance. (Record, pg. 65-66). 
 
     The record contains no statement by the Local Union that 
Ronda Hauben's appeal was untimely. Also, there are no records of 
the grievance or other information in the record submitted to the 
Public Review Board by the International Union.
 
     The article in Automotive News spoke about Ronda Hauben's 
grievance. Bill Judson was asked about her grievance. The 
reporter writes:
 
     "In her grievance file with Local 3000, Hauben claims she 
     was put on a job for 10 hours a day at full line speed 
     without training last summer, yet her time card was coded as 
     training.
 
     "That was going on at one point in time," Judson agreed. 
 
     Judson did not say that he grievance had been withdrawn. To 
the contrary, he agreed that the violations charged in the 
grievance were ongoing.
 
     In response to the letter from the International Union, 
Ronda Hauben wrote back to the International and also to the 
Recording Secretary of UAW Local 3000. (See Record, pg. 68 - 71) 
She protested that she had previously been told by Bill Judson 
that she wouldn't be allowed to come to a local union meeting to 
inquire about the grievance. She explained that she had not been 
informed of any steps of the procedures available to her. She 
wrote: "I have made every effort to exhaust internal union 
remedies, and have been denied knowledge and access of those 
procedures by Local Union officials, regional officals, and by 
the people in your office who would send me back to Region 1A.
(Record, pg. 68) In her letter to the Recording Secretary
of UAW Local 3000,  Ronda Hauben wrote: "As I was not informed 
that the grievance was acted on or dropped, I was denied my due 
process to all subsequent steps of the appeal process. Please 
inform me of any response to this appeal and any steps available 
to me regarding my right to fair representation and the 
resolution of my grievance. (Record, pg. 70)
 
     In a letter dated March 4, 1989, Bill Judson informed Ronda 
Hauben that there was no Recording Secretary in the Local. Also, 
he informed her that meetings of the Unit were not scheduled on a 
"regular date." He also explained that her appeal would be on the 
agenda at the next meeting that was scheduled, and that she would 
be notified of the date. (Record, pg. 72)
 
     Also, during this period, Ronda Hauben had inquired with the 
NLRB whether or not she could bring a charge and agreed to try to 
file a charge with the NLRB despite the fact that the NLRB was 
not challenging activity in violation of its mandate during this 
period.
 
     The letter to the International Executive Board (UAW) dated 
March 24, 1989 describes what happened when Ronda Hauben attended 
a membership meeting of UAW Local 3000 on March 12, 1989. Bill 
Judson denied her the right to have her appeal heard and informed 
her that it could only be heard at a special meeting of the unit. 
Other members of UAW Local 3000 complained that such meetings 
were not held and that such restrictions were used to prevent 
members from having their grievances heard. (See Record, pg. 74)
Also the letter requested that the International now consider the 
appeal as it seemed impossible to have any of the regular proce
dures that the Constitution mandates need to be available for an 
appeal to be put through its internal channels.
 
     The NLRB charge was not accepted by the NLRB and no 
investigation was ever held by them. Also, though they were 
provided with the Mazda contract, their dismissal notice gives 
no indication of having examined the contract or held the union 
to the obligatins required by the union contract.
 
     However, in talking with the NLRB agent it became clear that 
the events going on in the local of denying certain members the 
right to run for union office were contrary to the law governing 
the rights of union members. Ronda Hauben was told to complain to 
the UAW internally about the situation. She did so via letter, 
and the record contains two letters from the International Union 
regarding the need to have new nominations at UAW Local 3000 so 
that all union members would be given the right to run for union 
office. (Record, pg 83 and 84)

  (To be continued)
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp