From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: UAW Welcomes Auto Factory of Despair - PRB#1001 (Part 3 of 4)long
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:40:29 GMT


UAW Welcomes Auto Factory of Despair into Heart of Union Territory
           Public Review Board Case #1001
                 Part 3 of 4

 
     During this period a reporter from the Japanese newspaper 
Asahi Shimbun requested an interview. During the interview, Ronda 
Hauben discussed the book "Auto Factory of Despair" (Title in 
U.S. "Japan in the Passing Lane," by Satoshi Kamata. N.Y., 1982) 
The reporter explained that he was interviewing workers in the 
U.S. because it was very hard to get any information about 
working conditions in Japan. Workers wouldn't talk to the press 
because there was no union protection. All he knew about what 
went on in the factories was what management told the press, 
unless some reporter went into a factory and did an exposure as 
had happened with "Auto Factory of Despair." 
 
     When his article appeared on April 24, 1989 (pg 9) (Record, 
pg 91-95), it featured a picture of Ronda Hauben holding the book 
"Auto Factory of Despair". She is quoted saying "The conditions 
at Mazda are even worse than this book described (as the condi
tions at Toyota)." The article explains how Mazda represents the 
worst working conditions possible in the two countries. The 
reporter concludes: "At present there are seven Japanese auto 
manufactures with nine factories in the US. On the one hand, they 
are taking up the american style of labor relations which 
involves dismissals and lay offs of workers. On the other hand 
they are exploiting human labor to the maximum to make producti
vity and efficiency gains which is the Japanese way. (However, 
"Auto Factory of Despair" shows how only a very small percentage 
of the labor force in Japan are permanent workers, and those 
workers work in such dangerous working conditions that they 
rarely are able to continue working since they are likely to 
sustain serious injuries and thus be thrown out of work.)
 
     The record indicates that Ronda Hauben continued to go 
through the appeal procedures at the local union level that were 
now available to her, despite the harrassment she was receiving 
from union officials like the Regional Director, as she attempted 
to make her appeal. In "Re: Appeal of Grievance from Action at 
MMUC Unit Meeting" dated May 11, 1989, Ronda Hauben describes 
what happened at the April 16, 1989 membership meeting. (Record, 
pg. 98-101) She describes how she was denied all due process 
procedures at the April 16, 1989 meeting. She writes:
 
     "There was no investigation of my grievance...as is outlined 
     in the Constitution regarding the procedure for an appeal. 
     The Chair never informed the membership of any procedures 
     for an appeal. I tried to make a motion and the Chair never 
     asked the body if there was a second for the motion, but 
     allowed the Regional Director to take the floor. The 
     Regional Director proceedd to allude to the fact that I had 
     appealed to the NLRB and the Dept of Labor and (he) failed to 
     inform the membership that no discriminatory retaliation is 
     to occur to a member who appeals to those bodies."
                         (Record, pg 99-100)
 
     Also, she documented the harassment and personal attacks 
that she was subjected to from the Regional Director in an ethics 
complaint and sent that to the International Executive Board 
(UAW) (See Record, p 102, 103, complaint dated May 12, 1989)
 
     The ethics complaint, dated, May 12, 1989, explained what 
had transpired:
 
     "Then when finally the appeal was brought up at the Unit 
     meeting, neither the Regional Director nor any of the local 
     union officers explained any procedure that would govern the 
     appeal to the membership or to me. Considering that Local 
     3000 is a new local, this was particularly inexcusible.
 
     Then the President of the Local allowed me to speak for a 
     few minutes. There were many questions from the members, but 
     I was not allowed to answer these questions. Instead the 
     floor was given to the Regional Director who proceeded to 
     personally attack me with statements that were untrue. I was 
     given no chance to respond. Then the President of the Local 
     proceded to attack me making untrue statements about my 
     status. Again I was not allowed to respond. I had tried to 
     make a motion regarding the appeal, but the President re
     fused to ask for a second. At the end of this spreading of 
     rumors by the Regional Director and the Local President the 
     Regional Director said let the record show there was no 
     support."
                    (See Record, pg. 102)
 
     The complaint charged the Regional Director with violations 
of the UAW Ethical Practice Code #1,2,3,4. But no investigation 
nor decision was ever made on these charges. They were just 
ignored.
 
     Also, the complaint described misrepresentations made by the 
Regional Director regarding Ronda Hauben's former employment at 
Ford Motor Company's Rouge Factory in the Dearborn Engine Plant. 
The complaint explains:
 
     "Also the question of some activity at Local 600 was raised, 
     and I was not allowed to present my evidence that the acti
     vity going on there that involved me has been ruled to be at 
     least Unconstitutional and also a violation of labor law. It 
     would seem that the Public Review Board or the International 
     Executive Board now has an obligatin to look into that 
     situation since it was raised by the Regional Director to 
     prejudice people against me....A copy of a letter from the 
     Wayne County Prosecutor's office stating that the activity 
     involving the education classes at the Dearborn Engine Plant 
     that the UAW is involved in, is a violation of the Constitu
     tion of the State of Michigan, will be made available to you 
     upon request. That finding has now been upheld by the Attor
     ney General's office of the Stae of Michigan. Yet there has 
     been no effort on anyone's part in the UAW to look into it 
     or to try to make the needed corrections." (Record pg 103 
     and pgs 1-5)
 
     Also, Ronda Hauben continued challenging unfair election 
procedures which denied union rights to union members.
 
     No minutes of these meetings have been made available by the 
UAW. In response to the next appeal to the International Execu
tive Board over the disposition and handling of Ronda Hauben's 
grievance, all records held by the Local Union were again 
requested. The only record made available to Ronda Hauben from 
that request was a letter from Phil Keeling, President of Local 
3000 dated July 26, 1989. (Record, pg. 125-6) Keeling merely says 
that "I was present at the meetings of April 16, 1989, and May 
21, 1989, which Sister Hauben refers to in her complaint."
 
     He then goes on to explain:
 
     "It's my opinion that she has been afforded ample opportunity 
     to state her appeals at these two meetings as well as 
     several other meetings. Her motions have never received any 
     support from our memberships." (Record, pg. 125)
 
     He then goes on to apologize for the lack of any other 
records regarding this appeal.
 
     "I apologize for not being able to provide more of the 
     information in your request, but we are just now getting our 
     office organized.        (Record, pg 126)
 
     The letter of May 24, 1989 to the International Executive 
Board (UAW) (Record, pg 109-110) gives Ronda Hauben's description 
of what happened at the May meeting when her appeal was brought 
to a membership meeting. She writes:
 
     "I wrote you several times asking that someone meet with me 
     to explain the process by which I would be able to appeal as 
     I was being stonewalled by the officers and Regional 
     Directors who run the union meetings of Local 3000."
                              (Record, pg 109)
 
     Her letter continues:
 
     "I repeatedly phoned your office asking for someone to meet 
     with me so that my efforts to have my appeal heard by Local 
     3000 would be in accord with my constitutional rights. No 
     one from your office would answer my telephone calls or my 
     letters so I could be informed of the process that I was to 
     be accorded when I tried to present my appeal to a member
     ship meeting of Local 3000. Local 3000 is a new local and 
     the Regional Director has made every effort to keep the 
     members ignorant of their rights under the Constituion. Thus 
     despite the fact that I wrote a letter to the Recording 
     Secretary and brought up my appeal at a membership meeting 
     of Local 3000 on May 21, 1989, I was never granted the right 
     to have my appeal heard. Instead, the Regional Director 
     presided over a situation in which a motion was used to deny 
     me the right to have my appeal heard. When I tried to object 
     that this violation of the Constitution of the International 
     Union, UAW, was taking place, the Regional Director 
     interrupted and encouraged the officers of Local 3000 to 
     violate my rights in this manner. Also, I was not allowed to 
     speak or to have the floor to dsicuss what was happening and 
     when I tried to get the floor, I was threatened that I would 
     be thrown out of the meeting. Thus I have had no further 
     appeal procedure available to me than when I first wrote you 
     in February (sic should be January) and it seems that that 
     was deliberably (sic should be deliberately) intended as 
     otherwise, either the Regional Director or some Executive 
     Board member or representative would have sat down with me 
     and discussed the procedures that I had a right to expect 
     from the Local Union. Instead I have been denied the same 
     procedures I was denied last October, when the Regional 
     Director told me that I had no appeal procedures to 
     challenge the handling or disposition of a grievance."
                         (Record, pg 109)
 
     The letter went on:
 
     "And instead of the Regional Director who has been present 
     at all the meetings, informing the membership of the proce
     dures, no information has been presented or made available 
     thus resulting in the denial of Constitutional Rights of 
     refusing to hear an appeal as occurred at the membership 
     meeting on May 21, 1989. Regional Director Lofton was 
     obliged to support my effort to say that a motion was out of 
     order which would deny a member the right to appeal the 
     handling of a grievance to the membership of the Local. But 
     instead...he atacked me and encouraged the officers and few 
     members present at the meeting to deny a member her 
     Constitutional Rights. "
                         (Record, pg 110)
    
 
     The record contains a letter of June 16, 1989, to the 
International Executive Board (UAW) appealing the action of the 
local union. The letter explained:
 
     "I have written to you several times requesting my right 
     under Art. 33 of the International Constitution, UAW, to be 
     able to appeal the handling and disposition of a grievance I 
     filed at Mazda in August 1988. I received only one response 
     from you regarding the grievance appeal. It was dated 
     Fevruary 17, 1989...
 
     "I repeatedly phoned the President's office asking for 
     someone to meet with me so that my efforts to have my appeal 
     heard by Local 3000 would be in accord with my 
     constituitonal rights. No one from that office would answer 
     my telephone calls or my letters so I could be informed 
     of the process that I was to be accorded when I again tried 
     to present my appeal to a membership meeting of Local 3000. 
 
     The appeal describes some of the violations of basic due 
process that occurred at the membership meetings which didn't 
allow Ronda Hauben to discuss or answer questions about her 
grievance. Also, the letter explains the personal attack by the 
Regional Director on Ronda Hauben. She writes:
 
     "Also, the Regional Director, in his attack on me at a 
     membership meeting of the MMUC Unit of UAW Local 3000, 
     brought up the so called `disruptive' role I had played in 
     Local 600. I did not play any `disruptive' role in Local 
     600, but requsted that the Local adhere to the State Consti
     tution and the law with regard to the state funded high 
     school completion classes which are being given at the 
     Dearborn Engine Plant. Instead of any official of the U.A.W. 
     discussing this situation with me to correct an illegal 
     situation, the Regional Director tried to further harrass me 
     to coverup the illegal situation at the Ford Rouge Plant. I 
     am enclosing a letter from the Prosecutor of Wayne County 
     and the Attorney General of Michigan (Record, pgs 1-4) 
     acknowledging that Local 600 is involved in promoting an 
     unconstitutional situation. And I am asking that someone 
     from the International Union, preferably President Owen 
     Bieber, sit down to discuss this situation and to take means 
     to have the International Union and Local 600 both correct 
     the illegality and rectify the harm that has been suffered 
     because of this illegality."
 
     The appeal continues, documenting the removal of the one 
democratic institution in the UAW, the ending of the uncensored 
press. The appeal explains:
 
     "But it does not seem that any good will come from my appeal 
     because tbe UAW no longer has an uncensored press, or allows 
     its local unions to have an uncensored local union press. 
     Only when corruption or illegality can be brought to the 
     attention of the membership through an uncensored union 
     press, can the membership begin to figure out how to begin to 
     correct the inequities and illegalities. Only when union 
     officials may be criticized publicly if their actions are 
     contrary to the principles of unionism, can there be a light 
     shed on the problems and weakneesses in carrying out the 
     duties of the office. 
                         (Record, pg 113)
 
     The Appeal goes on:
 
     "Art. 29, Sect. 7 of the Constitution of the International 
     Union, UAW, was used at the 1951 convention to deny the 
     right of an uncensored press to the UAW membership in the 
     grievance concerning the censorship of "The Searchligh" by 
     the International Executive Board of the UAW. Union members 
     cannot have a democratic union until we have the democratic 
     right to an uncensored local union press. Chinese students 
     and workers have been protesting their lack of an uncensored 
     press and were brutally slaughtered by their government last 
     week because they understood the need in their society for 
     democratic rights and the free flow of information. 
     Unfortunately, the censorship of the press and speech also 
     exists within the UAW. Thus the means to bring light and 
     solve problems is kept out of the hands of the membership of 
     the UAW. Until this barrier is broken through, the problems 
     and corruption can only go on and get worse."
                              (Record, pg 113)
 
     After quoting James Mill's article on the essential need for 
"Liberty of the Press" if there is to be any possibility of 
democratic government, the appeal concludes: "For the UAW to 
continue to exist requries that it become more democratic. 
That requires that the right to an uncensored press be available 
to UAW members." (Record, pg. 114)
 
     Also, irregularities in the previous election procedure were 
appealed.
 
      The record indicates that the International Union wrote 
to Local 3000 once again requesting documents pertaining to the 
appeal of the handling and disposition of the grievance. 
The request, which required that the Local submit the items 
listed within 10 days, listed the following items:
 
     1. All records in the Local Union pertaining to the matter 
     from which the member(s) desire(s) to appeal;
 
     2. Copies of membership meeting minutes where any action has 
     been taken on the appeal and underline in red that portion 
     which deals with this particular appeal;
 
     3. Copies of any transcript or testimony;
 
     4. A detailed statement setting forth the reasons which 
     caused the Local Union to take the action in connection 
     with the member's appeal;
 
     5. Copy of appellant's grievance;
 
     6. Date the grievance was withdrawn;
 
     7. How and when when the grievant was notified of the 
     settlement; and 
 
     8. Any other documents or material relative to the matter 
     and/or statements the Local Union may wish to present on its 
     behalf in answer to the appeal.
 
     The letter from the International Union to the Local Union 
then explains:
 
     "It is imperative that the information requested be compiled 
     by the Local Union and sent to my office with an ORIGINAL 
     AND THREE (3) COPIES (four copies in all) WITHIN TEN (10) 
     DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER."
 
     The letter, signed by Owen Bieber, President of the UAW, 
explained "As soon as this information is received, the 
International Union will advise the member and the Local Union 
of the status of this appeal." (Record, pg. 120)
 
     The statement of the issue of the appeal was clearly 
recorded in this letter from Owen Bieber to Local 3000. The 
statement described the appeal:
 
     RONDA HAUBEN, Member, Local Union 3000, appealing the May 
     21, 1989 Local 3000 membership action regarding the handling 
     and disposition of her `grievance of August 23, 1988 and 
     amended versions'.
                              (Record, pg. 119)
 
     A second  letter went from President Bieber to Local 3000 
regarding the election appeal:
 
     RONDA HAUBEN, Member, Local Union 3000, appealing the May 
     21, 1989 Local 3000 membership action regarding her protest 
     to the May 9, 1989 local union election for executive 
     officers.
                              (Record, pg. 121)
 
     The letter to the Local Union regarding the election appeal 
requested the following:
 
     1. Copies of all minutes of the Local Union affecting the 
     nominations and election, including the action of the Local 
     Union on the member's protest;
 
     2. All of the data from the Election Committee on the 
     results of the election, such as copies of notices, election 
     results, rules, etc.;
 
     3. A full statement from the Electin Committee relative to 
     the allegatins made by the member in the protest as 
     attached;
 
     4. Any additional comments by the Electin Committee on the 
     conduct of the election;
 
     5. Comments or statements by the Local Union relative to the 
     conduct of the election; and
 
     6. Any other documents or comments the Local Union may wish 
     to present which may be deemed pertinent in resolving this 
     appeal.
 
     Also, these documents were to be submitted via the original 
and three copies within ten days of receipt of the letter from the 
International. 
 
     Included in the appeals were supporting documents including 
two election leaflets, one signed by the Regional Director, and 
the other handed out by the New Directions Coalition. Both 
leaflets attacked Ronda Hauben and demonstrated prejudice and 
bias against her.  The leaflet signed by the Regional Director 
"Just the Facts Please" claims that Ronda Hauben spoke at a New 
Directions Meeting and that she has acted as a "loose cannon."
                           (Record, pg. 90)
 
     The New Directions Coalition leaflet made up a series of 
misstatements about Ronda Hauben and then explained that "At the 
last meeting Director Lofton stated that this person was also 
disruptive as a member of Local 600". (Record, p. 89)
 
     The record is silent on any documents submitted by the Local 
Union to the International Union with the exception of the letter 
from Phil Keeling claiming there was no support for the appeal. 
Hence the International Union, having no rebuttal to Ronda 
Hauben's ethics charges against the Regional Director and to her 
two appeals, one of the handling and disposition of her grievance 
and the other, the election protest, had to find in her favor. 
 
     The International Union (UAW) in a letter dated July 17, 
1989, acknowledged receipt of her appeal of the "May 21, 1989 
Local 3000 membership action regarding the handling and 
dispostiion of your `grievance of August 23, 1988 and amended 
versions.'" (See Record, pg 123) And she was told, "You will be 
notified in due time by this office of the action to be taken on 
this appeal."  (Record, pg 123) A similar letter was sent 
acknowledging receipt of her appeal "of the May 21, 1989 Local 
3000 membership action regarding your protest to the May 9, 1989 
local union election for executive officers." (Record, pg. 124) 
 
     The record is then silent on any action by the International 
Union on these appeals. Though this case was seemingly simple as 
there was no evidence provided by the Local Union rebuting the 
claims of the Appellant, the International Union took no obvious 
action on the appeals. 
 
     After a long delay in the MIOSHA case at the Michigan 
Department of Labor, a summary statement was issued by the 
Michigan Department of Labor dismissing the case. Ronda Hauben 
appealed the dismissal as no investigation had really taken place 
and her evidence had not been considered.  
 
     There was another long delay and a hearing was finally 
scheduled for February 26, 1991 before an Administrative Law 
Judge. At the hearing, the lawyer for Mazda stipulated that a 
written grievance had been handed into the employer regarding 
safety problems at Mazda. (Record, pg 133, 134) Mr. Hynds also 
agreed to the submission of the three page grievance as evidence:
 
     Mr Hynds: I do have a copy and there is no objection on the 
     part of the company, Your Honor.
                    (Record, pg 134)
 
     The sworn testimony at that hearing documents that Ronda 
Hauben had gone through the procedures of the grievance process 
as part of her complaints about the dangerous conditions she was 
being forced to work in. She was asked whether the grievance had 
ever been processed. She responded:
 
     "I was originally told by the union first that there was an 
     investigation into it. I asked to appeal becaue I was never 
     called. I asked also how it would be dealt with. I was told 
     when I was back--
     
     She was then asked to clarify. She explained:
 
     The Witness: I guess I don't know what procedure. I do know 
     I have an appeal at the international union (of) that 
     grievance, but I have never been informed by anybody in the 
     union of what has gone on with regard to it, and I do have 
     it legitimately on appeal.
 
     The Hearing Judge: So it's in the process?
 
     The Witness: That's right.  
 
     Mr. Brogan: I have nothing further at this time.
                         (Record, pg 139)
 
     There was no rebuttal testimony submitted by the employer or 
union that the grievance was not being processed or that Ronda 
Hauben had been notified of any outcome with regard to the 
grievance or the appeal.
 
     Also, during the Hearing, Ronda Hauben testified under oath 
that the grievance was protesting the disciplinary write-up on 
Monday by her supervisor John Czerka. The one witness for the 
employer, Charlie Hayes a fellow worker and UAW member, testified 
that he saw John Czerka talking to Ronda Hauben.
 
     Q Were you aware of some write-up on Monday by John Cyserka?
     A I seen John set you down, but I wasn't aware of what he 
     did.      (Record, pg 141)
 
     Also, under oath, Charlie Hayes testified that a new worker 
like Ronda Hauben could not be expected to rotate jobs every few 
hours because it took time to learn a job. 
 
     Q. Could you describe, Mr. Hayes, this rotation of every two 
     to four hours. When somebody new comes in, do you rotate 
     them every two to four hours on a job?
     A. You very well can't do that; until they know a job, you 
     can't rotate them to another one yet.
               (Record, pg 143)
     
     The employer submitted no evidence at the hearing, nor did 
they make an opening or closing statement. In a decision issued 
August 26, 1991, and based on the evidence and testimony 
presented to him, the Administrative Law Judge reversed the 
determination of the Department of Labor and found that 
Complainant Ronda Hauben was discharged in violation of Section 
65 of MIOSHA for complaining about inadequate training.
(Record, pg 146)
 
     Throughout this period, Ronda Hauben had continued to call 
the International Union and inquire about her appeal and had 
requested assistance with the MIOSHA complaint from the 
International and Local Unions, as the International had 
intervened in a precedent case of Pearl Brown vrs the Department 
of Transportation. Ronda Hauben was asked to send the written 
opinion of the Michigan Department of Labor to the UAW 
International Union. She did so in a letter dated September 12, 
1991. (Record, pg 153 and pg 145-152)
 
     Suddenly on November 6, 1991, in response to the favorable 
decision from the Michigan Department of Labor, and to the 
request that the UAW give support to workers at Mazda by 
defending the decision which was then the law, Mr. Halope 
notified Ronda Hauben that he was closing her case. (Record, pg 
154 and 155). Suddenly the issue in the appeal was arbitrarily and 
capriciously changed to the issue of the timeliness of the 
appeal. No evidence was presented for the capricious and 
irrational change of the issue of the appeal. Also, in a letter 
dated November 13, 1991, the legal department of the UAW notified 
Ronda Hauben that they would not support the favorable decision 
by the Michigan Department of Labor. They claimed that their 
reason for not participating in the litigation were monetary 
contraints. (See Record, pg 156) They didn't explain why they had 
participated in the Pearl Brown case regarding a MIOSHA decision 
for someone who had not even been a UAW member. 
 
     Also she appealed to the Public Review Board in a letter 
dated December 6, 1991. (See Record, pg. 168-175) In that appeal 
she explained how the grievance was filed in 1988 and the appeal 
in 1989 and there had been no investigation by the International 
Union into the details of the grievance or the appeal and no 
hearing accorded her. And after a favorable decision of the 
Michigan Department of Labor after a hearing, the UAW threw out 
her appeal citing a fabricated excuse.
 
     In her appeal to the Public Review Board, Ronda Hauben 
explained the irrationality of this action by the International 
Union. She wrote:
 
     "Most importantly, the International Union, held my appeal, 
     never conducting any investigation into the facts of the 
     appeal to my knowledge, as I was never contacted for a 
     hearing or for any other purpose while the grievance was 
     held over two years on appeal. Then when a favorable 
     decision was returned in my behalf by an Adminstrative Law 
     Judge of the State of Michigan, instead of the union 
     demonstrating their support for this decision to Mazda and to 
     other workers by providing full support for my grievance and 
     letting Mazda know they would defend this positive decision, 
     which is currently law, the International Union instead let 
     Mazda know that they would encourage the overturning of this 
     decision by their rejection of my appeal on a concocted 
     technicality and their refusal to intervene in the review of 
     the case that Mazda has brought to Circuit Corut."
 
     The appeal went on:
 
     "Based on the above facts, I maintain that my greivance which 
     was filed timely and appealed timely, given the above 
     circumstances. The rejection of my appeal after being held 
     with no investigation or hearing for over 2 years, and then 
     thrown out on a concocted technicality based on erroneous 
     assumptions and after being notified of the favorable de
     cision in the MIOSHA case, is a support of Mazda's effort to 
     get this favorable decision in the MIOSHA case which sets a 
     safety precedent for auto workers overturned. Thus the In
     ternational Union's action regarding this appeal is not only 
     a demonstration of `fraud, discrimination, collusion with 
     management,' but also such a disposition of the grievance 
     and the appeal by the International Union upon notice of a 
     favorable MIOSHA decision, is clearly devoid of any rational 
     basis.'"
                    (Record, pg 174)
 
     The appeal explained that by such actions of the union, 
Mazda has been encouraged to become more high-handed.  
 
     As the International Executive Board had not acted on the 
appeal, the appeal to the Public Review Board was forwarded to 
them. (See Record, pg 179)

  (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