EMERGING TRENDS IN EMPLOYMENT AND 

LABOR LAW: EXAMINING THE NEED FOR 

GREATER WORKPLACE SECURITY AND THE 

CONTROL OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 

Serial No. 107-80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-591 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

 JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 

 SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Chairman

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SAM JOHNSON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................................................... 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DONALD PAYNE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF EUGENE RUGALA, SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACADEMY, QUANTICO, VA .............................................. 5

STATEMENT OF REBECCA A. SPEER, ESQ., PRINCIPAL, SPEER ASSOCIATES, SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF CARL DONAWAY, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AIRBORNE EXPRESS, SEATTLE, WA...................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF LEWIS L. MALTBY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WORKRIGHTS 

INSTITUTE, PRINCETON, NJ ................................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF PAUL WHITEHEAD, GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED 

STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, PITTSBURGH, PA............................................................ 13

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. HORN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, AK 

STEEL CORPORATION, MIDDLETOWN, OH........................................................................ 15

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SAM JOHNSON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX B- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF EUGENE RUGALA, SUPERVISORY 

SPECIAL AGENT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACADEMY, QUANTICO, 

VA................................................................................................................................................. 37

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REBECCA A. SPEER, ESQ., PRINCIPAL, 

SPEER ASSOCIATES, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT......................................................... 43

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CARL DONAWAY, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIRBORNE EXPRESS, SEATTLE, WA.......................................... 55
iv

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LEWIS L. MALTBY, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL WORKRIGHTS INSTITUTE, PRINCETON, NJ.................................................. 61

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAUL WHITEHEAD, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, PITTSBURGH, PA............................................ 69

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DAVID C. HORN, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AK STEEL CORPORATION, MIDDLETOWN, OH......................... 77

APPENDIX H – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, ADDENDUM TO WRITTEN 

TESTIMONY BY DAVID C. HORN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, AK 

STEEL CORPORATION, MIDDLETOWN, OH........................................................................ 87

APPENDIX I – PLACED IN PERMANENT ARCHIVE FILE, VIDEOTAPES: (1) USWA 

UNION MEMBERS, PICKET LINE RACIAL HARASSMENT, MANSFIELD, OH, AND (2) 

VIOLENT, VULGAR, RACIST AND SEXIST CONDUCT, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF 

AMERICA MEMBERS, WARNING: THIS MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN

.................................................................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX J – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOE 

WILSON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE.......................................................................... 103

APPENDIX K – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE ........ 107

APPENDIX L – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATED 

BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, ROSSLYN, VA............................................................. 111

APPENDIX M – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF LPA, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................. 115

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 125 
1

HEARING ON EMERGING TRENDS IN EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR LAW: 

EXAMINING THE NEED FOR GREATER WORKPLACE SECURITY AND 

 THE CONTROL OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 

___________________

Thursday, September 26, 2002 

Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

 U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Sam Johnson, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Johnson, Boehner, McKeon, Tancredo, Tiberi, Wilson, Andrews, 

Payne, Kildee, McCarthy, and Tierney. 

 Staff present: Stephen Settle, Professional Staff Member; Loren Sweatt, Professional Staff 

Member; Dave Thomas, Senior Legislative Assistant; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; JoMarie St. Martin, General Counsel; Greg Maurer, Coalitions Director for Workforce Policy; 

Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Allison Dembeck, 

Executive Assistant; and, Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator. 

Camille Donald, Minority Counsel, Employer-Employee Relations; Peter Rutledge, Minority 

Senior Legislative Associate/Labor; and, Dan Rawlins, Minority Staff Assistant/Labor. 
2

Chairman Johnson. The Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations will come to order. 

 The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on workplace security. I am eager to 

get to our witnesses, so I am going to limit the opening statements to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Payne, sitting in today. Therefore, if other Members 

have statements, they will be included in the hearing record. 

 With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to 

allow Member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be 

submitted for the official record. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SAM JOHNSON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 I want to welcome all of you here. Thank you for coming today, some of you from far 

away.

 It is estimated that Americans spend more time in the workplace than in any other 

industrialized nation. It makes sense that people should feel safe at work. Sadly, not everyone 

enjoys the luxury that we often take for granted.

It is unconscionable that people trying to get to work get pulled from their cars and beaten, 

or even worse. For those people who want to work during a strike to pay the bills, keep food on the 

table and a roof overhead, violence in the workplace has been a sad reality; and sadly, more and 

more people are becoming victims of union violence when all they want to do is earn enough 

money to make ends meet. 

 The real issue is: What steps can employers take to assure the safety of employees, 

customers, and the neighborhoods around them? Also, how can policy-makers help employers and 

employees, as well, enjoy safety in the workplace during day-to-day operations and whether new 

laws may be needed or whether existing laws may need to be improved. We're not here today 

pushing any specific legislation. However, we are here today to begin a public dialogue on the 

importance of workplace security, protecting employees and preventing violence and sabotage. 

 What we are really here for is to assess potential security problems inside the workplace, 

whether they are union or otherwise. And yes, part of that is discussing union issues. Employees 

are an essential part of the workforce security whether they are organized or not. Regardless of 

one's affiliation, workplace violence cannot be tolerated. We need to ensure that all Americans can 

perform their jobs in a safe environment. 

 This is the first in a series of hearings this Subcommittee will conduct on emerging trends in 

employment and labor law. What we learn in these hearings, I hope, can provide useful 
3

information to future Congresses about updating our antiquated laws and securing the workplace 

for all Americans. 

 I look forward to hearing from our witnesses to learn of their personal stories and ideas on 

how to prevent workplace violence, which is, as I understand it, on the increase. I appreciate all of 

you taking the time to participate in today's hearing. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SAM JOHNSON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 

Chairman Johnson. Now I turn to my colleague, Mr. Payne, for any comments that he might 

wish to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DONALD PAYNE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me also welcome all of you, and I appreciate 

you taking time from your busy schedules to participate in this hearing. Today's hearing is intended 

to look at workplace violence and the extent to which federal laws and policies assist or inhibit 

employees from taking steps to prevent workplace violence and to promote greater security in the 

workplace.

 I believe that there is no coincidence that this hearing comes at time when the National 

Taxpayers' Union is running ads attacking unions for so-called “union violence.” Violence of any 

kind is reprehensible. But there is no evidence to support the insinuation that violence by union 

members accounts for any significant portion of the problem of workplace violence. 

 Let the numbers speak for themselves. Between 1993 and 1999, violent crime in the 

workplace has declined by 44 percent, compared to a 40 percent decline in the overall rate of 

violent crime. The data from the Department of Justice show that only 7 percent of workplace 

homicides are committed by workers of any kind, whether union or non-union. Total strangers 

commit a whopping 84 percent of workplace homicides. 

 So as corporation after corporation continues to loot and pilfer millions of dollars of 

employees' contributed pension assets, I believe that the Committee's focus today is off-center.

The victimization of workers in the workplace is an extremely serious problem, but the answer is 

not to restrict the rights of workers; to make it easier to fire people; to invade the privacy of 

workers; or much less, to restrict their collective bargaining rights. The answer is to protect and 

empower workers, including their right to exercise their federally protected organizing rights. 
4

 Also, Mr. Chairman, I would make a request. I was looking at the order in which the 

witnesses were testifying, and I would like to ask if Mr. Horn would appear before Mr. Whitehead 

so that Mr. Whitehead can hear the allegations that will be made. Perhaps it would make more 

sense to be able to respond. I think, as you mentioned, this is a hearing to gather information. We 

don't have any predetermined program, as you said. It is just to start to gather information, the first 

of many hearings. So, since that is the purpose, I don't see why there would be any opposition for 

reversing the order, and with that, I would just ask if you would grant that. 

Chairman Johnson. In this instance, as you indicated, it is a hearing. I don't see any difference in 

what order the witnesses testify, and I am going to leave it the way it is for right now. You can 

rectify that in your question series. 

 Our first witness today is Mr. Eugene Rugala. He is a Supervisory Special Agent with the 

Critical Incident Response Group at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The second witness 

will be Ms. Rebecca Speer. She is a Principal at Speer Associates in San Francisco, California. 

Ms. Speer is testifying on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management. Mr. Carl 

Donaway is our next witness. He is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Airborne Express in 

Seattle, Washington. I would like to personally welcome Mr. Donaway because Airborne Express 

has a regional distribution station in my hometown of Dallas, Texas. Our fourth witness is Mr. 

Lewis Maltby. He is president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. Mr. 

Paul Whitehead is our fifth witness. He is General Counsel for the United Steelworkers of 

America in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

 I will now yield to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Boehner, for the purpose of 

introducing our final witness. 

Mr. Boehner. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding. Our last witness today is a constituent of 

mine, Mr. David Horn. I want to thank him for testifying today. Mr. Horn is Vice President and 

general counsel for AK Steel, which is headquartered in my district. AK produces flat rolled 

carbon steel, stainless steel, and electrical steels. Their Middletown works is probably the most 

productive integrated steel-making facility in the country. I want to welcome you, Mr. Horn, 

today.

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Boehner. 

 Having said all the introductions, I would like to explain to you that there is a series of 

lights in front of you that you may or may not be familiar with. We are going to allow you five 

minutes each for your oral testimony, and try to stay within that timing, if you would. You will see 

a green light that gives you four minutes; a yellow light that gives you one more minute, and then 

the red light comes at the end of five minutes. Once that is done, we also allow our Members five 

minutes to ask questions. 

 Special Agent Rugala, you may begin your testimony now. 
5

STATEMENT OF EUGENE RUGALA, SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACADEMY, QUANTICO, VA 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. It's an 

honor to testify today on this important matter about the problem of workplace violence and the 

scope of this problem in America's workplaces. 

 Before I speak to you this morning, I'd like to talk to you just a little bit about our unit and 

how we're involved with this particular issue. As you mentioned, I'm with the National Center for 

the Analysis of Violent Crime, which is assigned to the Critical Incident Response Group at the 

FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia. 

 Basically, the NCAVC is comprised of FBI special agents and professional support staff 

that look at violent crime issues from a law enforcement and behavioral perspective. We get 

involved in many types of cases, from serial murder to serial sexual assault. We've often been 

characterized as the profilers, if you will, in many of the media and certainly movies that have been 

out there. But one of the areas we have been involved in quite heavily is taking a look at many 

issues from a threat assessment perspective. Again, looking at behavior that may manifest itself in 

the workplace in this particular hearing. 

 We get involved at the request of local law enforcement. Once a company that may believe 

that they have a potentially dangerous employee has contacted us, they ask for our assistance in 

developing a threat assessment and maybe recommending intervention strategies to lower the level 

of threat within that organization. But we typically get involved in these cases, again, from 

contacts with local law enforcement and not by the CEO of the company reaching out and asking 

for our assistance. In this particular case, the company would have contacted law enforcement and 

maybe they'd be part of this multi-disciplinary team that might take a look at this potentially violent 

situation.

 The NCAVC itself reviews crimes from a behavioral and investigative perspective. We also 

conduct research in violent crime, looking at it from a law enforcement perspective in order to gain 

insight into criminal thought processes, motivations and behavior as to who the offenders might be 

in the commission of some of these types of crimes. 

 In June of this year, as it relates specifically to workplace violence, our group held a 

workplace violence symposium in Leesburg, Virginia, where we invited approximately 150 experts 

in the field of workplace violence and violent behavior to come together for a week to look at this 

issue from a threat assessment, threat management, prevention and crisis management and crisis 

response perspective. This multi-disciplinary group consisted of mental health professionals, law 

enforcement, prosecutors, victim witness advocates, union officials, CEO's of companies, and 

government agencies, as well as the military. As a result of this particular conference, we're hoping 

to produce a monograph that will certainly be made available to the public or anybody who needs 

it, as well as for review by the Committee. 

 For purposes of today's hearing, to specifically discuss the workplace violence issue, we 

define workplace violence as any action that may threaten the safety of an employee, impact the 
6

employee's physical or psychological well-being and/or cause damage to company property. 

Workplace violence is now recognized as a specific category of violent crime that calls for distinct 

and specific responses from employers, law enforcement, and the community. 

 However, this has been a relatively recent event in the sense that, while workplace violence 

is not new, the recognition of this fact has really just taken hold since the mid-1980s. And in that 

time period there has been specific focus on particular issues, maybe looking at the issue of 

violence in the retail trade as far as killings that might have occurred at a 7-Eleven or some type of 

convenience store, as well as patient assaults on health care workers. However, the focus has 

certainly become wider spread with some of the mass shootings that have occurred in the 

workplace as a result of disgruntled employees that retaliate against some perceived wrong by a 

supervisor.

 When we look at these issues and some of the statistics that have already been quoted, we 

see that homicides are just a very small part of the issue. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach 

when looking at workplace violence issues, and specifically it does not fall into a one-size-fits-all 

category. First, employers have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a safe working 

environment for workers. Second, employees have a right to expect to work in a safe environment. 

Third, law enforcement has to become more pro-active in dealing with this particular issue. Fourth, 

unions should regard workplace safety from violence as an employee's right, just as worthy of 

union defense as wages or any other contractual right. And five, occupational safety and criminal 

justice agencies have to pull together to take a look at this particular issue and certainly there's 

additional room for legislative recommendations as well as research into some of the causes and 

effects of this particular type of activity. 

 With that, I thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF EUGENE RUGALA, SUPERVISORY SPECIAL 

AGENT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACADEMY, QUANTICO, 

VA – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. Speer, you may begin your testimony now. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA A. SPEER, ESQ., PRINCIPAL, SPEER 

ASSOCIATES, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
7

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee. I feel 

extremely honored to be here today to talk about this very important issue. 

 By way of background, I'm an attorney and the principal of Speer Associates/ Workplace 

Counsel, located in San Francisco. And among other services, my firm helps employers implement 

a proactive approach to workplace violence, for reasons that I'd like to explain here today. I'm also 

a member of the Society for Human Resources Management, on whose behalf I am testifying. 

 The terrorist attacks last year have riveted corporate America's attention to the issue of 

workplace safety and security, primarily because the attacks targeted Americans at work. But I'd 

like to emphasize today that while September 11th has refocused even more so our attention on 

workplace safety, corporate America has struggled with the issue of safety from violence at work 

for a very long time. Especially since the mid-1980s we have been faced with increasing headlines 

about disturbing events in the workplace. We hear about multiple workplace slayings in such 

diverse settings as manufacturing plants, state lottery offices, and even law firms. In 1993 I spent 

several hours hidden in an office while a madman, gunman armed with an arsenal of weapons 

killed eight people on the floors directly above me before taking his own life in a stairwell near my 

office. 

 Because of these and other incidents, and as Agent Rugala mentioned, workplace violence 

increasingly is seen as a specific category of crime. And as a specific category I think a workplace 

issue that calls for a special response, or a specific response not only by law enforcement but also 

by the community at large, and especially by employers. 

 Today, I'd like to focus my brief comments on the impact of workplace violence on 

American businesses, the current responses to this complex problem, and on the opportunity that 

now exists for Congress to really help raise public awareness around this issue, and also to 

facilitate employers' response to this complex problem. 

 As already has been mentioned, workplace violence exacts a clear human price. We know 

that homicide is the third leading cause of workplace deaths among American businesses. Nearly a 

third of employees who die at work in California, do so as victims of homicide. And that's only the 

beginning of the problem because we know that the crux of the workplace violence problem, 

beyond homicides, is really millions of incidences of non-fatal workplace violence. And these 

include non-fatal assaults, threats, aggressive harassment, stalking, and a whole variety of 

problematic behaviors that create fear at work. 

 In addition to this human cost, workplace violence comes at a fairly steep financial price. 

While there are no formal studies regarding the economic cost of workplace violence, some studies 

suggest that it costs American businesses not millions, but billions of dollars a year. And part of 

that price, predictably, comes in the form of legal liability. Employers struggle to balance an array 

of laws that compel them on one hand, to promote a safe workplace, and on the other, to respect, 

understandably so, the rights of an alleged wrongdoer. So they are struggling with exposure from 

all sides of the equation. 
8

 Cases litigated throughout the country have spelled out liability in a number of different 

forms. Some of the theories of liability include premises liability, vicarious liability, negligent 

hiring, supervision and retention, and also sexual harassment to the extent that an incident might 

involve gender-based violence. Collectively these theories, in my view, have spelled out a societal 

judgment that employers cannot take a back seat to workplace violence, but instead, must 

responsibly manage incidents and also must take, or should take more of a pro-active or preventive 

approach.

 Now, in terms of a corporate response to the problem, many companies are implementing 

comprehensive workplace violence prevention programs that I'm happy to explain in more detail 

during the question and answer to the extent that there is some interest. On the legislative level, 

state lawmakers have responded by considering various measures that help facilitate companies' 

responses to workplace violence. 

The Society of Human Resources Management has spearheaded two initiatives in 

particular. One is the Workplace Violence Safety Act, which has the ultimate effect of permitting a 

company, as an organization, to obtain a restraining order against somebody who has threatened the 

workplace. I'm very familiar with that type of dynamic in California. 

In addition, there's an initiative related to reference checking. As we'll probably hear more 

about today, companies increasingly are focused on screening out people with a relevant history of 

past violent crime. Yet, what a lot of companies have is a “no-comment policy” in terms of 

references to prospective employers because of fear of litigation, and particular claims of 

defamation. Through this legislation, however, it affords employers an additional immunity that 

protects them if they're offering information to a prospective employer in good faith. 

 So those are what ultimately give employers a tool in which they could help promote 

workplace safety. And, in terms of the reference checking legislation, 35 states have enacted that 

legislation, so it's really gained in popularity. 

 To close my comments, I would like to mention that given the breadth of the workplace 

violence problem, I think that after today it'll be very clear that it's a multi-dimensional and 

complex problem. There really does exist a significant opportunity for Congress to consider ways 

to facilitate a response from all sides to this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I thank you very much for giving me this 

opportunity to offer my thoughts on the issue. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REBECCA A. SPEER, ESQ., PRINCIPAL, SPEER 

ASSOCIATES, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT – SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you for being with us, and thank you for your testimony. 
9

Mr. Donaway, you may begin your testimony now. 

STATEMENT OF CARL DONAWAY, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, AIRBORNE EXPRESS, SEATTLE, WA 

Thank you Chairman Johnson, Chairman Boehner, Congressman Payne, and Members of 

the Committee. My name is Carl Donaway. I am the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 

Airborne Express, the third-largest overnight package delivery company in the United States. 

 As an employer, I take both the moral and legal obligations of ensuring the safety and 

physical security of all of our employees with the utmost seriousness. I believe that every 

employee expects to be able to work within a safe environment. 

 Airborne Express directs significant resources towards workplace safety. The company 

operates a strict zero-tolerance policy with regard to any act or threat of violence. An employee 

found in violation of Airborne's workplace safety guidelines is immediately subject to discipline up 

to and including termination regardless of position within the company and regardless of their 

seniority.

 At the time of hire, every applicant we consider for employment must agree to a rigorous 

background check designed to detect any history or tendency of violence. This process includes: 

criminal background, previous employment, previous residency, credit history, and motor vehicle 

record checks. Additionally, applicants for all positions must pass a drug test at the time we hire, 

while drug and alcohol tests are administered to those in safety-sensitive positions throughout the 

course of their employment with our company. 

 Airborne has established a comprehensive safety communications program, a strict 

weapons policy, a consistent termination policy and a crisis management program specifically 

designed to respond to any incident or threat of violence made by or against any of our employees. 

And despite all of this, what we, and thousands of other companies do to reduce this likelihood of 

workplace violence; it remains one of the greatest issues facing employers today. 

 Those who survive workplace attacks often suffer a severe toll in terms of physical injury 

and posttraumatic stress. Work performance after an attack can deteriorate significantly, causing 

the victim additional anxiety and stress. Victims of families and the government seek to hold the 

employer accountable for any injuries or loss of lives resulting from such incidences. As a result, 

employers must navigate through a complex maze of regulations, privacy rule, case law and 

arbitration proceedings to protect themselves, their customers, and most importantly, their 

employees from threats of violence from others. 

 A unionized employee is no more immune from violence than any other worker. Most 

collective bargaining agreements provide that fighting is a dischargeable offense. Others specify 

that guns, knives or other dangerous items be prohibited on the premises. These agreements reflect 

the fact that both employers and their unionized workforces and union leadership, in particular, 
10

share a paramount goal, namely, a violence-free workplace. 

 Despite this commonality of goals, arbitrators are routinely called upon to resolve disputes 

between unions and employers over discipline applied for workplace safety violations. Arbitrators 

retain tremendous political discretion in determining whether or not an employer has imposed 

discipline proportional to the infraction. Often, suspensions and terminations are set aside on 

procedural or political grounds, rather than out of any concern that the arbitrator may share with the 

employer regarding the safety of the victims or of their co-workers. Unfortunately for all parties 

involved, opportunities for appellate review of flawed arbitration decisions are essentially nonexistent.

 Consider one of the more recent cases that faced our company. Not long ago, an Airborne 

Express employee threatened to kill a co-worker, his family, and other Airborne employees with a 

rifle after he learned that management suspected him of stealing. The victims, in genuine fear for 

their own safety, complained to company management. Airborne conducted a thorough 

examination and terminated the employee for outrageous conduct and notified the police. 

 Afterward, a grievance panel reinstated the employee with a significant back pay penalty, 

indicating that the incidents appeared to be merely shoptalk and not sufficiently outrageous to 

support a discharge. Later, that same individual sued Airborne alleging defamation, wrongful 

termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy, among other charges.

While conducting further investigation, in light of this lawsuit, we belatedly discovered that the 

employee had actually been terminated by a previous employer for involvement in a knife fight at 

the work site. We also learned of additional complaints of domestic violence: intimidating a 

witness; discharging a gun; and other acts of dangerous behavior. To remove what we considered 

to be an obvious threat to workplace safety, Airborne promptly terminated the employee again, this 

time for dishonesty on his job application. 

 During discussion with several prominent labor law firms, we were told that no matter what 

the merits of our termination were, the grievance panel handling the case would likely return this 

employee back to the workplace, for both procedural and political reasons. Upon receiving this 

news I personally instructed our legal department to immediately secure a global settlement for 

both the litigation and the grievance, which resulted in a substantial payment to secure the 

employee's resignation. 

 Although the settlement cost was significant, it was obvious that the company could not 

afford to honor an unfavorable arbitration decision that would compel us to reinstate a clearly 

dangerous person into the workplace. 

 Yet rewarding dangerous individuals is not a viable solution to this type of problem. I 

believe this example, and dozens of others like it, point to a special set of problems associated with 

the absence of appellate review of flawed arbitration decisions arising from an ever-growing 

number of workplace violence incidents. An act of violence can change an employee's life forever. 

If the workplace violence policies we administer to help protect our workers mean nothing, an 

even-handed resolution of disputes cannot be accomplished. In the absence of appellate review, 

employers are too often put in the impossible situation of having to reinstate dangerous people into 
11

our workplace they have pledged to keep violence free. 

 It seems to me that Congress has both an opportunity and a responsibility to victims of 

workplace violence to address this contradiction of workplace safety as soon as possible. I thank 

the Committee for its attention to this important aspect of worker safety. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CARL DONAWAY, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIRBORNE EXPRESS, SEATTLE, WA – SEE 

APPENDIX D 

 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you for your testimony. I was amazed when you said the number of 

violent acts in the workplace has increased 300 percent. That is an amazing statistic, and we can 

discuss that in the question period. 

Mr. Maltby, you may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LEWIS L. MALTBY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

WORKRIGHTS INSTITUTE, PRINCETON, NJ 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me here today. While I'm here officially as the President of the National Workrights Institute, I'm 

also speaking from the perspective of a former senior manager in the private sector who has lived 

through the kind of situations we're talking about today and I hope I've learned enough from that 

experience to be more useful this morning. 

 Willie Sutton used to say that he robbed banks because “that's where the money is.” Now, 

Mr. Sutton may have been a crook, but he has an important lesson for us. If we're going to attack 

any problem, including workplace safety, we have to look at where the greatest harm is being done 

and focus our attention on the greatest harm. And there is no question that the greatest harm today 

comes to workers, not from other workers, but from outside the workplace. 

 The Department of Justice statistics show, beyond any doubt, that the problem isn't violence 

committed by workers, it's violence done to workers. As Agent Rugala said, it's taxicab drivers, 

police officers, or convenience store clerks getting robbed or shot by criminals. That is the biggest 

part of the problem. The second-biggest part of the problem is mental health workers being 

assaulted by their patients. I don't mean to suggest that these are easy problems to address, but, if 

we're going to be serious about this, let's start with the biggest problem. There are many good ideas 

in this area. 

OSHA has some recommendations that are at least a positive step in the right direction. At 

a minimum we should try to develop those OSHA regulations more comprehensively and actually 
12

turn them into regulations rather than merely advisory recommendations. The second-biggest 

problem we have is industrial accidents. Most people don't think about industrial accidents when 

they're thinking about workplace violence. But from the standpoint of the worker, it's just as 

violent to be chewed up and spat out fatally by an industrial machine as it is to be killed by a coworker. And in the end, you're certainly just as dead. 

 If we want to prevent violence in the workplace, the second most important thing we could 

do is give OSHA the resources and the authority they need to do their job, because that's where 

two-thirds of the people get hurt. For every person who's killed in the workplace by traditional 

violence, there are two who die from the accident that probably could have been prevented. 

 Now, I don't mean to suggest, by any means, that violence committed by workers doesn't 

happen. It does. And there are two things we could do about that. One is we could try, to the 

extent that it's possible, to reduce the amount of stress in the workplace. I'm not talking about the 

impossible here. Jobs are stressful, we all know it, and nothing in the world can change that. God 

couldn't change it, and Congress couldn't change it, either. But the U.S. workplace does not have 

to be as stressful as it is.

We could have less surveillance, we could have more respect for workers' rights, and we 

could have more economic security for workers. It's possible if we really wanted to do it. It 

wouldn't solve the problem, but it would certainly help. Unions might be very advantageous here 

because unions give people some kind of voice in the workplace that keeps them from perhaps 

reaching the level of desperation that results in violence all too often. 

 Another thing we could do, and maybe we could actually get some agreement on, is we 

could help train managers to deal with this kind of problem. I've lived through these myself. I 

know how excruciatingly difficult these situations can be to handle, and I can tell you that 

managers can't deal with potentially violent situations alone. They need training, they need help, 

and they need access to outside experts. Managers can't do this alone. And there is a precedent for 

the United States government helping employers, particularly small employers who don't have all 

the resources in the world to get the training and the tools they need to deal with problems in the 

workplace. This would be a very good place to try that approach. 

 The one thing we don't need is more electronic surveillance. We've already got more 

surveillance than we need. There's very little sense of privacy left in the private sector workplace 

and more to the point, extreme levels of electronic surveillance have been documented by the 

University of Wisconsin to increase stress in the workplace. I don't mean headaches. I mean 

medical stress. We all know and all the experts know, that more stress means more violence. 

 So the last thing in the world we need is more stress producing electronic surveillance.

Employers already have that message. They are trying to find less intrusive ways to meet their 

legitimate needs. We're trying to work with them and that process needs to be encouraged not 

squelched.

 Thank you for your attention. I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone might have. 
13

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LEWIS L. MALTBY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

WORKRIGHTS INSTITUTE, PRINCETON, NJ – SEE APPENDIX E

Chairman Johnson. Thank you. We have three votes to make and we will recess for, I'm 

guessing, about 20 minutes until those are over. 

Mr. Donaway, I understand you have to leave. Can you wait until we get back from the 

votes? 

Mr. Donaway. Yes. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.]

Chairman Johnson. We'll continue with our witness testimony. 

Mr. Whitehead, thank you for being here. The loyal opposition is asking if we could wait 

until one of their Members shows up, and I'll do that if that's okay with you. Would you suspend 

for a moment? 

Mr. Whitehead. Of course. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, has arrived, so 

you may continue. And we'll restart the timer light. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL WHITEHEAD, GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED 

STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, PITTSBURGH, PA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Whitehead and I'm the General Counsel of the 

United Steelworkers of America. And I'm happy to be able to talk to you, today. 

 As the Chairman knows, the collective bargaining process in our country works very well. 

It produces agreements in the vast majority of cases. Labor disputes, strikes and lockouts, remain 

at historically low levels; the collective bargaining process works that well. And among the tiny 

percentage of cases that do go to dispute, either strike or lockout, the occurrence of violence in such 

situations is even more rare, wrong, but rare. And that's because of several reasons. 

I think the main reason is that 99.99 percent of union members, like most Americans, are 

law-abiding, patriotic, God-fearing, tax-paying people, and they don't countenance that sort of 
14

thing. The second reason is that unions and companies discourage and try to avoid violence of any 

kind because they know it's so counter-productive to their cause, to their side of the dispute. 

And a third point, and of particular importance to policy- makers, is that there is a very serious 

regime of federal and state criminal and civil law to prohibit and redress incidents of violence. 

 I can go into that in the question period. I can simply summarize it this way: if a person acts 

out in a labor dispute, there's a very good chance the person will either be jailed, fined, enjoined or 

fired, or some combination thereof. 

 Turning to the particulars of my union, in part one of the reasons we're here is because of 

the next witness you'll be hearing from. To be perfectly honest, if you see steelworkers’ leaders 

leading a march or a demonstration, and raising a little ruckus in this country, it's probably against 

unfair imports, or to save jobs. It's probably with our companies and with our managers to save 

basic manufacturing. That has been a main focus of our attention. 

We have had one labor dispute. We have been pushed out of work for over three years at 

one particular company, AK Steel. And I understand you'll be hearing from its representative in a 

few moments. He'll show a brief video that does show clear disorder, most of it occurring a little 

over three years ago, on the morning of September 10, 1999. I haven't seen what they're going to 

show. I may have comments in the question and answer period. 

I would like you to know one or two things. This is an extremely rare event. It is wrong, 

what happened. I think AK is frustrated. For the last three years they have been unable to show 

any local union or international union endorsement of this. This was a member event that occurred 

on a morning, and it is the subject of no less than five judicial proceedings: an action to enjoin, 

action by victims of property and personal injury, and two actions by AK itself. 

 It brought a federal RICO action with the outrageous allegation that the steelworkers union 

was, in effect, a 20-year criminal enterprise over the last 20 years. Judge Susan Deloitte threw that 

out. A second lawsuit outrageously alleged that that morning the steelworkers and city and county 

authorities were in a conspiracy to deprive AK of its rights. That, too, has recently been thrown out 

by Judge Manos. So, tough as this video presentation may be, I urge you to all look carefully 

behind the representations of the company and scrutinize them closely. 

 My last point goes to some of the written testimony before the Committee. It's suggested 

that when labor leaders speak out against companies that do the kinds of things that AK is doing, 

that they are implicitly, or with a wink of the eye calling for member violence. I want to reject this 

as soundly as anything. 

 If you look at what happened in Mansfield, it's still going on. Three years and a month ago, 

the company locked out 600 employees. It did not let them work. They wanted to work, they've 

wanted to work every day. They have been kept from their livelihoods; they've refused to arbitrate 

the dispute. We got Congressmen from this Committee and from the House to generally plead with 

the company to submit the dispute to arbitration. They refused to do that. 
15

 There have been divorces and bankruptcies. Imagine losing your livelihood for three years, 

plus countless hardships. Some of the wives and children of the locked-out AK workers, behind 

me, join me today. They have lived through a nightmare, something that Mansfield, Ohio, should 

not have had to go through. 

 In short, whether AK's conduct has been legal or illegal, and there's a lot of debate about 

whichever it is, it's oppressive. It has been oppressive. And the president of our union, and the 

secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, have come to Mansfield, in the first case more than once, and 

spoken out against that, and decried that, and criticized it very much. Taking their quotes out of 

context, AK tries to imply that that has been a call for some kind of member violence. And that is 

simply wrong. 

 In one of the quotes, Mr. Becker, our president, said “I'm going to stretch the legalities by 

pointing out that even though the law says that the company owns that steel mill, really, I think you 

people own that steel mill because you put your lives in it.” They call that a call for violence 

because he referred to stretching the legalities. That's just a completely unfair interpretation. 

Another quote from a magazine interview that was conducted hundreds of miles away from the 

site, a lengthy discussion about the topic of another strike, is pulled out of context. 

 I want to make sure that the Committee does not seek to attribute the wrong acts of 

individuals, desperate individuals in many cases, which are handled by state law enforcement 

authorities, and try to lay them at the doorstep of labor leaders. 

 I have more to say, but I see the light is on. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PAUL WHITEHEAD, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, PITTSBURGH, PA – SEE 

APPENDIX F 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

Mr. Horn, you may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. HORN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL 

COUNSEL, AK STEEL CORPORATION, MIDDLETOWN, OH 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, thank you and good morning. My name is 

David Horn, and I'm Vice President and General Counsel for AK Steel Corporation in Middletown, 

Ohio. We appreciate this opportunity to present testimony concerning the union member violence 

that our employees, their families, and our contractors and suppliers have endured for more than 

three years. 
16

 By way of background, AK Steel employs more than 10,000 men and women in the 

production of steel and related products. We have 12 facilities that are located in eight states.

Various international, national, and independent unions represent about 70 percent of our 

workforce. Historically, our company has maintained a good working relationship with these 

unions and their members. 

 One notable and disturbing exception is in Mansfield, Ohio, where a labor dispute involving 

about 550 members of the United Steelworkers of America has now entered its fourth year. The 

beginning of this labor dispute was marked by a mob riot. On the morning of September 10, 1999, 

as the company attempted to bring lawful replacement workers into the plant, they were brutally 

attacked by a mob of hundreds of union members and their supporters. When it was over, 14 

guards and replacement workers were injured, eight so severely as to require hospital treatment. 

We are not aware of a single rioter being treated for injuries. 

 I have a brief videotape of that riot which will give you a sense of the terror that employees 

face from violent union members. If it's all right with the Committee, I'd like to play the tape. 

***

Chairman Johnson. I would like to warn the audience that the material on that tape is not suitable 

for children. If anybody is squeamish about language or violence they are welcome to leave the 

room while the tape is being shown. You may proceed. 

[Videotape is played.] 

***

This labor dispute has continued to be punctuated by violent acts. Beyond a few incidents 

that have led to arrests, there have been scores of unsolved crimes in the Mansfield area since the 

labor dispute began. A tractor-trailer was bombed, with a sleeping passenger narrowly escaping 

death. A bomb destroyed a restaurant. “Jack rocks” have punctured hundreds of tires. I brought 

with me a small sample of these criminal tools for you to see. I think they've been distributed, Mr. 

Chairman, to your Committee, or to you at least. Mailboxes have been blown up. Family pets 

have been mutilated and beheaded. The word “scab” has been spray-painted on houses and keyed 

into the paint of vehicles. 

 While these crimes remain unsolved, there is a single common factor. They have all 

happened to people who have worked for, or with, our company during the labor dispute. A few 

union members, including those of other employers, have been arrested and prosecuted for their 

violent acts against our company and employees. 

 But if anything, recent events have posed an even more serious threat to the safety, not just 

of our employees, but also to the citizens of Mansfield. The latest incident could very well have 

led to the destruction of our plant and the death of many employees and citizens. In March, agents 

from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms arrested Fred Frigo on a federal warrant. At 

the time of his arrest, Frigo was a member of the United Auto Workers Union who was working in 
17

an assembly plant near our Mansfield works. 

 According to the ATF, Frigo was planning to launch rockets into our plant as an act of 

solidarity with the United Steelworker members. This was apparently no idle threat, since it had 

been reported that he was distilling rocket fuel in a barn and had already test-fired two grenades. 

Ironically, the threat of sabotage to our employees was one factor that led to the lockout of union 

employees in our plant in 1999. 

 While Frigo remains in prison without bond, and has not yet been brought to trial, a number 

of disturbing facets of his alleged plot have been reported. For example, he apparently had no 

remorse at all about the possibility that some union members, such as those serving picket duty at 

the time, might be hurt or even killed by his act of union solidarity. Just yesterday, a Mansfield 

newspaper reported that possession of an unregulated machine gun was added in July to the list of 

charges Frigo now faces. In fact, by some accounts, Frigo believed he would be a union hero, a 

warlord in his terms, for eradicating what he and many union members term “scabs,” but what we 

and the Federal Government call lawful replacement workers. Even more chilling, Frigo allegedly 

believed he would not be caught because law enforcement officials would suspect terrorists after 

the 9/11 attacks on our nation. 

 It is unthinkable that hard-working Americans face terrorism and violence from union 

members and their supporters who believe that their misconception of union justice supersedes this 

nation's laws. Unfortunately, the unthinkable is today a reality. While we believe that most union 

members deplore this seamy underbelly, even one act of union member violence is too many. 

We applaud the Subcommittee's efforts to focus Congressional attention on the need to 

maintain workforce security and end violence in the workplace. We urge you to address this issue 

through legislation that establishes laws that allow for swift prosecution and punishment for those 

guilty of violence in the name of collective bargaining. We urge you to do this for the safety and 

well being of all working Americans. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DAVID C. HORN, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AK STEEL CORPORATION, MIDDLETOWN, OH – SEE 

APPENDIX G 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate that. I believe that we do need to 

focus on the prevention of workplace violence. 

Agent Rugula, how many of these kinds of incidents have you been involved in and how 

many people have you arrested and put in jail because of that? 

Agent Rugala. In the work that I do, Mr. Chairman, we basically serve as a consultant to law 

enforcement. So with behaviorally related issues, a law enforcement agency is basically called to 

an industry plant or other organization for example, when it is believed that there is a potentially 

dangerous employee. So while we do get involved in these types of cases, we're not involved in 
18

investigating in the sense that we actually go out and make arrests. That is not our particular role in 

this matter. 

Chairman Johnson. Well, you have statistics on it, probably. Are there a lot, a few, or none? 

Agent Rugala. I can't speak to those issues; I don't have those types of statistics, if there are any. 

Ms. Speer. If you are asking about general statistics regarding incidents of violence in the 

workplace, we get a lot of information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. First of all, there is one 

category of statistics that go to homicides, which you've already heard some about today. 

 And in terms of non-fatal workplace violence, the Department of Justice has through its 

studies confirmed that there are at least 1.7 million incidents of reported violent crime on the job 

each year. There's also a consensus that a lot of those incidents go unreported. So at a minimum 

we know there's 1.7 million incidents, but anecdotally we could all tell you that due to the breadth 

of behavior that falls into the category of workplace violence the incidence is actually much higher 

than that. 

Chairman Johnson. Do you want to comment, any of you, on that issue? 

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that? 

Chairman Johnson. Certainly. 

Mr. Horn. We certainly have had dozens of incidents of violence in connection with the labor 

dispute we've had in Mansfield. And in my written testimony we set out a number of those. But I 

think another point that it would be useful to make here is that we've had some difficulty getting 

some of those individuals prosecuted by the state authorities. And that's one of the reasons why the 

federal legislation is important to us. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you for that comment. 

Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Chairman, may I add one thing? 

Chairman Johnson. Certainly. 

Mr. Whitehead. I hope that the record-keepers will keep track of the statistics, if they ever do get 

to statistics on labor disputes, of the two-way nature of misconduct. In the AK example, for 

instance, replacement employees have been convicted of improper conduct. Security guards have 

very checkered pasts at the company. 

 In the case that Mr. Horn detailed involving Mr. Frigo, it should be noted that he was 

apprehended through the citizenship of a fellow UAW member who agreed with authorities to wear 

a wire and get evidence on this very disturbed person, who is now in prison. 
19

Chairman Johnson. One of you, I forget who it was, mentioned that surveillance cameras bother 

people. You know, I don't know how that can cause somebody to create violence. We have a guy 

out there videoing everything we're doing right now, probably your person, and that doesn't strike 

me as a reason for me to come out there and get violent with you. It is not causing me stress either, 

so I don't understand what you mean when you say that. 

Mr. Maltby. Let me clarify that, Mr. Chairman, because there are two very distinct types of video 

cameras for two very different purposes. There is such a thing as a legitimate security camera. 

When my wife works late in New York or Newark, and she's going to a dark parking lot at 11 

o'clock at night, I will be the first person to thank whoever put that camera in for keeping her a 

little safer. Nobody, excluding privacy advocates, has any problem with security cameras. 

 But when you talk about cameras above someone's desk, watching them every minute of the 

day when they're on the job, keeping records of when they go to the bathroom and how long they 

stay and when they come back, or did they call their wife and how long did they talk to their wife 

on the phone, and then posting it on the bulletin board or calling them in for reprimands after the 

fact, living under that kind of a microscope is extremely stressful. I doubt that anyone in this room 

could live under that kind of regimen. 

Chairman Johnson. Is it widespread or is it a single instance you are talking about? 

Mr. Maltby. No Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that fully 80 percent of the corporations in 

America practice some form of electronic surveillance. And security cameras, legitimate as they 

are, are only a very small piece of that. In fact, corporate America itself is beginning to realize 

they've gone a little too far with electronic monitoring. They are trying to find ways to be less 

intrusive without giving up their legitimate interests. 

 So even the corporate community now agrees with us that we need less monitoring of 

employees, not more. But that's not talking about monitoring criminals who might be harming 

employees. That's a good thing. I hope we would all agree on that. 

Chairman Johnson. Well, another instance was mentioned about it being difficult to do 

background checks. So that's probably the reason the cameras got in there in the first place. Do you 

object to changing the law in that regard? 

Mr. Maltby. Well, actually, Mr. Chairman, when I was in the corporate world, one of my 

responsibilities was HR. And we conducted very careful checks into the background of people that 

we hired. We didn't do criminal record checks, but I wouldn't quarrel with anyone who does. The 

only concern that we have about criminal record checks by employers is the way they are all too 

often used. 

 I don't want anyone who has a conviction for child abuse or child molestation working in 

my daughter's kindergarten. I don't want anybody who has been convicted of embezzlement doing 

my taxes. But I think there's something seriously wrong when you have good workers who've been 

on the job five or ten years losing their jobs because 20 years before they were caught shoplifting a 

CD at K-Mart. The idea that anyone who has ever been convicted of anything in their lives ought 
20

never to get a job again is a very bad idea. It's bad for workers, it's bad for employers, and it's bad 

for America. 

Chairman Johnson. I don't think that is what we're talking about. We are talking about more 

serious incidents. 

Mr. Andrews, do you care to question? 

Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to defer to my colleagues who were here throughout the 

hearing so they have their turns first. Mr. Payne was here first. I thank him for his indulgence in 

being here until I could get here. 

Chairman Johnson. Mr. Payne, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, and I thank the Ranking Member for yielding. I know you 

were at a very important meeting at the White House, so I felt privileged to take over temporarily. 

 With the question in regard to Ms. Speer, you mentioned that most adults spend about 30 

percent of their time at work, but according to statistics, only 18 percent of violent crimes are 

committed at work. I'm just wondering whether or not it is fair that as a general matter. People are 

most likely to experience violent crime outside the workplace rather than in the workplace. 

 Also, I think Mr. Donaway talked about a 300 percent increase in crime during the past 

decade where the Department of Justice has some statistics that say there has been an overall drop 

in workplace violence. So, I'm wondering how we can reconcile this? I mean there was a 300 

percent increase, according to Mr. Donaway, where the Department of Justice said that, as a matter 

of fact, there has been a relative increase in the overall comparison to outside of the workplace.

One of you can take the question. 

Ms. Speer. Well, if I could speak briefly to that, the Department of Justice, as you read in my 

written testimony, has determined that 18 percent of all violent crimes occur in some way related to 

work. And I believe that is limited to assault, robbery, and sexual assault and rape. At a minimum 

we know that nearly a fifth of all crimes occur at the workplace. 

 But a point that I would like to emphasize is that workplace violence encompasses much 

more than simply these violent crimes that are reported to law enforcement. In fact, employers as a 

general matter are faced with a lot of lesser behaviors, assaults and so forth that never are reported 

formally. In fact, right now there is an effort, or at least a consensus that there needs to be a more 

formal effort to accurately measure the incidence of workplace violence affecting organizations 

throughout the country. 

 In terms of statistics that suggest a decline in workplace violence, I believe those speak 

simply to homicides and I believe there has been a slight dip in homicides affecting the workplace 

in, I believe, recent years, year to year, not overall trends. But in terms of other statistics, they 
21

show a different picture. 

Agent Rugala. Mr. Payne, can I make some comments? 

Mr. Payne. Yes. 

Agent Rugala. In regard to those statistics, 1.7 million is averaged over a six-year period, 1993 to 

1999. So in some years you may have a little bit higher number and in some years you may have a 

little bit lower number. But that average, 1.7 million, reflects non-fatal victimizations, with simple 

assaults being the most common type of non-violent crime. 

 As Miss Speer said, when you look at the issue of violent criminal behavior in the 

workplace or the potential for that, you have to look at violence in the workplace on a continuum, 

with homicides being the worst-case scenario. Then you have threats, inappropriate behavior, 

simple assaults, other types of assault and behavior, sexual assaults, all running along that 

continuum. 

 While the focus in many years has been looking at the homicides, and there has been a 

decline in homicides since 1993, as well as a general trend downward in non-fatal assaults, many of 

these homicides, as you mentioned yourself, are as a result of robbery. In fact, about 77 percent of 

all homicides in the workplace are as a result of robberies. 

 So the focus should be on some of these other issues such as domestic violence and 

threatening behavior that impact the potential for violence along with the idea of looking at some 

type of proactive strategy to lower the level of threats at an early enough stage; that's what 

managers, supervisors, and co-workers deal with on a daily basis. They don't reach that homicidal 

level, but they certainly could at some point.

Mr. Payne. Let me just interrupt, because the red light is going to come on, and I'm sure the 

Chairman is going to cut me right off. 

According to data I have in front of me, it says that in the six-year period between 1993 and 

1999, while violent crime dropped by 40 percent generally, it dropped by 44 percent in the 

workplace. I'd just like to add this into the record. 

 Let me ask a quick question, Agent Rugala, since you did come in. You define workplace 

violence as an action that may impact on the employee's physical and psychological well being.

Using that definition, would a supervisor who severely berates an employee be engaged in 

violence? Or does violence occur only if the employee reacts by threatening or attacking his 

supervisor? In other words, do you ever take into consideration the behavior of the supervisor to 

the employee? 

Agent Rugala. Absolutely. You have to look at the work environment. You have to look at the 

actions of management and the supervisor. It's not just focused entirely on the employee. 
22

Mr. Payne. Well my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Wilson for questions. 

Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Agent Rugala, could you tell me what you mean by 

conducting a “threat assessment?” 

Agent Rugala. Basically, when we get involved in a case where a company is involved with law 

enforcement, law enforcement contacts our unit and we assess the potential for violence. We 

would want to know as much as we could about the particular individual in question, the 

personality, if you will, of the individual. 

 We'd also like to know what is going on in the workplace: what kinds of incidents have 

occurred there in the past and what's happening within that environment. Then we also take a look 

at other issues that may impact not only the workplace but also the individual himself, such as 

family issues, financial problems. We focus on behavior and things that are occurring within the 

workplace to ultimately render an opinion as to what the potential threat might be. If we do 

ascertain that there is a threat, we would recommend strategies to potentially lower the level of 

threat. 

Mr. Wilson. Is the study that you do after an incident or before an incident? What would be the 

grounds for which you'd become involved? 

Agent Rugala. We would become involved once a threat has already been made. Law 

enforcement, depending on the situation, is called in and they make a request for us to provide 

consulting services to them. This is something that we routinely do, not only with these issues but 

in the many other violent crime issues that we are involved with as well. 

Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Donaway, it is an honor to have you here. I have another role aside from being a new 

Member of Congress; I am also a longtime customer of Airborne. I'm interested in learning about 

Airborne's crisis management program to address workplace violence. Could you tell me how it is 

designed to respond to threats of violence? 

Mr. Donaway. The first thing we do is we assess the seriousness of the potential for violence by 

working with psychologists, our human resource people, local law enforcement and in many cases 

with the FBI also. 

 Once we have had an incident where violence has actually occurred, we work with outside 

representatives from psychological groups. Mental health professionals will come in and work with 

our employees and with the company to deal with the event. 
23

 So there is a comprehensive approach to the best of our ability to prevent violence. But on 

the rare occasion where it does occur then we want to make sure that we have adequate resources 

there to help our employees through that very difficult time period. 

Mr. Wilson. The company, in the field of endeavor that you are in, has to be stressful in terms of 

customers such as myself, expecting delivery instantaneously. With the concern for security that 

we all have now, has there been a rise in stress, particularly since September 11th of last year? Has 

there been any indication of additional concern? 

Mr. Donaway. I would say that we've always had a high level of security because we own our own 

airport and we take that very seriously. We also take access to our aircraft and the screening of our 

flight crews extremely seriously in post-9/11. I would say that our overall program has been in 

place for many years and we have not changed it dramatically as a result of those events. But I 

think everyone in the country is somewhat stressed as a result of the 9/11 events and I think that 

that's natural. 

Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Donaway, I understand you need to catch a plane. I thank you for your testimony, and 

you are welcome to depart now if you like. 

Mr. Donaway. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you for being here with us. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Picking up on what Mr. Payne was talking about, in the Department of Justice Statistics we 

read that violent crime from '93 to '99 has decreased 40 percent, where violent crime in the 

workplace has decreased 44 percent. Do those figures push us or urge us to federalize these 

crimes? And Agent Rugala, you give assistance to local law enforcement officers. Generally, are 

the people who are engaged in any type of violence tried under state and local laws? 

Agent Rugala. I would say most often they are. We certainly could have violent incidents that 

occur in federal workplaces in any area where we do have federal jurisdiction such as national 

parks, government reservations, and possibly military bases. The FBI would be involved in 

investigating those particular cases. But generally speaking, most of these fall under local and state 

jurisdictions. 

Mr. Kildee. With the heavy burden being placed upon the FBI, particularly since September 11 a 

year ago, I'm just concerned about putting greater responsibility by federalizing criminal acts or 
24

violence. And you are probably pressed right now to carry out your responsibilities. Is it wise that 

we federalize every crime? 

We do have state laws in Michigan. I lived through the sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan. 

My father participated in that, and people were arrested and were tried. The sheriff's department is 

out there, the local police, the state police. I'd never been on a picket line but I've marched at many 

a picket line with some of the people who are on strike, and if they violate the law, generally it is 

the local police or that state police who arrest them. It's the state courts that try them. 

 Is there any urgent need to push the federalization of these violent acts? 

Agent Rugala. Well, again, I'll leave that up to the distinguished Members here to decide whether 

that's the case or not. But certainly in the work that we do, we assist the state and local agencies, 

which as we've all seen from the 9/11 attacks, certainly allows us to work together more effectively 

in dealing with these potentially violent crime issues as well as dealing with other issues that are 

the topic of the day. 

Mr. Kildee. I recognize your important role. I work closely with the FBI and the ATF. The ATF 

is in the same building that I am in back in Flint. I know the local police do welcome your expertise 

but I question whether you want to federalize these acts when we have state and local laws in place 

that are against violence upon other people. I do appreciate the candor of your answer. 

Mr. Whitehead, in your written comments you suggest that the Freedom from Union 

Violence Act could be retro-applied to union conduct that induces a fear in an employer that he 

could suffer economic harm from the union. 

That reminds me, when I was in high school I read John Steinbeck’s, The Grapes of Wrath.

And of course, many of the employers were frightened by what was going on in the '30s, and that 

could be looked upon as a threat. I can recall when some of the labor organizers and do-gooders 

were around, one person referred to them as communists. 

One of Steinbeck's characters said, “well, what is a communist, how do you define a 

communist?” And he said, “A communist is someone who is asking for $.35 cents an hour when 

we're paying $.25 cents an hour.” That does sometimes create a little fear of threat. And you 

suggest that perhaps this law could be interpreted for an economic demand that could be covered 

under this bill? 

Mr. Whitehead. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Kildee. I not only suggest it, but it's a straightforward 

reading of the proposed language of what I refer to as S.902 that I understand may have a House 

counterpart soon. 

 According to that reading, which is a very plain reading of the face of the statute, it would 

criminalize collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, after all, is about getting wage increases, 

in part, and if the employer were possessed of a fear of economic loss, it literally applies to that 
25

circumstance. 

Mr. Kildee. I have great respect for Ford Motor Company, UAW, and the CW in Canada. Right 

now there are negotiations in Canada and I'm sure Ford is very nervous and feels very threatened 

by the fact that if they close down one plant in Canada they may close down the whole engine plant 

in Canada. So I very much share your concerns that this law could be interpreted as being a threat 

to the employer. 

Mr. Maltby. Mr. Kildee, if I might add one very brief point to that. One point that hasn't been 

mentioned is that by federalizing these routine criminal assault cases, the penalty goes from, maybe 

one year or two years in local prison to 20 years in state prison.

Now, I'm not going to defend for one minute, anyone, including a union member, who 

punches someone else in the face and breaks their nose. It's wrong. It's wrong if he does it in a bar 

room; it's wrong if it happens on a picket line. But if the appropriate penalty for punching someone 

and breaking their nose is, let us say, one year in prison, it doesn't become worth 20 years in prison 

just because it happens on a picket line. It's the same violence, and it deserves the same 

punishment. 

Mr. Kildee. And I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have always expressed some 

concerns about federalizing what ordinarily would be a state or local criminal act; and I think they 

should look at some of their own statements on this federalization. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. 

 The Chair recognizes Mr. Boehner for questions. 

Mr. Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to see my friend from Michigan is opposed to 

federalizing many laws. If I recall sitting in the room with him over the last 12 years that we've 

served here together, the gentleman's probably voted on a pretty regular basis to federalize a lot of 

things.

Mr. Kildee. We've both had a smorgasbord approach to that. 

Mr. Boehner. Yes. 

Mr. Horn, let me follow up on this whole issue of federalization and ask you what kind of 

cooperation you have had from local and state law enforcement officials with regard to the 

problems at Mansfield? 

Mr. Horn. We've had significant cooperation there. Those officials are by and large elected, and 

that has created a problem for us. Let me give you an example of what occurred right before the 

violence that you saw on the video, which occurred on September 10th of 1999. 

 On September 6th of 1999, a number of local elected officials met with the local elected 

judge and informed him that they felt that if ARMCO brought in replacement workers that there 
26

would be violence and that he should issue an injunction preventing that. Now, keep in mind that 

we were not a party to that. There was a pending case before him, and they had this meeting 

without us being a party. 

 They then invited the representative of the USW to attend, and he made the motion to have 

the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued. And it was issued. Only after that decision was 

made were we contacted and our counsel permitted to object to it; and the objection was ignored, 

even though there was a federal right to bring in replacement workers. It took us three days to 

convince that judge that he was violating federal law. 

 Ultimately we were able to do that, and the TRO was dissolved. And the judge, in one of 

his orders, acknowledged that he understood, at the time the TRO was issued, that he did not have 

authority to do that, that we had a federal right to bring in replacement workers, and he issued it 

anyway. That is an illustration of the type of difficulty we have had with the state elected officials 

in this kind of situation. 

Mr. Boehner. Has there been cooperation with regard to these problems in terms of the local 

police and state police? 

Mr. Horn. Sometimes. We've had difficulties in getting them to prosecute some of the people. 

We've shown videotapes, shown other evidence, and they have indicated less than a strong desire to 

prosecute. There have been other cases where they have prosecuted. 

Mr. Boehner. In all of the activities that have gone on, have the local police requested the help of 

the FBI? 

Mr. Horn. Yes, in fact, the FBI or the ATF have come in at least in connection with the bomb 

threats that have occurred. I don't know how often they have requested help beyond the bomb 

threats. I don't know the answer to that. 

Mr. Boehner. This violence occurred in September of 1999. Did AK own the plant at that 

particular time? 

Mr. Horn. No. At that time it was owned by ARMCO. The decision to lock out the workers was 

made by ARMCO sometime shortly before the contract expired, presumably on August 31st of 

1999. At that time we were in discussions to merge with ARMCO. Our merger was effective 

September 30th of 1999, so the lockout had actually been going on for 30 days when we acquired 

the Mansfield facility. 

Mr. Boehner. These replacement workers are being paid, if I remember what I've learned in this 

room about labor law, I'm not an attorney, at the last offer. Would they be paid at the last offer that 

was made to the steelworkers? 

Mr. Horn. I honestly don't know the answer to that. I do not recall what the pay scale is for them. 
27

Mr. Boehner. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing and thank my colleagues for their 

willingness to come today. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Boehner, thank you, Mr. Horn. 

Ms. McCarthy, would you care to question? 

Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I guess I want to touch on 

two areas. 

 Unfortunately, we’re seeing more and more violence in nursing homes. So I have a great 

deal of concern about that. I heard part of the conversations, and I know we can do profiling but 

I'm stuck in between, because I happen to think that if people have done time and hopefully have 

been rehabilitated, they are going to be able to come into the workforce. Through your studies, did 

you find a way of working out how we hire people for these sensitive jobs when they're taking care 

of our weakest, I'll call them patients, because that's the way I know them? 

 Also, going back to what we are trying to do here at the federal level, I'm a great believer in 

not doing a lot of things at the federal level. I happen to believe in states' rights more than 

anything, I really do. And I happen to think that the laws that are on the books can cover what 

needs to be done at the state level.

Now, if there are loopholes in the laws, then we should try and find ways of doing this on 

the state level. But to have a blanket law whether it hurts our union members or anyone, I think is 

wrong. Because I happen to believe strongly that unfortunately we have people out there in all 

jobs, it doesn't matter what job you are in, that might be short-fused or frustrated and for those few 

minutes they might become violent. But to create a blanket law for everybody is totally, totally 

wrong. It really is. 

 I want to go back to the question of what we can do to make sure that the wrong people 

don't get into sensitive jobs in the workplace in general or in the nursing homes. How do we do 

that?

Agent Rugala. Could I speak to that issue? One of the things that have been recommended 

certainly, is conducting thorough background investigations. That is sometimes problematic. But 

in looking at this issue, certainly finding out about criminal backgrounds specifically is one thing 

that can act as a pre-employment screening device. 

 But again, some issues develop. While background investigations are fine, and well and 

good, and many agencies do them, including my own, often issues do develop once an employee is 

hired and on the job already that may somehow circumvent this background screening. So if there 

are other issues, from a behavioral standpoint, for example, that might develop over time, a 

background investigation or pre-employment screening may not necessarily pick that up. 

But certainly it's a good first step and something that should be considered but can be 

expensive. Many employers, because of the expense alone, may decide that is not the way to go. 
28

But it's an individual decision. 

Ms. Speer. If I may add a few brief comments, I do agree that some form of thorough screening of 

employees is important, no matter how an employer might go about doing that. But also, it is just 

as important to really keep an eye on people once they are hired, irrespective of their position.

They could be the CEO, they could be support staff, whatever their position within the company. 

It's very important for companies to monitor behavior, to receive training that makes them 

better able to discern inappropriate behavior and to act once those behaviors come to light in a way 

that's responsible and thoughtful. And, as a general rule, I believe there needs to be a lot of 

education for corporate America about what that task entails, because workplace violence is 

different.

 As an attorney, I wasn't trained as a psychologist; a lot of human resource professionals, 

even security staff, aren't specifically trained on what to do with troublesome behavior, what it 

means and how it can best be addressed. 

Mr. Maltby. Ms. McCarthy, if I might add one point to that. You mentioned loopholes before. 

There was one glaring loophole in the legal structure here that we have not mentioned before but 

needs to be addressed, and that's the lack of whistleblower protection laws. 

 If something illegal and dangerous or violent is going on in the workplace, it's not as if 

nobody knows. There are workers around. Workers know when something is going wrong, 

whether it's management doing it or a co-worker doing it. And many times what they want to do is 

stop the violence, stop the illegal behavior by calling the appropriate authorities or by calling upper 

management; and they don't do it. Most of the time they don't do anything. 

The reason they don't do anything is because they know that if they do they're going to get 

fired. And given a choice between being a Good Samaritan and keeping their jobs and feeding 

their kids, they make the choice that they have to make. 

 The federal and state government has done, I'm sorry to say, an abysmal job of protecting 

workers who do exactly what we, as a society, want them to do. If we're looking for opportunities 

to make things better, then that's a great one. 

Ms. McCarthy. Well, I agree with you on this, spending most of my life as a nurse, that's why we 

fought so hard to have whistleblower protection in the Patient's Bill of Rights. That's why many of 

us are still fighting for that on the Homeland Security Bill. Thank you. 

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy.

Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for their preparation and 

testimony. I apologize for not being personally present. I have had a chance to read your 
29

testimony. It's very valuable and very important. 

 It seems to me we have actually had two hearings today. One is about the general problem 

of violence in the workplace that affects anyone who happens to be in the workplace. And I think 

there is a success story to be told there. The data would indicate that in the six-year period between 

1993 and 1999, while violent crime dropped by 40 percent generally, it dropped by 44 percent in 

the workplace. One crime is one too many, but it seems to me that American employers and 

employees and law enforcement and health care people are doing a pretty good job. And we ought 

to try to figure out what you're doing and create an environment in which you can do more of it. 

I'm fully aware of the fact that probably some of that diminution is because of the improvement in 

the economy during that period of time. I think crime rates generally during that time dropped in 

large part because the economy improved. 

 The second issue is about a particular labor dispute, which I assume is ongoing, in Ohio. 

Let me say from the outset that I think every Member of this Committee deplores any violence 

against any person for any unjustifiable reason. And we want to find the most effective way to 

curtail and prohibit that. The question, as Ms. McCarthy very well identified, is whether we 

already have the legal tools to accomplish that objective, and if so, are being used properly? 

Mr. Horn, I read your testimony carefully. I want to ask you about a couple of specific 

incidents that you mention in your chronology of events. In the September 10, 1999 incident, you 

indicate that videotaped evidence helped to identify and charge 17 union members for their roles in 

the riot. Were criminal charges pressed by local enforcement authorities against those 17 people? 

Mr. Horn. In that instance yes, they were, although there was, as I understand it, a diversion 

program that first offenders could go through. 

Mr. Andrews. But the point is that there was a prosecution brought, and I assume there's a 

conviction.

Mr. Horn. I don't know if there was a conviction; I think, because of the diversion program, there 

may not have been, but I don't know the intricacies of how the program works. 

Mr. Andrews. You make reference that on January 16, 2000, a locked out Local 169 member is 

apprehended by the police after allegedly firing a shotgun into the plant after serving picket duty.

Did the local police arrest that person? 

Mr. Horn. I believe that he was arrested. 

Mr. Andrews. Was the individual charged? 

Mr. Horn. I believe that he was charged. 

Mr. Andrews. Was the individual tried and convicted? 
30

Mr. Horn. I do not recall offhand the result of that one. 

Mr. Andrews. You make reference that on March 28, 2002, the ATF, the cousins of the FBI, 

alleged that an autoworker was plotting to fire rockets into the Mansfield works to put the scabs out 

of work. Was the person accused of this crime arrested? 

Mr. Horn. In that instance he was, by federal authorities, yes. 

Mr. Andrews. Was he prosecuted? 

Mr. Horn. He is in jail; he is being prosecuted, yes. 

Mr. Andrews. Let me say this. Assuming the facts that you allege are true, which I don't know if 

they are or not, but if they're true, they're reprehensible, they're criminal, and people should be 

punished. In the course of my work in my district, I very often get complaints from people who 

feel that law enforcement hasn't done everything they could to properly enforce the criminal laws 

and protect them. And I sometimes agree with them and I sometimes don't. 

But I do understand this, that the job of law enforcement in our form of government is given 

to the executive branch and to prosecutors, and eventually adjudication is given to the judicial 

system. And our role is not to rush into every situation to pass a new law to stop something for 

which there might already be laws, which leads me to a question for Mr. Whitehead. 

 It's my understanding that the employer filed a civil RICO suit against the union and other 

defendants in this instance. What was the disposition of the civil RICO suit? 

Mr. Whitehead. It was dismissed on a motion to dismiss by the defendants; the Judge, Susan 

Deloitte, found that it contained lots and lots of allegations but very little hard fact, so little as to be 

dismissed. 

Mr. Andrews. Was that heard in federal court? 

Mr. Whitehead. Yes it was. 

Mr. Andrews. And it was heard under the confines of a federal RICO statute? 

Mr. Whitehead. Yes it was. And there were other federal laws that could apply. 

Mr. Andrews. When you say there was a dismissal, I assume that it was a summary judgment in 

that the facts failed to state a claim in which relief was granted? 

Mr. Whitehead. I believe it was. I believe it was a 12(b)(6) motion. 

Mr. Andrews. Are you an attorney, Mr. Whitehead? 
31

Mr. Whitehead. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Andrews. So I assume you know, then, that in dismissing that motion, the court must assume 

that all the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true, right? So that what you're telling me is that in the 

judicial matter, civil RICO matter, that when the judge assumed that every fact alleged by the 

employer was true, there was still a dismissal under the RICO statute. Is that right? 

Mr. Whitehead. That's my understanding, and it is on appeal, 6th Circuit. 

Mr. Andrews. Mr. Horn, is that right? 

Mr. Horn. It is correct that the action is dismissed. It is also correct that it is on appeal, and the 

last word has not yet been written whether a claim was stated. But the judge held that we had not 

stated a RICO claim, there was no holding that there were no claim of any kind that could be 

stated, or that in the incidents that occurred had not occurred. 

Mr. Andrews. Were there other theories of liability in the suit? 

Mr. Horn. It was basically just a RICO filing. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, I assume that your side would have an interest in asserting every right that it 

had. I assume also that the complaint essentially outlined the same allegations you made here 

today? 

Mr. Horn. It was broader. Today we have focused on what occurred in Mansfield. The complaint 

was broader than just Mansfield. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, actually, in the lawsuit you alleged everything you've alleged today and then 

some other things broader than this. 

Mr. Horn. There were other things beyond Mansfield; it did not focus on Mansfield. 

Mr. Andrews. My time, I see, has expired. I want no ambiguity to exist here. If the conduct that 

was alleged occurred, it is wrong, it is criminal, and it should be punished. The question that this 

Committee has to confront is whether new statutes are necessary to deal with the problem. Thank 

you.

Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. How many people were convicted or were even 

questioned about jack rocks that were thrown or broken windows on cars? 

Mr. Horn. We've had, to my recollection only one person convicted, who I believe was a member 

of the Steelworkers Union, for throwing jack rocks. They have been unable to identify the others 

who have placed jack rocks. 
32

Chairman Johnson. Well, they throw a handful of them out there and it blows your tires and it's 

not a good deal. I don't want mine blown. And I don't think you all condone that, either. 

 I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable time and testimony and the Members for 

their participation. I think we're getting into this issue; we'll have some more hearings concerning 

it. Thank you so much for your attendance. 

 With no further business, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned. 
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Johnson, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32 

Mr. Andrews, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31 

Mr. Boehner, 4, 25, 26, 27 

Mr. Donaway, 9, 13, 22, 23 

Mr. Horn, 15, 18, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31 

Mr. Kildee, 23, 24, 25 

Mr. Maltby, 11, 19, 25, 28 

Mr. Payne, 3, 20, 21, 22 

Mr. Rugala, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 

Mr. Whitehead, 13, 18, 24, 30, 31 

Mr. Wilson, 22, 23 

Ms. McCarthy, 27, 28 

Ms. Speer, 6, 18, 20, 28