Threatening the Union Dissidents

Company Consolidated Edison of New York, New York, NY1 Union Local Union No. 1-2, Utility Workers of America Individuals Milo Cimoli and Wally Morris2

BACKGROUND

The company and union had been parties to a number of successive collective bargaining agreements. In August 1990, new Local Union No. 1-2 officers were elected. This new administration included Jackson Walls, president; James Guilfoil, business manager; and Paul Vahey and Parker Vroom, assistant business managers. A number of union members who had been part of, or active with, the previous local's administration formed a dissident group and published a newsletter called "Members' Voices," which sharply criticized the new administration. Further, the dissidents requested permission to see some of the local's books and records, and they proposed several new bylaws that they wanted to advance and have read and discussed at a local union meeting. When the officers of the local refused to cooperate on these matters, the dissidents filed a suit in district court. Pursuant to a district court judge's temporary restraining order, it was arranged for the dissident group to inspect the requested records at the local union office on March 7, 1991, and for the dissident-supported bylaw proposals to be read at the March 10, 1991, local union meeting. On March 7, 1991, as dissidents Milo Cimoli and Wally Morris reviewed the requested records in a conference room in the local's office, a dispute arose over the dissidents' request for photocopies of some of the records. James Guilfoil, the local's business manager, confronted Cimoli and Morris. Guilfoil said that he was furious about an article that had been printed in the "Members' Voices" publication, which he felt was totally untrue about him and the union and libelous to him personally. Guilfoil then added: "You sued us; now it will be my turn to sue you!" Morris then left the room to telephone the dissidents' attorney, Alice Susman, while Cimoli continued to read the records. At this time, Marty Dincks, a union business agent, came into the conference room and began yelling about" such *** democracy" and looking at what was transpiring. When Cimoli remarked that the district judge had ruled in the dissidents' favor, Dincks became very agitated. He cursed the dissidents individually and collectively, including profanities aimed at the dissidents' attorney, Alice Susman. At this point, Jackson Walls, president of the local union, started to pull Dincks away, telling him to "take it easy." Wally Morris had returned to the conference room, and as he walked toward the group, he could hear Dincks shouting obscenities. Morris told Dincks to "calm down" and "knock it off." Morris asserted that he and Cimoli were "there to do a job," and they were not there "to take verbal abuse." Dincks then replied: "I give you verbal abuse. I'll give you physical abuse. I'll take you both outside and kick both your asses." Dincks then turned to Cimoli and said: "I'm telling you right here now that I'm going to kick your ass, too!" A few minutes later, several other officials of the local, including assistant business manager Parker Vroom, arrived on the scene. They saw to it that Marty Dincks left the area. With Dincks out of the room, Vroom and Walls then talked to Milo Cimoli and Wally Morris. Walls assured them that Dincks wouldn't be bothering them "the rest of the time." Vroom added, "Don't worry about it. We'll take care of Mr. Dincks." Cimoli and Morris eventually completed their work of copying the union documents: On the same day, they reported what had happened to their attorney, Alice Susman Shortly thereafter, on their behalf Susman filed unfair labor practice charges against local union, claiming that the union had engaged in restraint and coercion of these individuals in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Labor Management Relations Act.

POSITION OF THE INDIVIDUALS

Counsel for Milo Cimoli and Wally Morris claimed that the threats issued by James Guilfoil, the local union s business manager, and by Marty Dincks, a union business agent constituted a clear violation of LMRA, because they were designed to restrain and coerce the union dissidents in regard to their lawful activities within the union. Guilfoil's three: to sue Morris and Cimoli for printing an article that was critical of him in the dissidents newsletter and as retaliation for the court injunction that had been found against the loc e union were clearly designed to intimidate Morris, Cimoli, and other dissidents from carrying out their "protected activities" guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. Even though; Guilfoil and the local union did not sue Cimoli and Morris in a civil court action, nevertheless the statements made by Guilfoiland not repudiated by union officerswere made in connection with attempting to intimidate Cimoli and Morris in carrying over. their lawful protected activities. Counsel argued that the physical threats uttered by Marty Dincks toward Cimoli and Morris were representative of the local union's attitude and also designed to coerce anc intimidate them from carrying out their protected activities on behalf of the dissident group. Dincks statements toward Cimoli and Morris threatening physical abuses were made in his capacity as a union business agent, not because of some individual personality conflict or problem that existed between them as individuals. Counsel for the dissidents urged that the NLRB should find that the local union, primarily in the persons of James Guilfoil and Marty Dincks, had violated Section 8(b (A) of the Act. The local union should be required to cease and desist in any such threats or activities designed to discourage or intimidate any union members from carrying or: their lawful protected activities, and to post a notice and inform all of the union members accordingly. Case 32 Threatening the Union Dissidents 143

POSITION OF THE UNION

Counsel for the local union argued that the statements of Guilfoil and Dincks were not designed to intimidate or coerce Milo Cimoli and Wally Morris in carrying out their protected activities under the Act. Rather, these were personal statements made by these men, which reflected their own animosities toward the dissidents; these did not reflect the local union's positions on these matters. Concerning Guilfoil's statement that he would sue Cimoli and Morris, the union claimed that Guilfoil rightfully was upset about statements in the dissidents' newsletter that he considered to be totally untrue and libelous in nature. Guilfoil never did file any type of lawsuit against these individuals, and the local union never was party to any such action. These isolated statements made by Guilfoil did not constitute a violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. Similarly, the union claimed that the statements made by Marty Dincks, although crude and not condoned by the union, were statements made by a very agitated and angry individual. Both the president and the assistant business manager of the union had quickly removed Dincks from the conference room where the confrontation had occurred. They assured Cimoli and Morris that these statements were only those of Dincks, and that the local union would not condone or permit physical abuse of Cimoli and Morris. Here, too, the local union should not be held accountable for a violation of the Act, since Dincks's statements were personal in nature and did not in any way reflect the union's official position. Counsel for the local union urged that the unfair labor practice charges should be dismissed.

Only question needed answered: In this case presented who do you think should win the Union or the Dissidents? Explain why including support.

consider when answering the main question

Legal basis is Section 8b of the LMRA prohibits unions from restraining or coercing union members from exercising their rights under Section 7

Are Guilfoils and Dincks statements threatening?

As union officials, could their statements be considered representative of official union views?

Do their actions rise to the level of restraining or coercing others who may want to legally challenge union leadership?