Text of the appeal of the hearing officer's
decision in the
case of Faufata et al v. Rodrigues
Honolulu, HI 96816
October 11 1999
TO: Gerald W. McEntee, International President
and Officers and Members of the International Executive Board
AFSCME, 1625 L St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5687; FAX:
(202)429-1293
FROM: Keith Faufata, UPW-AFSCME Local 646 unit
officer, member and charging party
Keith Chudzik, BWS employee, charging party
Angel Santiago, UPW-AFSCME Local 646 unit officer, member and
charging party
RE: Faufata, et al v. Rodrigues, et al, Case No. 99-62
The decision rendered by Mr. Bruno Dellana dated September 3, 1999, and received by us on September 13, 1999, is a miscarriage of the union's judicial process. The acquittal of Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Uwaine is unwarranted. Please accept this letter as our appeal. There are too many vital membership rights and interests at stake to let this decision remain in place.
Grounds of Appeal:
Faulty Process: The trial process itself was deeply flawed The International Union was late in responding to our charge statement and setting up the trial. Once the trial was scheduled, we were given only 13 days notice, not the required 15 days notice, of the trial following receipt of notice. We were not afforded information in advance of the procedures to be used or of any rights of discovery or compelling testimony. Since all the UPW officers, Board members and officers refused to testify at our request, and the hearings officer did not compel or solicit any testimony or the submission of requested necessary information, the ability of the charging parties to "prove" their case was severely hampered.
Also, a close review of the transcript will reveal another major procedural blunder. The hearings officer failed to swear in defendant Rodrigues. But he allowed Mr. Rodrigues to make a lengthy statement (labelled "testimony" in the transcript) and to submit exhibits into evidence as to his defense with no sworn oath and without allowing the charging parties the right to cross-examine him. The trial decision should be thrown out for this error alone. All the charging parties and their witnesses were put under oath and Mr. Rodrigues, the defendant, was given all the cross-examination rights and opportunities he wished. This was not afforded to the charging party when Mr. Rodrigues' "testimony" began toward the end of the trial. The charging party was deprived a major opportunity to elicit information and evidence from the chief administrative officer. Also, Rodrigues brought in union staff from all over the state to attend, along with Board members, at the union's expense. Most of the union staff are not active members though the hearing was supposed to be limited to union members.
Conclusions: The Hearing Officer's findings were flawed. The charging parties did make numerous efforts to obtain the requested information and to counter the distortions and slandcrous statements Mr. Rodrigues had printed about us and other members in the union newsletter. This included attending Division meetings on a monthly basis to raise our questions and request the information. We were told our request would be conveyed to Mr. Rodrigues and that the board or staff would get back to us. It is not true that we failed to show that we had made requests of Mr. Rodrigues; and there is no publicizcd union policy that such requests must be made in writing or directly. We went though our elected representatives on the Board, and our union staff who work for Mr. Rodrigues. Mr. Rodrigues clearly knew what information we wanted, via staff reports, Division minutes, and our letters to him. Our undisputed testimony was that we had repeatedly sought this information from the Union officers including Mr. Rodrigues and his subordinates, and frorn the members of the State Executive Board who also sit on the Oahu Division Board. We also submitted a letter to Malama Pono, the union paper, replying to the derogatory article that Mr. Rodrigues had printed about us and other members. Our letter was never printed, nor did we receive any response from Mr. Rodrigues to our request that it be printed. It seems the newsletter is Rodrigues' personal tool and publication, not the members'!
The hearing officer's decision ignores the unequal power relationship between ~ Rodrigues and the charging parties. We are rank-and-file members. He is the union's top officer in charge of union records. He possesses the authority to print the union paper which slandered us for exercising our rights. That type of conduct by the top union officer has a chilling effect on the members' exercise of their right of speech and access to information from the Union. This decision is a horrible precedent and would undermine democracy throughout the Union.
We, the charging party, the members, have sought to have our questions answered--important questions about the reported misuse of union funds and staff time, funds about the costs of constructing union buildings and who benefitted from that construction, and other issues. To this date, we have been kept in the dark, and the reputation of our union has been harmed by Rodrigues' refusal to come forward.
Now the damage to the union is compounded by the faulty decision of Mr. Dellana on your behalf. The trial procedure was defective and unfair. The decision is fundamentally flawed in its findings, logic and consequences for the membership.
We urge you and the International Executive Board to reject this decision and take the necessary steps to guarantee justice and uphold the right of the rank-and-file members to participate in the affairs of their union. In order to participate effectively, members must have access to necessary information without being defamed (for merely requesting this information) in our own union newsletter which is financed through our dues monies.
We also urge you to reject the slate of amendments recently put before the members for a block voting exercise in which they were voted up or down collectively and not individually. These amendments will further restrict the members' rights and significantly increase the power of the State Director and his Board. We look forward to your review of this appeal and related matters, and still hope justice can be done before our union loses its last vestiges of democracy and membership rights.
Sincerely,
for Keith Faufata, Keith Chudzik. & Angel
Santiago
Charging Party-Appellants