Teamsters Local 170 (Leaseway Motor Car Transport Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 3, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 1290 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1290
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. 170, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO and
Teamsters Joint Council No. 10 of Massachu-
setts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and
Vermont, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO (Leaseway Motor Car
Transport Company) and James R. Fiori. Case
1–CB–9082
May 3, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND HURTGEN
On August 13, 1998, Administrative Law Judge James
L. Rose issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel filed an answering brief and a brief in support of
the judge’s decision, and the Respondent filed a reply
brief. The General Counsel also filed cross-exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an an-
swering brief. The International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO, as amicus curiae, filed a brief in support
of the Respondent and the General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs
and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1
and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by imposing intraunion discipline against
Charging Party James Fiori and another union member
and by removing Fiori from elected union office. For the
reasons set forth below, we reverse and dismiss the com-
plaint.
The essential facts are undisputed. In 1991, while
working for Tresca Brothers Concrete Company, Fiori
suffered a disabling work-related injury and began re-
ceiving workmen’s compensation. In May 1991, the
employees of Tresca commenced a strike. Throughout
the strike, which lasted until April 1994, Fiori received
both strike benefits from the Union and workmen’s com-
pensation.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
In 1994, Fiori was elected vice president of Local 170.
During the 1996 election of the general president, Fiori
openly supported James Hoffa over incumbent General
President Ron Carey. Shortly before the election, a cam-
paign leaflet was distributed among the membership ac-
cusing Fiori of “double-dipping” by receiving strike
benefits while collecting workmen’s compensation dur-
ing the 1991–1994 strike. The leaflet urged members to
vote for Ron Carey for general president, and concluded
with the phrase: “FIVE MORE YEARS OF RIDDING
THE TEAMSTERS OF CORRUPTION.”
After the election, in which Carey defeated Hoffa, the
Respondent’s secretary/treasurer, Richard Foley, filed
internal union charges against Fiori alleging that Fiori
had improperly received strike benefits during the 1991–
1994 strike in violation of the International constitution.
The Local 170 executive board found merit in the
charges. Fiori was removed as vice president, ordered to
repay $26,000 in strike benefits, and was ultimately sus-
pended from membership in Local 170.2
Union member Julio Fontecchio testified on behalf of
Fiori in the proceedings against him. Based in part on
Fontecchio’s testimony, Foley also filed internal union
charges against Fontecchio alleging that he, too, had im-
properly received strike benefits while also collecting
workmen’s compensation in violation of the International
constitution. The charges were still pending at the time
of the unfair labor practice hearing.
Applying then-current Board law, the judge concluded
that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by im-
posing intraunion discipline against Fiori and by remov-
ing Fiori from office, because he found that those actions
were in reprisal for Fiori’s intraunion political activities
and beliefs. The judge concluded further that the Re-
spondent’s actions against Fontecchio violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) because he found that the action would not
have been taken against Fontecchio but for the Respon-
dent’s attempt to punish Fiori for his dissident activity.
After the judge’s decision in this case issued, the
Board issued its decision in Office Employees Local 251
(Sandia National Laboratories), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000).
The Board held in that case that it will “no longer pro-
scribe intraunion discipline under Section 8(b)(1)(A)
which involves a purely intraunion dispute, and does not
interfere with the employee-employer relationship, or
contravene a policy of the National Labor Relations
Act.” Id., slip op. at 10. In so doing, the Board over-
2 The decision of the executive board was upheld on appeal by Joint
Council 10 and the general executive board of the International union.
However, the general executive board reduced the amount of the strike
benefit Fiori was required to repay to $4480.
333 NLRB No. 152
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 170 (LEASEWAY MOTOR CAR) 1291
ruled the precedent on which the judge relied in finding
the discipline of Fiori and Fontecchio unlawful.
As in Sandia, this case concerns a purely intraunion
dispute resulting in intraunion discipline. There is no
indication that the discipline imposed by the Respondent
in any way affected Fiori and Fontecchio’s employment
or opportunities for employment with any employer, or
impaired any other policy interests arising under the Act.
We therefore find that the Respondent’s conduct against
Fiori and Fontecchio did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A).3
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its en-
tirety.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

MEMBER HURTGEN, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I find that the Respondent
Union’s actions against James Fiori violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I further find that the Respondent’s
actions against Julio Fontecchio also violated Section
8(b)(1)(A).
As set forth in more detail by my colleagues, the Re-
spondent removed Fiori from his elected office—that of
vice president of Respondent. It also imposed on Fiori a
requirement that he pay the Union $26,000—allegedly
for improperly collecting strike benefits.1 This monetary
penalty was later reduced to $4480. As the judge found,
the Respondent took its actions against Fiori because of
Fiori’s Section 7 intraunion political activities and be-
liefs. The judge further found the Respondent filed in-
traunion charges against Fontecchio because of his sup-
port for Fiori.
In my concurrence in Office Employees Local 251
(Sandia National Laboratories), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000),
I concluded that where an underlying dispute between a
union and an employee is wholly intraunion and gov-
erned by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), and a union’s discipline is
wholly internal and nonmonetary, the legality of the un-
ion’s action is best left to resolution under the LMRDA.

3 In reaching the contrary conclusion that the Respondent’s treatment
of Fiori and Fontecchio should be found unlawful, our dissenting col-
league relies on his concurring opinion in Sandia and his dissenting
opinions in Painters Local 466 (Skidmore College), 332 NLRB No. 41
(2000), and Service Employees Local 254 (Brandeis University), 332
NLRB No. 103 (2000). We adhere to the views expressed in the major-
ity opinions in each of those cases.
1 The judge concluded that the Respondent’s efforts against Fiori for
alleged “double-dipping”—i.e., collecting both strike benefits and
worker’s compensation—were a pretext to mask its real motive, i.e., to
retaliate against Fiori for his Sec. 7 intraunion activity. I agree. In light
of this finding, the Respondent’s action against Fiori was a monetary
penalty for Sec. 7 activity. It did not legitimately seek to recoup mon-
eys owed to the Union.
In the instant case, the dispute grows out of intraunion
political activities that are governed by the LMRDA.
However, the Respondent’s actions against Fiori, in re-
prisal for his activities, were partly monetary. As in
Painters Local 466 (Skidmore College), 332 NLRB No.
41 (2000), the discipline affected him “not simply in
[his] relationship to the Union, but also in [his] pocket-
book.” Thus, I would not leave this matter to the proc-
esses of the LMRDA. And, since I would entertain part
of this case, I would proceed to adjudicate the entire
case.2
Turning to the merits of the issues, I conclude that the
monetary discipline of Fiori was unlawful. It was in re-
prisal against his Section 7 activity, and it offended poli-
cies that are embedded in the nation’s labor laws.3
The Respondent also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
removing Fiori from an elected office. As set forth in my
dissent in Service Employees Local 254 (Brandeis Uni-
versity), 332 NLRB No. 103 (2000), I distinguish, in this
context, between appointed positions and elected posi-
tions. The removal was in reprisal for Section 7 activity,
and the Union did not have a legitimate interest in coun-
termanding the electoral choice of the employees. For
this reason, I conclude that the Respondent’s removal of
Fiori from his elected office violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
Finally, inasmuch as the Respondent’s actions against
Fontecchio were a part of its effort to retaliate against
Fiori, I agree that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by its filing of charges against Fontecchio.

Kathleen McCarthy, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Matthew E. Dwyer, Esq., of Boston, Massachusetts, for the
Respondents.
James R. Fiori, pro se, of Medway, Massachusetts, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge. This matter
was tried before me at Boston, Massachusetts, on May 18–20,
1998, on the General Counsel’s complaint which alleged that
the Respondents engaged in certain activity against the Charg-
ing Party and another member in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Respon-
dent generally denied that it committed any violations of the
Act.
On the record as a whole,1 including my observation of the
witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I make the follow-
ing
2 Skidmore, dissenting opinion at fn. 3.
3 Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423 (1969).
1 By agreement of the parties, after the close of the hearing a written
transcript of the hearing before Local 170 on March 1, 1997, was re-
ceived into evidence as GC Exh. 69. Also received into evidence as
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1292
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Leaseway Motor Car Transport Com-
pany has been a corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness in Framingham, Massachusetts, engaged in the interstate
transpiration of automobiles, in conduct of which business it
annually derives gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the
transportation of automobiles from the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts directly to points outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and annually performs services valued in excess
of $50,000 in States other than the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. At all material times Leaseway has been an employer
engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Sections
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. 170, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (the Union or Local 170)
represents employees of Leaseway, among other employers,
and is admitted to be, and I find is, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Teamsters Joint Council No. 10 of Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (the Joint Council), of
which the Union is a constituent member, is admitted to be, and
I find is, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2l(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The principal facts of this dispute are largely uncontested. In
1991 James R. Fiori worked for Tresca Brothers Concrete
Company. He suffered a disabling work-related injury and
began receiving temporary total disability compensation. In
May 1991 the employees of Tresca Brothers (and apparently
other concrete companies in the area) went on strike. Fiori
asked his business agent if he would be able to collect strike
benefits since he was drawing workmen’s compensation. He
was told that he would, as long as he performed the picketline
and other duties required of strikers. This was affirmed by the
Union’s then-Secretary/Treasurer Ernest Tusino, who had dis-
cussed the matter with the then-general president of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, William J. McCarthy.
Fiori received strike benefits during the entire time of the
strike, which ended in December 1993. And he received
workmen’s compensation during this period. A year later Fiori
settled his compensation claim for a lump sum payment.
Though the current secretary/treasurer of the Union, Richard
Foley, and others involved in the subsequent discipline of Fiori
seem to contend they knew nothing about his receiving strike
benefits, the documentary evidence and credited testimony of

GC Exh. 70 is a letter to the Charging Party from the Union dated June
22, 1998, enclosing a decision of the general executive board (received
into evidence as R. Exh. 19) and demanding payment in the reduced
amount of $4480. On July 28, 1998, counsel for the Respondents filed
a motion to submit an additional brief in reply to GC Exh. 70. That
motion is granted and the brief considered.
Julio Fontecchio lead me to conclude that Fiori’s situation was
generally well-known. Fontecchio also received strike bene-
fits, though he was on workmen’s compensation disability, as
did Shop Steward Tom Mathews. Carl Gentile, a business
agent for Local 170 at all times material, was the business agent
responsible for Tresca Brothers employees during the strike.
He was not called as a witness by the Respondent, from which I
can infer that he would not have denied knowledge of Fiori’s
disability. As business agent, Gentile made at least some of the
strike benefit payments.
In the fall of 1994 Fiori ran for vice president of Local 170,
on a slate headed by Tusino. Campaign literature signed by
Tusino, among other things, criticized former Business Agent
Victor Nuzzolilo, who was again a candidate on an opposing
slate. Fiori and others on the Tusino slate were elected. Nuz-
zolilo narrowly missed being elected and he protested. There
was a recount by the Department of Labor, and he was installed
as one of the Union’s three business agents in early 1995.
In May 1996, Tusino was ousted from office by General
President Ron Carey, purportedly as a result of a Board case
wherein Tusino was found guilty of nepotism.2 The executive
board of Local 170 replaced Tusino with Foley. At a party on
May 19 celebrating Foley’s election, George Cashman, an In-
ternational vice president elected on the Carey slate, asked Fiori
for his support of Carey and himself. Fiori declined stating that
Carey had wrongfully ousted Tusino. Fiori said that maybe
sometime in the future he would support Cashman, but he
would not support Carey.
Thus, by the summer of 1996, Foley was the secre-
tary/treasurer, Nuzzolilo was a business agent, and Fiori was
the vice president of Local 170. Foley and Nuzzolilo were two
of the four Local 170 delegates to the International convention
that July and Fiori was one of the three alternates. During the
convention Tusino’s appeal of his suspension was considered
by the delegates, and was affirmed. Nuzzolilo took an active
role against Tusino while speaking in favor of Carey and
against James Hoffa, Carey’s opposition in the forthcoming
election for International officers.
At the convention, Fiori made a comment to other delegates
to the effect that Nuzzolilo had worked during a strike. Nuz-
zolilo told others that he would “get” Fiori for embarrassing
him.
In early November, during the runup to the election of the
general president and other officers, a flyer was distributed to
the Union’s membership which reads, in part: “Jim Fiori, part-
time VP for Local 170 and long-time lackey for Ernie Tusino,
went out on worker’s comp about one week before Tresca Con-
crete in Millis, Massachusetts went on strike. On comp Fiori
was earning $500 per week. Tresca Teamsters were out on
strike for three years. During the strike, Fiori was double dip-
ping in the IBT strike benefits for another $200 per week.”
There are then allegations about how much Fiori made during
the 3 years, “facts” about the International’s finances and at the
bottom:

2 Case 1–CB–8132. No exceptions were taken to the decision of the
administrative law judge, and it was affirmed by the Board on Septem-
ber 1, 1994.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 170 (LEASEWAY MOTOR CAR) 1293
X VOTE RON CAREY ‘96 SLATE X
FIVE MORE YEARS OF RIDDING THE TEAMSTERS OF
CORRUPTION

Nuzzolilo, who disclaimed authorship, nevertheless stated at
the November membership meeting that he contacted the Inter-
national about Fiori’s alleged unlawful taking of strike benefits
and thus began the chain of events leading to this complaint.
On November 8, Foley wrote Tom Sever, the general secre-
tary-treasurer, generally outlining Fiori’s situation and asking
for a decision “as to whether or not a member is entitled to
receive both strike benefits and worker’s compensation at the
same time, or if there are any constitutional violations in re-
gards to this matter.” To this letter Foley attached a copy of the
pro-Carey flyer described above.
Sever’s answer of November 21 includes the following:

Article XII, Section 15(a) provides that out-of-work
benefits may only be paid “if such member employees
shall have become unemployed as a direct result of a strike
. . . .” Assuming that the facts you state in your example
are correct, the member in question, Brother Jim Fiori,
was apparently already unable to work as the direct result
of a disabling injury on the date that the Tresca Brothers
Concrete strike commenced. As he was not unemployed
as the direct result of the strike, and apparently remained
on worker’s compensation throughout the entire strike, he
would not have been eligible for strike benefits at any time
during that period.

On January 14, 1997, Mary T. Connelly of the International
legal department wrote Foley stating that under the Interna-
tional constitution, it would be Local 170’s “responsibility to
recover the strike benefits improperly paid to Mr. Fiori.” This
was subsequently calculated to be $26,345.
Then on February 3, 1997, Foley filed charges against Fiori
for having wrongfully collected “strike benefits” with the hear-
ing before the executive board of Local 170 set for March 1.
Prior to the hearing, Fiori was removed as vice president, a
move found unconstitutional by Sever since it occurred prior to
any hearing. Nevertheless, at the hearing on Foley’s charge,
among other things, Fiori presented affidavits from Tusino and
McCarthy to the effect that Fiori was authorized to receive
strike benefits and that his eligibility was not violative of the
International constitution. Nevertheless, a majority of the ex-
ecutive board voted Fiori guilty.
Fiori appealed this decision to Joint Council 10 on March 11.
On March 12, Local 170 made a demand on Fiori for $26,345.
The executive board of the Joint Council held 2 days of hear-
ings and on June 26 rendered a written decision finding that
Fiori “wrongfully collected out-of-work benefits for which he
was ineligible under the International Constitution. As a con-
sequence of his actions, Brother Fiori has violated Article XII,
Section 15(a).” The Joint Council affirmed the decision of
Local 170 and additionally ordered him to make restitution in
the amount of $26,345.
As noted above, subsequent to the hearing here, the general
secretary-treasurer made a written decision and recommenda-
tion to the general executive board affirming the decision of the
Joint Council, but finding that (a) Fiori had prematurely been
removed from his position as vice president and (b) since he
fully participated in strike related activities, all but $5000 of the
strike benefits should be forgiven. This figure was further re-
duced to $4480 to reflect the 2 months’ stipend Fiori was de-
nied by his premature removal from office.
One of Fiori’s witnesses in the proceedings against him was
Julio A. Fontecchio, who also was an employee of Tressa
Brothers and who also received strike benefits while on work-
men’s compensation. On March 31, 1997, Foley filed charges
against Fontecchio with Local 170. At the time of the hearing
this matter was pending.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
In brief, the General Counsel contends that Fiori was
stripped of his office and required to repay $26,345 (and threat-
ened Fiori with suspension from membership if he refused)
because of his support of former Secretary-Treasurer Tusino
and of James Hoffa for general president.3
The Respondents argue that the actions against Fiori by Lo-
cal 170 and the Joint Council did not affect his employment,
and in any event, were simply a result of Fiori having accepted
strike benefits while receiving workmen’s compensation in
violation of the International constitution, article XII, section
15(a).
As a general matter, unions are free to enforce against mem-
bers and officers rules which reflect legitimate union concerns.
However, they may not, under the guise of doing so, invade the
rights of members embodied by Congress in the Federal labor
laws—specifically the right to participate freely in internal
union affairs and to oppose the incumbent leadership. Team-
sters Local 579, 310 NLRB 975 (1993). Thus, discipline of a
member or/and officer because of his internal union political
activity is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A), notwithstanding that
the punishment has not affected the individual’s employment.
Laborers Local 652 (Southern California Contractors’ Assn.),
319 NLRB 694 (1995).
This case is not about whether the Union, or the Interna-
tional, could have a policy prohibiting those on temporary total
disability from receiving strike benefits, whether or not such a
policy is set forth in the constitution. There are rational policy
arguments on both sides of such rule. Denying strike benefits
to those on disability compensation would certainly be a rea-
sonable rule and even if not, it is not the Board’s province to
make a judgment on it, so long as enforcement of the rule “im-
pairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws.”
Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423, 430 (1969). However, the
evidence of record convinces me that neither the International
nor the Union had such policy.
Nor is this case about the patent unfairness of punishing
Fiori for actions which the highest authorities in the local and
international led him to believe were legitimate. A labor or-
ganization does not have to be fair, so long as “union discipline

3 Counsel for the General Counsel argues that in no case can an
elected officer be disciplined for violating union rules and to do so
violates Sec. 8(b)(1)(A). No Board authority was cited for this proposi-
tion and I reject it. Cases cited under the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. are inapposite.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1294
does not interfere with the employee-employer relationship or
otherwise violate a policy of the National Labor Relations Act.”
NLRB v. Boeing Co., 412 U.S. 67, 78 (1973).
The issue is whether Local 170 and the Joint Council found a
constitutional violation in order to strip Fiori of his office (and
potentially his membership) because of his internal political
activity in opposition to that of a majority of the executive
boards of Local 170 and the Joint Council.
I conclude that Fiori’s alleged unlawful “double-dipping”
was a pretext to disguise the true motive for bringing charges
against him; namely, his support of Hoffa against the incum-
bent Carey in the 1996 general election, and, in part, his con-
tinued support for Tusino.
First is the timing. That Fiori was on compensation and also
receiving strike benefits from 1991 through 1993 was well
known. If not known to the entire membership, his doing so
was at least known to the business agent servicing Tressa
Brothers, the Union’s secretary-treasurer, and the general presi-
dent. Even though Fiori ran for office in 1994 in a contested
election, the fact he had received strike benefits was apparently
not an issue. At least there is no evidence it was. Fiori’s al-
leged violation of the International constitution became an issue
only in 1996 during the general election, and after he had stated
his anti-Carey sentiments.
Second is the clearly bogus basis for finding Fiori in viola-
tion of the International constitution. General Secre-
tary/Treasurer Sever quoted from article XII, section 15(a) in
giving Foley his opinion that Fiori unlawfully received strike
funds. Article XII, section 15(a) was the basis of Foley’s
charge, Local 170’s decision and the decision of the Joint
Council, and again was quoted by Sever in his recommended
decision affirming the Joint Council. The rationale for punish-
ing Fiori thus came full circle. It began with Sever’s response
to Foley and ended with Sever’s decision.
By its clear and unambiguous wording, article XII, section
15(a) is not germane to the facts. The language quoted by
Sever, and others, is a phrase taken out of context. This section
clearly deals with situations in which as a result of a strike by
Teamster members, other members not directly involved in the
labor dispute are nevertheless out of work.4 This section of the
constitution neither allows nor proscribes strike benefit pay-
ments to members who are out of work because of an industrial
accident. The phrase relied on by the Respondents is imbedded

4 The entire sentence in sec. 15(a) in which the language relied on is:
Benefits shall be paid to all other member employees of the primary
employer at all terminals or places of employment of the primary em-
ployer involved if such member employees shall have become unem-
ployed as a direct result of a strike involving other Teamster member
employees which strike has been approved pursuant to Section 13,
and benefits shall also be paid to member employees of an exclusive
Contract Hauler employer if such member employees shall have be-
come unemployed as a direct result of a strike involving other Team-
ster member employees of customers of the exclusive Contract
Hauler; provided, the General Executive Board or the General Presi-
dent was advised of the possibility that such member employees might
become unemployed as a direct result of such a strike, and provided
further, the General Executive Board or the General President shall
have approved the payment of benefits to such member employees at
the time of approving the request for benefits.
in a sentence authorizing benefits for certain members not
themselves participating in a strike. One need not be familiar
with the niceties of statutory construction to realize that this
phrase is not a rule of general application.
I note that in his recommended decision to the general
executive board, Sever stated, without citation or any asserted
factual basis, that “the International Union has always consis-
tently determined at all times relevant to this case that members
who are already unemployed before a strike commences are not
‘unemployed as a direct result of a strike’ and therefore are not
eligible for out of work benefits. This includes persons who
become unemployed before a strike commences due to on the
job injuries.” I do not accept this uncorroborated hearsay asser-
tion. If this assertion was true, surely the Respondent would
have offered some evidence of past practice.
The International of course could have a rule denying strike
benefits to those on workmen’s compensation, but it did not, at
least by the cited article and section. No other provision of the
constitution was advanced by Local 170 or the Joint Council as
a basis for concluding that Fiori had wrongfully collected strike
benefits.
In fact, the general eligibility provisions for strike benefits
are in article XII, section 14, and the bases for being debarred
from benefits are in section 15(c), e.g., receiving a week’s work
(3 days being considered a week’s work). If the International
actually had a policy of denying strike benefits to those on
workmen’s compensation, one would expect to find it in sec-
tion 15(c).
The Board, of course, is not in the business of interpreting
the constitutions of labor organizations. However, where an
interpretation offered as a reason for punishing a member is so
clearly wrong, an inference that the true motive lies elsewhere
is warranted. E.g., Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362
F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966). Here the inapplicability of section
15(a) was argued by Fiori before the Local 170 and Joint Coun-
cil executive boards. Both ignored this argument. Such is a
further indication that the alleged violation of Section 15(a) was
pretext.
Finally, General President McCarthy had specifically told
Tusino that Fiori and others on workmen’s compensation were
eligible for strike benefits; and if this required waiving a consti-
tutional provision, it was his prerogative to do so under section
15(d),5 since the strike involved fewer than 200 members.
McCarthy’s affidavit to this effect was ignored by Local 170
and discounted by the Joint Council on grounds that his au-
thorization was tantamount to changing article XII, section
15(a) of the constitution. This interpretation would prohibit the
general executive board or general president from acting pursu-
5 The full test of this subsec.: “(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
this Constitution, the General Executive Board (or the General Presi-
dent if less than two hundred (200) employees are involved) may au-
thorize the payment of out-of-work benefits in any case where it deter-
mines that such payment is in the best interest of the International Un-
ion.”
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 170 (LEASEWAY MOTOR CAR) 1295
ant to their authority under section 15(d). In short the Joint
Council denied the existence of section 15(d).6
In any event, had the executive boards of Local 170 and the
Joint Council seriously been attempting to make a reasoned
decision, McCarthy’s authority, authorization and the reasons
for it would not have been treated in such a cavalier fashion.
I therefore conclude that the finding by Local 170 and the
Joint Council that Fiori violated the International constitution
was a pretext to disguise their true motive in ousting him from
his position of vice president of Local 170 and demanding that
he repay the strike benefits he received.
Having concluded that the asserted basis for punishing Fiori
was a pretext, I infer that the true motive lies elsewhere. I fur-
ther infer that the motive behind the actions of Local 170 and
the Joint Council was Fiori’s internal union political activity—
specifically his support of Hoffa against Carey. The purported
legal basis for punishing Fiori was given by Sever, the Interna-
tional secretary treasurer with Carey. Attached to the letter
Foley sent Sever was the pro-Carey flyer. Thus Sever must
have known the political position of Fiori. The principal officer
of the Joint Council was George Cashman, an International vice
president on the Carey slate, who knew that Fiori would not
support him and Carey in the forthcoming International elec-
tion. Fiori was also on the disfavored side of Local 170 poli-
tics, continuing to be a vocal supporter of the ousted Tusino.
Given that Fiori’s receiving strike benefits was well known
and occurred during a 3-year period ending nearly 3 years be-

6 Unexplained by the Joint Council is how the International execu-
tive board could waive the no-work requirement of sec. 15(c) in the
recent United Parcel Service strike.
fore it became an issue, at a time when a vigorously contested
international election was in full campaign, I conclude that
union politics and not the strike benefits was the motivating
factor behind the punishment of Fiori. Accordingly, I conclude
that Local 170 and the Joint Council thus violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The charges filed against Juilo Fontecchio for having re-
ceived strike benefits while on workmen’s compensation during
the Tressa Brothers strike grew out of the Fiori matter. But for
the Union’s attempt to punish Fiori because of his internal un-
ion political activity, it is clear that no action would have been
taken against Fontecchio. I therefore conclude that the at-
tempted punishment of Fontecchio was a result of Fiori’s pro-
tected activity and was violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
IV. REMEDY
Having concluded that each Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act, including reinstating
James Fiori to his position of vice president of Local 170, and
make him whole for any losses he may have suffered as a result
of his removal from office. In order for the entire membership
to become aware of this matter, I recommend that it addition to
posting the notice, Local 170 be ordered to include the Order
and notice to members in its monthly newsletter to members for
3 months.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]