OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER
IN THE MATTER OF |
|
DOCKET NO. |
|
PLUTARCO SALGADO V. SAMMY SALGADO
LOCAL UNION 652 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA |
|
99-30TB |
ORDER AND
MEMORANDUM
|
||
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This Order and Memorandum addresses the trial board charges filed on April 5, 1999 by Plutarco Salgado against Sammy Salgado (no relation), both members of Local Union 652, in Santa Ana, California (“Local 652”). Plutarco Salgado filed the charges with Local 652 on April 5, 1999, by signing an English translation of a statement of facts which he related to Guillermo “Willie” Garibay (“Garibay”), the Recording Secretary of Local 652, which formed the basis of his complaint against Sammy Salgado.
Local 652 Executive Board members assisted Plutarco Salgado by drafting a letter listing the particular provisions of the constitution which they believed were violated. See Letter Guillermo Garibay, the Recording Secretary, to Sammy Salgado, of April 27, 1999 (“Letter of April 27”). This letter, signed by Garibay, was intended to constitute notice of the charges.
The letter of April 27 simply informed Sammy Salgado that he violated Article III, Section 2 (a) and Article III, Section 3 (d) of the LIUNA Uniform Local Constitution (“Constitution”), and also the Master Labor Agreement, Article III, Section E, and that a hearing was scheduled for May 6, 1999. There was no recitation of the facts indicating the basis for the charges. The letter did not contain the recitation of the facts signed by Plutarco Salgado on April 5, 1999. On April 29, 1999, Ruben Gomez (“Gomez”), Business Manager of Local 652, sent a letter to General President Coia, suggesting that the Executive Board of Local 652 be disqualified from hearing the charges. See Letter from Gomez to General President Coia of April 29, 1999. On May 6, 1999, General President Coia assigned the Trial Board to the Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”). The IHO held a hearing on the matter on June 29, 1999. Plutarco Salgado, testified and Garibay verified several documents which were sent to the IHO by Local 652.
At the conclusion of Plutarco’s evidence, the IHO ruled that without deciding the veracity of the version of the facts related by Plutarco Salgado, there was no just cause to consider any sanctions against Sammy Salgado.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Both Plutarco Salgado and Sammy Salgado are members of Local 652.
2. The Local 652 monthly general membership meeting was held on March 24, 1999.
3. According to the testimony of Plutarco Salgado, an event took place at the membership meeting which indicated that Plutarco Salgado was going to support the incumbent slate of officers in the upcoming election, including Ruben Gomez, the Business Manager of Local 652. The nature of the incident is unclear; however, it is the triggering event for the charges. Sammy Salgado was a candidate for Business Manager, in opposition to Ruben Gomez.
4. On March 26, 1999, Plutarco Salgado reported for work as a general laborer on his job at the Kajima Company. Salgado alleges that he was told by his foreman, Mel Flowers, that Sammy Salgado, who is a foreman at another location for Kajima Company, had spoken to him about Plutarco Salgado. According to Plutarco, Flowers said that Sammy Salgado told Flowers to lay off Plutarco Salgado. Flowers told Plutarco Sammy wanted him laid off for “political reasons.”
5. Flowers refused to lay off Plutarco Salgado, and he remains employed there today.
6. The record contains a report by Garibay, the Local 652 Recording Secretary. See Report of Garibay, March 26, 1999. Garibay reported that he confirmed Plutarco’s conversation with Sammy Salgado. According to the report, Sammy Salgado wanted Plutarco laid off because he was going to support the incumbent slate.
7. Sammy Salgado had no authority over Plutarco Salgado as to his employment status.
8. Plutarco Salgado did not lose any work as the result of the acts of Sammy Salgado.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Sammy Salgado received inadequate notice of the charges as required by Article XII, Section 2, of the Constitution. Article XII, Section 1 indicates what must be included in the charges:
These charges must be signed by the person preferring the charges and indicate the provisions of the Constitution to be relied upon, or the agreement or rule alleged to have been violated, and must set forth the specific violation or wrong charged, and the date on which it allegedly occurred.
Sending a charged member a list of the constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated is not sufficient notice. There must be a statement of facts indicating the basis of the charges, otherwise the charged party has no idea of what he must defend against.
2. The IHO makes no finding as to the veracity of the facts as related by Plutarco Salgado. Accepting Plutarco’s testimony as true for the purpose of legal sufficiency only, the IHO concludes that no just cause exists for sanctioning Sammy Salgado. Sammy Salgado was in no position of authority over Plutarco Salgado. Plutarco Salgado lost no work, and is still employed on the same job.
DECISION
There is no just cause for any
sanctions against Sammy Salgado.
PETER F. VAIRA
INDEPENDENT
HEARING OFFICER
Date: July 1, 1999
Plutarco Salgado
Sammy Salgado
Local Union 652 (via facsimile)