Appeal of Paul Santos and Brooke Reeves

from a Decision of Joint Council 10

Introduction

This matter came before the General Executive Board pursuant to an appeal
filed by Paul Santos and Brooke Reeves from a decision of Joint Council 10
concerning charges filed against them by Kelley McNally. Santos is the President
of Local Union 251 and a Business Agent assigned to represent members
employed by the Rhode Island Hospital (RIH). Reeves is a shop steward at RIH
and a Union Liaison, a position that entitles her to perform work for two days each
week representing Local 251 members while paid by RIH. McNally is a member
of Local 251 employed by RIH.

The charges were filed on March 8, 2016, with the Local Union Executive
Board. It was alleged that Santos, Reeves and Local 251 Secretary-Treasurer Matt
Taibi had caused harm to McNally by instigating an investigation for internal-
union political reasons that resulted in her being disciplined by RIH. McNally
alleged that the charged parties retaliated against her because she ran for delegate
to the International Convention on a slate that was opposed to the slate of delegates
headed by Taibi, which included Santos and Reeves. The same allegations were
also the subject of an election protest filed with the Office of Election Supervisor
(OES). That Office issued a decision finding that Reeves actions violated the
Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election and ordered a
Notice to be posted as a remedy. McNallys election protest regarding Santos was
dismissed by the OES.

The Local Union conducted a hearing on June 22, 2016, and issued a
decision dismissing the charges on August 11. A timely appeal was filed with the
Joint Council, which considered the matter on the basis of the Locals 425-page
hearing transcript. The Joint Council issued a decision on September 21, 2016,
finding that Santos and Reeves had violated the Constitution and the Local 251
Bylaws. The decision suspended both Santos and Reeves from membership for
thirty days. An appeal was filed with the General Executive Board on September
28, and General President Hoffa issued a stay of the effectiveness of the Joint
Councils decision on October 5. It should be noted that Local 251 was in the
midst of its election of officers at that time and that McNally and the charged
parties were nominated candidates on opposing slates.

In response to the acknowledgment of the appeal and the offered opportunity

for the parties to submit additional material for the consideration of the General
Executive Board, both the charging and charged parties filed statements in support
of their respective positions, essentially repeating contentions previously advanced.

Discussion and Recommendation

The Joint Council issued an extensive decision fully supported by the

lengthy record developed by the Local Union. With one exception, the Joint
Councils findings are consistent with those issued by the OES. The distinction
between those rulings is that the Joint Council found that Santos was involved in
the actions taken by Reeves, which were intended to, and did, retaliate against
McNally for her political activities.

A copy of the Joint Councils detailed decision was reviewed by the General
Executive Board, which affirmed it.
 Briefly, based on a conversation with another member, Reeves suspected
that the RIH print shop had prepared campaign literature for use by McNallys
slate of delegate candidates. Apparently, McNally had been observed leaving the
print shop with two boxes holding reams of paper. There was no other information
available at that time to spark Reeves suspicion, but she reported the matter to
Santos. Santos contacted the print shop manager to ascertain whether campaign
materials had been printed for McNally. The print shop manager denied that he had
printed, or permitted McNally to print, anything. Instead, the print shop manager
advised that McNally had picked up prescription paper, a task she would perform
as part of her work duties. Nonetheless, Santos and Reeves were not satisfied with
that explanation and took their suspicions to the Vice President of Human
Resources. That supervisor investigated the matter and advised Santos that no
campaign materials had been printed. The supervisor subsequently provided the
Local Union with a copy of the receipt that had been issued verifying that two
boxes of paper had been transferred from the print shop to another department at
RIH. This still was not sufficient proof for Reeves, who continued to investigate
the matter, eventually sending an email to the Hospitals President and the Chief of
Nursing. This, in turn, led to McNally being suspended and then disciplined for
not properly storing the prescription paper she had obtained from the print shop in
a secure location in accordance with RIH policy.

While Santos and Reeves claim they were concerned that the print shop
supervisor was violating RIH policy, rather than instigating an investigation
intended to lead to the disciplining of McNally, their assertions are not credible. In
her email to the President and the Chief of Nursing, Reeves specifically referred to
herself as a candidate on the United Action delegate slate and also referred to
McNally as a member of our opposing slate. Neither the Joint Council nor the
OES had difficulty dismissing the claims made by the charged parties that they
were merely seeking to enforce RIH policies. Any reasonable person would
conclude that the charged parties were pursuing the issue beyond any reasonable
point because McNally was a political opponent. Indeed, it is difficult to envision
a situation in which any Union official would conduct an extensive investigation to
determine whether a supervisor was violating a rule that did not involve the Union
or its members but, rather, the supervisors obligation to the employer.

Nothing in the position papers submitted by Santos and Reeves justifies

setting aside or modifying the Joint Councils decision. Santos contends that by
imposing a penalty on him, the Joint Council was holding him strictly liable for the
actions of Reeves, merely because he represented the RIH bargaining unit. But
such is hardly the case. The evidence supports the Joint Councils finding that
Santos was involved in pursuing the matter with RIH supervisors, after the print
shop supervisor had denied printing campaign material and provided a reasonable
explanation of the boxes of paper McNally was observed carrying. He had the
opportunity and obligation to tell Reeves to abandon her inquiry before she
unnecessarily endangered the employment of a fellow member, but he did not do
so. Thus, contrary to Santos claim, affirmance of the penalty the Joint Council
imposed on him cannot be construed as establishing strict liability on a Business
Agent whenever another member at one of his/her shops engages in misconduct
vis--vis another member.

ccordingly, the General Executive Board affirmed the decision of Joint

A
Council 10 and denied the appeal filed by Paul Santos and Brooke Reeves.