Teamsters Local 443 Vs. Connecticut Limousine We suspect collusion, sellout, or sweetheart deal by union New Haven Connecticut

It's obvious that the union is biased. I still receive their monthly "Teamsters" magazine. This propoganda rag boasts of all the union's successful organizing and good deals. It fails to mention the (probably more frequent) raw and sweetheart deals, and sellouts (like in our case). This website is the perfect way to refute all the "BS" one hears from the Teamsters organizers and the biased Teamsters monthly magazine.

Of course, now I really know that the Teamsters' Union sucks!!!! In some cases, the union is like a vulture or parasite that just takes workers' hard-earned money; giving them practically "Nada" in return. The real icing on the cake came over the past 3-4 years when I was up in Connecticut:

RE: Connecticut Limousine vs. Teamsters Local 443

Many of us drivers have long complained about the Teamsters Union, as it had always seemed rather lackadaisical in fairly representing us. However, because CT Limo had engaged in unfair labor practices, we ultimately decided to side with the union and go on strike nearly 4 years ago.

Our strike began on 5/12/01, ostensibly because the company refused to continue to recognize, or negotiate with the union. In Sept. 2001, the NLRB ruled in favor of the union, and that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices. However, we soon began to suspect that there has been collusion or a sweetheart deal between CT limo and Teamsters Local 443. In early March 2002 we were called to a meeting at the union hall, in which the union announced that the strike was over, ostensibly to allow us to return to work until a new contract could be negotiated.

However, despite an agreement between the company and the union, only 2 of about 60 of us were ever called back to work. We were also told at the meeting that there would be no negotiating committee, other than by Sec. Robert Bayusik himself. Although the NLRB ruled that the company and union must negotiate, we know that neither side is in compliance. The union has refused to communicate with us, its members, since the 3/6/02 meeting. Simply put, although the union won the case, it appears that they are now siding with the company (i.e. Telling us this line of BS that the company has no jobs available, when in fact, we know that they have been advertising and hiring). I've written several letters to the office of James Hoffa, but they simply forward a copy to Bayusik, who then writes a response to me, and sends a copy to Hoffa's office.

In his letters, Bayusik is acting highly defensive, as well as evasive. He fails to answer our serious questions, i.e., Why is there no negotiating committee? Why have they refused to communicate with us at all since 3/6/02? Why have they failed to file further charges against the company when it's obvious that the company is not bargaining in good faith? As per the NLRA, the company has broken the law by not re-instating us.(It's important to remember that this was an unfair labor practices strike, not an economic strike. Therefore, we do have greater recall rights. We believe the answer to our questions is that there is collusion or a sweetheart deal, even if we only have circumstantial evidence of it.

What is outrageous is the fact that this union forced us to pay dues and fees, and called on us to strike. Perhaps the strike was nothing more than a smoke screen to conceal their collusion. Even if by some chance there is no collusion, we still say that the union was negligent and irresponsible, in that it knew that CT Limo was so desperate to eliminate the union that the union would be unable to enforce a settlement. Collusion or not, the proper thing for the union to have done would have been to issue a disclaimer of interest, and not call a strike, in which case we would not have lost so much money.

The fact is, we believe the union is about 90% to blame for our situation, and we do want to sue the union for a reasonable amount to recover our financial loss from the strike, but are having a difficult time retaining an attorney without up-front money. I spoke to at least one lawyer who agrees that we have a good case (the union has obviously breached its duty of fair representation of its members).

What we really want is some form of compensation for our lost pay during the strike, and all the time in which the union failed to deal with the fact that we were never called back to work. If any attorney can help us, please let us know.

Earl
Woodhaven, New York
U.S.A.