January 15, 1998
Mr. Alexis M. Herman
Secretary of Labor
Department of Labor Building
200 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC 20210
RE: Formal Complaint - Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested - P 524 083
473
Dear Secretary Herman:
Please consider this my Formal Complaint as referenced above
pursuant to Office of Labor-Management Standards, Item III - Investigations (herein
enclosed as Exhibit 1 and highlighted for your convenience), Employment Standards
Administration Office of Labor-Management Standards Customer Service Plan, Item I - Agency
Mission and Purpose (herein enclosed as Exhibit 2 and highlighted for your convenience),
and 29 U.S.C. § 521. It is my position that the President, General Counsel, and a
Vice-President of the United Transportation Union have engaged in improper and corrupt
practices which have caused me to lose total faith and respect in an agency of the U. S.
Government and well as the U.S. Judicial System itself, wherein these said
Officers/Counsel committed serious Abuse of Process, aided and abetted by the District
Court and ignored by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, to the detriment of this
complainant and all dues paying members of the United Transportation Union. Said actions
involve numerous violations of Federal Labor Law which are documented with probative and
prima facie evidence.
Complainant herein, Lance E. Ruck, is a dues paying member of
the United Transportation Union (hereinafter "UTU") and was an elected a member
of the Board of Appeals, a final and binding internal board pursuant to Article 27 of the
UTU Constitution, which issued a sustaining decision to a appellant/member concerning his
entitlement to 30 shares of stock pursuant to his Collective Bargaining Agreement (See
Enclosure 3). Said decision was final and binding, not even appealable to the convention
(Supreme Body which meets every four years), and became the official policy of the UTU
upon its release.
CSXT Labor Relations Officer Howard Emerick and UTU General
Chairman Virgil Elswick used the facade of a standing Special Board of Adjustment to sell
out the member’s claim and Vice- President Robert W. Earley was the International
Officer, who with Emerick and Neutral Cluster, formed the members of Board, who concluded
in "Executive Session" that there was no dispute. Earley agreed with the
Carrier’s position and they (Emerick and Earley) requested a denying award from
Neutral Cluster. They then proceeded to conduct a mock hearing in which they argued the
positions of the submissions as if the Neutral had not already decided the issue. However,
Neutral Cluster became exasperated with the Union’s position in this case and a
second case which was also sold out, and put the information right in the Award itself
(Encl. 4, pertinent part highlighted). Unbeknown to all save possibly Cluster, the
claimant had a tape recorder running to have a record of his public law board. When he was
unexpectedly ejected for the alleged "Executive Session", he left the room as
requested but forgot to turn off the recorder. The sell-out was caught on tape, later
transcribed at the expense of the member’s local, and charges were filed pursuant to
Article 25 of the UTU Constitution, inclusive were quotes from the transcript.
International Vice President Earley verified the transcript was correct with two minor
exceptions, circularized information on same all over the CSXT system, and claimed no
wrong doing. However, when the Executive Board, an internal board pursuant to Article 24
of the UTU Constitution with responsibility to investigate, determine, and try
International Officers with the ability to censure, suspend, or remove from office,
determined there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, VP Earley retained counsel
and advanced the ad-hoc rationalization of counsel that this was a violation of the
Federal Wiretap Act.
Earley was successful in getting a temporary injunction in
Maryland blocking the employee from bringing his charges and then filed to block the
Executive Board from also hearing any charges. Enter the UTU General Counsel, not to argue
for a hearing for the employee to present definitive fact, reason, and law showing
conclusively that this was not a violation of the federal wiretap act, but rather to agree
with Earley’s attorneys in the Judge’s chambers that the Executive Board would
simply "open and close" the hearing, i.e., they would not hear the charges
rather than determine if they should be able to here them.
I then filed Article 25 charges based upon the language of the
PLB Award, the Executive Board again found sufficient evidence to try Earley, and Earley
added me as a New Party Defendant to his frivolous lawsuit and again sought to enjoin the
Executive Board from ever hearing the charges. It would be useless and depressing to
convey the dreary, slow abuse of process which has occurred within the court system.
Suffice to say Earley was successful in getting a permanent injunction which ignored all
fact, reason, and law; a quick alleged, illegal "Settlement Agreement and
Release" from the President and General Counsel, dismissal of his frivolous lawsuit
with prejudice but with retention of jurisdiction by the district court, and vacatur to
insure no trial upon the merits or counterclaims against Earley could be heard. Injustice
in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was just as slow and swift and I now have no
alternative but to proceed to the Supreme Court (See Encl. 5). If certiorari is denied,
the Supreme Court will be ruling that a union officer is entitled to privacy from his
employer and his client in order to violate federal labor law as well as stating that its
OK to file a frivolous lawsuit against someone, get everything you want from a corrupt
third party, and then dismiss your action before the defendant can prove his case and
counterclaims in court!
But there is a bright side; Vacatur eliminated the prohibition,
which never should have issued based upon fact, reason, and law, against using the
alleged, illegal transcript. Although it should be noted that in a companion case, filed
first by the employee who was sold out, against the CSXT and UTU for the misrepresentation
at the public law board, the judge ruled against the parties attempt to have the
transcript sealed, stating eloquently in a phone conference with all the parties -
"it is evidence"! It should also be noted that the "Settlement Agreement
and Release" prohibit any use by anyone within the Union but said prohibition
cannot be legally binding on those who had no knowledge or input into the agreement.
Specific Charge One: CSXT Labor Relations Officer
Howard Emerick, UTU CSXT former General Chairman Virgil Elswick, and UTU Vice President
Robert W. Earley violated 29 U.S. C. § 401 (b) and (c) in that they deliberately failed
to observe the high ethical standards of responsibility and ethical conduct required
wherein they conspired in order to distort and defeat § 153 of the RLA. I believe the
violation is criminal in nature and upon conclusion of your investigation should be
referred to the Attorney General for prosecution.
Probative Evidence of Violation: Attached herein as Enclosure 6
is a copy of the transcript of the Executive Session of PLB 3882 which details the actions
of the above named parties. A copy of the original tape from which the transcript was made
is available upon request and more clearly shows the true sinister nature of the
violation. As regards any legal questions you may have pertaining to the use of the
transcript and/or tape, I am sure you can determine that by checking with the Attorney
General’s office. In that regard, I have enclosed, as Exhibit 7, a copy of the Order
(vacatur) and Judgment which are self-explanatory. Should the district court wish to
re-enter the restraining order, I look forward to the jury trial I have thus far been
denied and which I now seek from the Supreme Court.
The court proceedings and personal letters to the union in my
attempt to bring this "misbehaving union officer" to internal justice pursuant
to Article 25 were constantly frustrated by the actions of the General Counsel and the
former Chairman of the Executive Board. This was basically political in nature as the
Chairman was a supporter of then General Secretary & Treasurer Charles L. Little, who
was an announced candidate for President against the incumbent President at the 1995
Quadrennial Convention which took place in Chicago in the Summer of 1995. Vice President
Earley was also a fervent supporter of Candidate Little and the delegates he carried swung
the election for Mr. Little. The only campaign literature which Earley ever put out to the
Delegation was a three (3) page letter accompanied with a booklet entitled the
"Correct Record". In the letter (herein attached as Exhibit 8), Earley stated he
wasn’t suing the Union and that all this was politically motivated by the Incumbent
President, ostensibly to discredit him and Mr. Little. The incumbent President openly
stated Earley was suing the Union and that he refused to pay Earley’s legal expenses
to drop the suit in exchange for no prosecution by the Executive Board. Once Little was
elected, the UTU General Counsel stated in a telephone conference with the Judge that the
position of the President had changed and settlement was now possible, paying
Earley’s legal fees and expenses in exchange for dropping the charges. Neither the
original charging party or I would accept this as a "settlement". I flat told
the Judge in open court that it wasn’t a settlement but rather a total capitulation
to a guilty party when the evidence was never prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2515 in the first
place. Why should we pay someone to strip us of our constitutional rights and sell us out?
He said "I can just rule against you, but you’d just appeal that wouldn’t
you"! He did and I did; the specious permanent injunction being the basis to cut the
deal for the "Settlement Agreement and Release" (Exhibit 9). I can only assume
that political clout came to bear, not to protect a misbehaving union officer, but to
protect the corrupt arbitration system that is so prevalent throughout the railroad
industry! It is noted I had to threaten suit to get a copy of the Settlement Agreement and
Release and the records supplied by Earley which allegedly were the basis for the monies
paid by the union to Earley and his Attorneys ( over a $168,000). It is noted that three
(3) certified attempts to get the actual figure of each check by this complainant and a
fourth by another union member have met with no success!
Specific Charge Two: President Charles L. Little
and General Counsel Clinton J. Miller, III, who signed the Settlement Agreement and
Release, violated 29 U.S.C. § 481(g) when they authorized payment, pursuant to ¶ 3.A.
& B. of said agreement, of Earley’s expenses incurred in publishing and mailing
($3079.25) his campaign literature, i.e., three page letter and "Correct Record"
(exhibit 8), mailed on his personal stationary.
Probative Evidence of Violation: Exhibits 8, 9, and 10! Exhibit
10 being the copy of Earley’s expenses (pertinent entries highlighted and marked)
which he supplied the International pursuant to ¶ 3.B. of the agreement and which were
provided to this complainant under threat of legal action to insure disclosure.
Specific Charge Three: President Charles L.
Little, General Counsel Clinton J. Miller III., and Vice President Robert W. Earley
violated their fiduciary responsibilities of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) & (c) when they
(Little and Miller) paid and received (Earley) more money than was itemized in Exhibit 10.
The "Settlement" clearly indicated what was payable and that the settlement
"shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission of liability or wrongdoing by
Covenantors, or any of them, but which constitutes a good faith settlement of disputed
claims;" yet Mr. Earley received some $27,000 more than the expenses he provided?
Probative Evidence of Violation: Exhibit 10. The Secretary,
pursuant to his investigative powers, can access the records of UTU to determine the
amount of the three checks issued to the parties, including Mr. Earley. I am unable to
reveal my sources because of fear of direct and immediate retaliation but am confident the
check made out to Mr. Earley was in excess of $48,000! Should the records not be
available, I would think that would be covered under § 461(d).
Specific Charge Four: President Charles L. Little
sought and received contributions for the "Bob Earley" Legal Defense Fund from
"professional persons" associated with the UTU. Said funds were allegedly for
the specific purpose of providing funding for legal representation for Mr. Earley.
However, the funds paid to Mr. Earley and his attorneys, pursuant to the Settlement, came
directly from the UTU General Fund. How much money was contributed to this fund and where
did it go. It is the position of this complainant that those who pocketed this money
violated § 501 (a) and (c) at a minimum and possibly certain RICO statues as well.
Probative Evidence of Violation: Exhibit 10 confirms the
establishment of the Defense Fund of $2,500 by Mr. Earley for which he is obviously
reimbursed by virtue of the fact he listed it as one of his expenses! I am unable to
reveal my sources, not only for fear of direct and immediate retaliation, but fear of
criminal prosecution also. However, an investigation done properly by the Secretary of
those "professional persons" who may have contributed to said fund may reveal
some startling results.
Specific Charge Five:
While unrelated to the Earley incident, there is another serious matter of fiduciary
responsibility which I am extremely concerned with and have previously written the
GS&T of UTU. It involves violation of federal trust laws wherein the UTU President,
with the approval of the Board of Directors, is taking money from trust funds, in
violation of federal trust law and probably federal labor law, for matters that the money
was neither collected for nor earmarked for expenditure. The violation is well documented,
but subtly, in the 1996 LNM Report, page 7 of Line 75 Additional Information, herein
enclosed as Exhibit 11 (pertinent portion highlighted). Approximately 7 million was taken
in November, 1995, and the remainder in December, 1995. Per letter to Mr. R. A. Cushing,
Jr. , of local 1918, GS&S Roger D. Griffeth explained that the original 7 million was
authorized by the Board of Directors and used to pay legal bills (letter not currently
available). It is unknown what the additional monies taken in December was used for and an
attempt to elicit this information through the El Paso Express Newsletter (Exhibit 12, see
page 7, question 5) have been unsuccessful, as well as the answer to any question posed in
the article! However, I advised Mr. Griffeth, in a letter which is not also currently
available, but after December of 95, that he should review Yule v. UTU from the federal
court in New York (citation not currently available) regarding the Union’s violation
of federal trust law, even when the Board of Directors approved it, and advising him that
any further use of the trust funds would be met with civil action, if necessary, to
prevent said violations. I have no knowledge of any violation since that time, but fear
that once this illegal siphoning of funds held in trust has begun, and if allowed to go
unnoticed and unabated, will continue.
Probative Evidence of Violation: Exhibit 11 and 12. The
Secretary has the ability under his investigative powers to determine whether the monies
used were in violation of federal trust laws, whether other monies have or will be used in
the future.
Throughout this ordeal, I sought internal remedy as clearly
indicated, in my sworn deposition at the request of Earley’s attorneys, and stated
that internal remedy would suffice. However, if it was denied, I would seek criminal
charges consistent with the law (See Deposition of L. E. Ruck not provided herein).
Internal remedy was denied via letter dated November 7, 1997 Re: Charges against
International Vice President Robert W. Earley and Re: Charges against International
President Charles L. Little (Exhibit 13). However, prior to that, I had written a
complaint to the Sixth Circuit concerning the information I had received from the original
employee defrauded of his entitlement, enjoined from his rights, and already having had
his appeal to the Sixth Circuit dismissed. That information was basically that the
District Court had not supplied the Certified Record to the Sixth Circuit in accordance
with the Appellate Rules but was denying they ever received a request. My complaint,
copied to Senator Gramm, received quick response from the Sixth circuit as addressed in
Exhibit 5 and shortly thereafter, I received the September 24, 1997 decisions denying
Earley’s attempt to dismiss my appeal and setting a new briefing schedule (Exhibit
14). This mistakenly lead me to believe the Sixth Circuit had finally received the
Certified Record and now knowing what the case was about, had denied Earley’s attempt
to dismiss my appeal and justice would be soon served. Earley’s attorneys quickly
filed a Motion for rehearing and that decision, issued December 3, 1997 and received on or
about December 5, 1997, dismissed the appeal (Exhibit 15). I had no time to meet the 30
day time limit described in § 482 as filing a Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc took
precedent and ultimately was determined untimely in violation of FRAP R 26(c) as mentioned
previously in Exhibit 5. I have just received (January 10, 1996) my notification that the
Rehearing was not accepted and I believe my time limit should be tolled from said date as
regards § 482(a). Further, I believe, in the interest of justice and § 521, that the
Secretary has the power to extend the time limit. Accordingly:
Specific Charge Six: President Charles L. Little
violated § 482(b) when he negotiated the Settlement Agreement and Release in direct
conflict with Article 24, lines 13 - 17 of the UTU Constitution, wherein he granted VP
Earley total immunity from internal discipline from known violations of his obligations
under the UTU Constitution which were sufficient to remove him from office. I respectfully
request the Secretary to direct the conduct of a hearing and vote for the removal from
office of Vice President Robert W. Earley consistent with the provisions of § 482(b).
Probative Evidence of Violation: The evidence and exhibits
submitted within this formal complaint.
At this point in time, I have exhausted all internal remedy to
the Executive Board and the Board of Directors of the UTU as well as all appeal remedy
within the Federal Court System, except the Supreme Court. While I do intend to vigorously
pursue the matter to the Supreme Court, specifically my right to a trial by jury pursuant
to the United States Constitution, such remedy in questionable and could take years, just
to have Certiorari denied.
In conclusion, I respectfully request you conduct a
professional, non-partisan investigation into the serious allegations made in this formal
complaint and take appropriate action consistent with your findings, responsibilities, and
federal laws. To do otherwise will result in a loss of faith of the citizenship in the
integrity of the United States Government.
Sincerely yours,
Lance E. Ruck
UTU member, Local 1571
Enclosures
cc: United States Attorney General (separate cover and
complaint)
The Honorable Phil Gramm (separate cover)
