The  Award!

   Ever tried to find Award #155 of PLB 3882 on the UTU Website?  Ever tried to get it from the NMB?  "U" can't because it ain't there!  Why not, doesn't the law require that the parties register each award with the NMB?  Yes it does so this is probably just an oversight, right?  NOPE - PLB 3882 was corrupt and both cases handle were corrupt so neither party, i.e., UTU or CSX ever filed the Award with the NMB.  There are things worth noting as you read this alleged "AWARD":

1.  Unlike any award you will find on the UTU site or from the NMB, this award, after it identifies the parties and the Claim, WILL MAKE NO STATEMENT THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION, i.e., the neutral goes right into the findings because he knew he had no jurisdiction but rather was doing the bidding of UTU and CSX to handle a "little matter that wasn't a dispute"!

2.  The referee used "extrinsci evidence" to discover the true intention of the parties, i.e., evidence not properly before the Board.

3.  The UTU General Chairman and the UTU VP agreed with the position of the CSX, therefore there was no dispute for a "neutral" to decide.

4.  Smoot was refused permission to present his own post-hearing written material but was denied because he was "REPRESENTED" by the UTU.

5.  Patricia Madden, who signed apparently because Emerick was embarassed to sign this, wasn't even at the PLB!

6.  R. W. Earley didn't dissent the decision?   How could he, he begged in Executive Session for the referee to rule against his client!

Enjoy it if "U" can?

Award # 155, PLB 3882

   What you must understand is that the language of this Award alone was sufficient to maintain a 153(q) action and a DFR case against UTU without ever referring to the Executive Session Transcript!!!

    During my long flight to Cleveland I had occassion to read about 10 pounds of documents that I took just in case I was given an opportunity to testify.  Among them was this letter by R. W. Earley dated February 22, 1994 to wit:

The "post hoc rationalization of counsel" letter!

    A far cry from the letter he had put out months earlier to President DuBose, with copies to all Elswick's Local officers, stating he had reviewed the transcript, it was correct with two minor exceptions, and that he found no "impropriety" in his actions. Indeed, DuBose didn't find any impropriety either!  Unfortunately, when the Executive Board did and listed the matter for a trial, Earley then relied on the "post-hoc rationalization of counsel",  i.e., this is a wiretap!

    But note the first and last paragraphs of the Feburary 22 letter in that Earley didn't asked the charges be dismissed but RATHER that any reliance on the Executive Session Transcript be removed.   Strange, when I filed my charges without it based upon the language of the Award itself, he still sought legal action to stop the hearing!  And of course, with the help of Sac-C, Sac-B, Monty Hall, Kim Thompson, Greg Hughes, Merritt Green III, the Johns, and Judge Peter Economus - Earley was able to avoid accountability under the UTU Constitution, enrich himself for his actions, completely skew the purpose and intent of the Railway Labor Act and the Federal Wiretap Act, and set some very, very bad legal precedents that will haunt union members for decades IF the Supreme Court doesn't grant Certiorari!