Teamsters Split Despite Suit Accord : No. 2 Official Hits Settlement With U.S. by Union Leaders
Fratricidal warfare in the Teamsters Union, precipitated by the Justice Department’s anti-racketeering suit against the 1.6-million-member union, has intensified, despite the fact that the case was settled last month.
On Monday, Teamster officials all over the country received a letter from Teamsters Secretary-Treasurer Weldon L. Mathis, the union’s No. 2 official, attacking the settlement that Teamster President William J. McCarthy and 10 Teamster vice presidents approved March 13.
Last week, McCarthy and his general counsel, James T. Grady, held meetings around the country defending the settlement, attempting to minimize its impact on the union and vociferously attacking Mathis as a traitor to the union for making a separate settlement with the government earlier in March.
Presser Attacked
Sources attending the meetings also said that McCarthy attacked his predecessor, the late Jackie Presser, as a “stool pigeon” because Presser had served as an FBI informant for nearly a decade.
In addition, persons attending meetings on the settlement said they were given the impression that top Teamster leaders will campaign against direct, secret-ballot election of union officers in 1991. Changing the Teamster constitution to hold elections this way was one of the key provisions of the settlement that was reached on March 13.
Mathis’ letter defends his own conduct and a settlement he and Teamster Vice Presidents Donald West of Birmingham, Ala., and Edward Lawson of Vancouver, Canada, reached with the government, where they pledge to support direct election of union officers.
“The essential difference between the five-page agreement entered into by Vice Presidents Lawson, West and me and the 30-page McCarthy consent order is that our agreement did not relinquish control of our union to the government,” the Mathis letter states.
“The McCarthy agreement, for example, provides the court-appointed administrator with authority over such things as appointments, expenditures and union contracts; ours did not,” the letter adds.
The letter also attacks McCarthy for bringing a proposed settlement to the Teamster executive board that would have required five executive board members to resign. The board unanimously rejected the proposal, and ultimately the government dropped that demand.
(However, in connection with the settlement, Teamster Vice President Donald Peters of Chicago agreed to resign, and Vice President Harold Friedman of Cleveland agreed to take a leave of absence until appeals of his criminal conviction are concluded.)
Other Teamster officials and attorneys say that the Mathis letter misrepresents the union’s settlement with the government. One characterized the letter as “the start of Mathis’ campaign to run for president against McCarthy in 1991.”
Last July, in a special election held by the board after the death of Presser, McCarthy defeated Mathis, 9 to 8, to be the new president. Mathis had been Presser’s choice to succeed him and had been considered the likely winner until the day before the vote. Sources close to Mathis say that he was deeply embittered about his surprise defeat.
The Teamsters’ settlement with the Justice Department does not relinquish control of the union to the government, but it does provide that three court-appointed officials will have the power to review union appointments and expenditures until the union’s convention in 1991, with an eye toward preventing any corruption.
In a Teamster brochure on the settlement, Grady states that a court-appointed investigations officer can “look for corruption anywhere he can find it within the IBT (International Brotherhood of Teamsters).” The investigator can look at Teamster books and records and interview persons who may have information on allegations of corruption.
At the meetings last week, Grady told Teamster officials that only Mathis, West and Lawson are obligated to support direct elections when that issue comes up for a vote at the 1991 convention. In the past, top Teamster officers have been elected by voice vote of delegates at conventions held every five years.
The settlement provides that the union’s constitution be amended to provide for direct secret-ballot election of these officers. However, the settlement also provides that changes to the constitution are to be ratified by delegates at the 1991 convention.
Free-Speech Rights
The settlement also provides that the Teamster board members do not surrender any of their free-speech rights in regard to terms of the settlement, and Grady reiterated that point in explaining the settlement to persons who attended the meetings in Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and Memphis, Tenn.
This left many attending with the impression that Teamster board members will campaign against a change in election procedures.
When asked about this possibility, Randy M. Mastro, the assistant U.S. attorney in New York who was the chief prosecutor in the case, said: “That system (direct elections) is now part of the Teamster constitution and not subject to change, without prior government approval,” or court approval.
“In the event the Teamsters are in breach (of the agreement), the government retains its right to enforce the order,” seek a contempt order against the union or reopen the litigation, Mastro said.
Today, Mastro, McCarthy and Grady are all scheduled to testify at a hearing by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the government’s use of the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to impose trusteeships on labor unions and other entities.
Staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow in Washington contributed to this story.