As UAW 'is being watched with a microscope,' new investigation puts Fain in crosshairs

The UAW and its president, Shawn Fain, have ridden a wave of positive press and momentum since last year’s strike against the Detroit Three and the new contracts that came at Ford Motor Co., General Motors and Jeep- and Chrysler-owner Stellantis.

Fain, who came to power following last year’s first direct election of top UAW leaders, appeared well-positioned to continue leading the union’s more aggressive posture at a time of great change in the auto industry with a command of powerful rhetoric and a sense of showmanship on display during the strike. Time even named him to its list of 100 most influential people of 2024.

The union’s image had also regained some of the luster lost in recent years, particularly after the successful campaign to organize the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, this year.

But earlier this month, the independent monitor overseeing the union put a spotlight on divisions in the highest ranks of the UAW as he announced that Fain and Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock were under investigation following a shake-up within the leadership. In separate instances, Mock and Vice President Rich Boyer had duties stripped, including Boyer’s oversight of the Stellantis Department.

Fain took action directly against Boyer; the International Executive Board took a vote in Mock’s case. Both defended their own actions, and both cases involved allegations of retaliation and financial misconduct, according to the monitor.

Despite the monitor emphasizing that no conclusions had been reached and that the claims remain allegations, the situation puts the UAW’s leadership in an uncomfortable spot and reminds the world in clear terms that the union remains under federal oversight stemming from the wide-ranging corruption scandal that landed former top union leaders and auto executives in prison. The scandal even led to a conviction for FCA US, the U.S. operating arm of Stellantis.

'It raises the specter of corruption again'

Experts who’ve watched the UAW closely in recent years came to relatively similar conclusions following the release of the monitor’s report: that this is a serious matter for those involved — in fact, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the monitor could demand Fain's removal. The labor experts also say the fact of the investigation will hamper the UAW’s efforts to organize nonunion auto plants, a push that came up short in the recent loss at Mercedes-Benz in Alabama, where the company was accused of aggressively fighting the union effort at the same time Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey was disparaging “this threat from Detroit.”

“It plays into the hands of those who want to block the UAW from becoming more powerful in the auto industry. It takes the wind out of the sails,” said Marick Masters, professor emeritus and labor expert at Wayne State University. “It raises the specter of corruption again, which is something they really just got over.”

Masters said that without supporting evidence of wrongdoing being presented publicly, Fain should be given the benefit of the doubt. He said it’s “unfathomable” that Fain would not have been aware of the consequences of retaliation within the union.

But the existence of the investigations can’t be ignored.

“A cloud looms over until you get these things resolved,” he said.

Fain has defended himself, painting the situation as a reaction to someone who would “rock the boat” from those who support the status quo.

“We encourage the monitor to investigate whatever claims are brought to their office, because we know what they’ll find: a UAW leadership committed to serving the membership, and running a democratic union. We’re staying focused on winning record contracts, growing our union, and fighting for economic and social justice on and off the job,” according to a recent statement from Fain.

But Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, said that even if one assumes Fain hasn’t done anything wrong, it’s serious to go through an investigation. No one, he said, enjoys the process, although individuals typically “put on a brave face.”

Gordon compared the exercise to having someone go through your sock drawer.

Has the UAW really moved away from its authoritarian past?

And he reiterated the seriousness of the situation.

“It’s a big step to name somebody individually. You wouldn’t want to take that step unless you had some reason to believe that that particular person did something wrong. It’s different than looking at sloppy practices,” Gordon said of the monitor’s decision to reveal who is being investigated. “If you say you’re investigating a particular person, that’s really focused.”

Gordon also described the situation as it unfolded as “sort of a surprisingly bad public relations move” given Fain’s past adeptness in getting his message across. His skills were on display, for example, with the use of a wastebasket for certain automaker contract proposals during Detroit Three bargaining.

It also raises questions about the environment within the organization, Gordon said.

“The UAW traditionally is authoritarian with vindictive leaders and as much opaqueness as you can get away with. Some of the rank and file were hoping there’d be less of that going forward,” he said.

Powers of the UAW special monitor

What it ultimately means will, of course, depend next on the conclusions drawn by the monitor. At this point, it’s not clear when any follow-up report or action will take place, although the monitor said in a footnote that he “will report further about the impact of these divisions within the union in a report concerning his compliance mandate that is anticipated to be filed shortly.”

The monitor communicates with the public on his actions primarily through federal court filings, although his office does have a webpage that provided regular updates during the UAW leadership elections, which his office oversaw.

The Free Press has made numerous requests — none granted — over the years, including following the release of the latest status report, to interview the monitor, Neil Barofsky, a former assistant U.S. attorney and current partner in the Chicago law firm Jenner & Block. The consent decree stemming from the union's corruption scandal sets in place a six-year term of oversight by the monitor. Barofsky’s appointment was OK’d by U.S. District Court Judge David Lawson in May 2021.

The monitor’s charge is broad, with the consent decree giving him “the authority and duty to remove fraud, corruption, illegal behavior, dishonesty and unethical practices from the UAW and its constituent entities.”

The oversight by the independent monitor means that internal divisions and disagreements in addition to specific actions are much more likely to be brought to light. Masters described the situation as a fishbowl.

Monitor has power to demand that Fain be removed

“It makes it abundantly clear that the UAW is under government scrutiny and everything the UAW does is being watched with a microscope,” Masters said.

The investigations could find no wrongdoing on the part of Fain or others. The moves to shift responsibilities on the International Executive Board could instead be found to be more in the vein of management disagreements.But if not, the consequences could be significant.

“The full range is a very full range. It could result in a recommendation that some practice be ended or that some new practice be started. It could result in some form of admonition, a smack on the hand with a ruler. It could result in a demand that Fain step down,” according to Gordon.

If, during the course of the investigation, something is found that involves criminality, it could be turned over to the Justice Department, he said.

The monitor’s latest report noted, for instance, that two of the 24 investigations into “post-consent decree misconduct” have already been referred to the Justice Department. The report also said an embezzlement probe had been opened into an unnamed regional director, with the monitor referencing investigations of three members of the International Executive Board: Fain, Mock and the regional director.

The monitor could also pursue disciplinary charges through either the UAW’s constitutional process, which uses a trial committee, or the court-approved adjudications officer, currently Gil Soffer, who is chair-elect and managing partner in the Katten Muchin Rosenman law firm’s Chicago office. The adjudications officer, like the monitor, is an independent position stemming from the consent decree with the power to dole out discipline up to and including expulsion from the union.

Referral of cases to the UAW’s ethics officer is an option, too.

Remaining divisions within the union

Whatever is decided, Masters noted that “the recommendation of the monitor is going to carry a great deal of weight not only with the adjudications officer but also with the International Executive Board,” a group where loyalties are likely now being tested.

Board control had been with candidates who ran as reformers in the election that wrapped up last year, but the election results created a divided board from the get-go. The divisions that have emerged are interesting in light of the fact that Fain, Mock and Boyer all ran on the same slate, opposing the administration caucus that controlled the UAW for decades.

Despite the contested nature of the election that included a lengthy runoff process, the two sides did strike a united tone during last year’s special bargaining convention in Detroit as the union set its sights on then-upcoming talks with the Detroit Three.

Election controversies didn’t die with the declaration of Fain’s win, however. Just recently, Judge Lawson breathed life into a challenge by Will Lehman, a Mack Trucks worker who had been one of the unsuccessful candidates for UAW president in the initial round of the election.

Lehman had sued the Labor Department and acting Secretary Julie Su in July over the department’s handling of a complaint he filed seeking to have the election rerun.

Lawson’s opinion filed Tuesday called the department’s dismissal of 30 of 34 grievances listed by Lehman arbitrary and capricious, denied a motion for dismissal of the Lehman complaint and remanded the case back to the department for further proceedings, “which, at a minimum, must consist of the production of a supplemental statement of reasons.”

Lehman was highly critical of how the election was run, highlighting low participation that he said was intentionally suppressed, and he has been outspoken in his disdain for the UAW bureaucracy and its leadership.

Contact Eric D. Lawrence: elawrence@freepress.com. Become a subscriber. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Investigation of UAW leaders clouds organizing efforts