Tell a friend about this article
Previous Article: Who knows what in the Steelworkers?
Next Article:
Surrendering to the internet: Democrats in spite
of themselves?
Please give what you can.
AUDHome--> Union Democracy Review--> Articles
SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!
From the July-August 2007 issue of Union Democracy Review #169
In Canada: Steelworkers learning facts of democracy....but slowly
At the United Steelworkers, they now recognize that the law protects certain basic union democracy rights: You can't victimize outspoken members on charges of slander. That said, the statement must be qualified. The top officers and international executive board members, probably guided by good legal counsel, are acquainted with the law, but the news has not percolated down below, not even to a high-placed international appointee. In the locals, members are still suspended, even expelled, on trumped-up charges of slander. Take, for instance, the case of Mike Williams, a member of Canadian Local 16506 in Hamilton, Ontario, an amalgamated local with some 1,300 members.
In April 2006, as an insurgent, Williams ran for local president. He didn't make it, but got 40% of the votes, obviously remaining a potential future threat to the incumbents. After the election, he continued to run a lively website, criticizing the incumbents who, only naturally, found it offensive. Wayne King, the local president and Harry Lemke, the financial secretary, filed charges of slander against him; so that in the normal course of events, a local trial committee found him guilty.
In their charges, his critics complained that Williams's Web page "continued to imply wrongdoing on behalf of the Executive of UAW Local 16506 and … gave an ultimatum that either they would give in to his demands or he would continue to … publish his 'opinions' and 'experience' on his web site.." In support of their demand for punishment, they cited provisions of both the international and local constitutions: "Any member may be penalized for ….publishing or circulating … false reports or misrepresentations; [or] slandering or willfully wronging a member of the International Union…."
That was in December. The sentence, one year suspension as a member not in good standing, threatened his eligibility to run for office in the next election, thereby ending his insurgent threat.
Williams appealed to the international executive board which referred the case to an IEB International Commission. In May, the commission rejected Williams’s appeal and upheld the guilty verdict. In his finding on May 2, 2007, the international commissioner based his verdict on Article XII of the international constitution which makes "slandering" a punishable offense.
To understand how the commissioner could find Williams guilty of slander, we would have to believe that Canadian steelworkers are so mild mannered that even the gentlest criticism horrifies their sensitive nerves. The commissioner’s report makes clear that his verdict was based on two counts.
One: Williams had objected that the adminisration had ignored his qualifications and excluded him from union activities and had neglected the education of members. “What does this tell you about their concept of democracy?” Williams wrote. The commissioner found that statement an intolerable slander.
Two: Williams wrote that union officers had spent more money than he would have as delegates to a New Democratic Party convention and commented, “What does this tell you about [their] character and dedication.” Too harsh for the tender hearted commissioner!
When the commissioner's report was submitted to the international executive board Appeal Panel, it was dismissed out of hand. In clearing Williams of all charges, it declared him "a member in good standing and his good standing remains unbroken by any action taken by the Local Union…" It noted that a "footnote" to the repressive Article XII "cannot be processed in the United States because of the free speech provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act," The law in Canada, the panel added, "guarantees union members a similar privilege so long as there is not intent of malice." The panel found no evidence of malice, but only "the give and take of union politics." It was a welcome and an intelligent decision, but there is more to this story:
In this case, forty-eight years after the adoption of relevant federal law, two local officers, three members of a local trial committee, and one international commissioner had no idea that their actions might be illegal. They are not alone in their ignorance.
In Indiana, the president of Local 645 processed charges of slander against Gloria Shelton who had come within two votes of winning the election for local president. In Louisiana Local 272, the local president, no due process or any process, expelled his rival, Douglas Campbell, for making "unfounded" charges. In both these cases, as in Williams's case, the international acted and upheld the members' rights.
The union has obviously made no effort to keep even its leading forces informed. The repressive clause remains in the union constitution. The footnote might inform attentive members that the clause is not legally enforceable. But they would have to have keen insight and exceptionally good eyesight, because the note, brief and inscrutable, is in tiny type: "A resolution of the International Executive Board adopted on February 11, 1976 in accordance with applicable law restricts enforcement of this provision in the United States." By keeping the clause in the constitution, the union reminds us that the union considers it morally acceptable even though it may not now be enforceable.
Note: In exonerating Williams, a member of a Canadian local, the Appeal Panel was apparently taking into account a nurse's union case that came before the British Columbia Supreme Court: Masunda v. Johnson, 1999 CanLII 7001 (BC S.C.) The crux of that case was the court's agreement with the comment that: "The members of a union are privileged to criticize union officials in the conduct of union affairs." But this comment, the court said, applies only to criticism that is not "malicious." And so Canadian members could still be put through the wringer in their unions on charges of malice. The Steelworker leaders know that U.S, law forbids all slander trials in unions whether "malice" is charged or not, so union officials cannot legally use their union power to harass critics in unions on slander charges. The Steelworker's decision in Williams's case evades the issue: Will they give their Canadian members the same level of protection that is afforded to their members in the U.S.?
Previous Article: Who knows what in the Steelworkers?
Next Article:
Surrendering to the internet: Democrats in spite
of themselves?
This website is made possible by contributions from union members and supporters like you. Please help us build the movement for union democracy, join or contribute to AUD.
AUDHome; Legal Rights; Education; Union Democracy Review; Books; AUDLinks
Page designed by Matt Noyes, National
Writers Union/UAW, and Rachel Szekely
The Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org
104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn,
New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114; info@uniondemocracy.org
This work is licensed
under a Creative
Commons License.
Use
the following credit line on the materials you use:
"From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"
Please notify us at websteward@uniondemocracy.org when you use material from the site.
Send comments or suggestions on the website to websteward@uniondemocracy.org.