AUDLinks

Previous Article: Coming out for Union Democracy: AUD at Pride at Work

Next Article: Charleston Longshore workers lead battle for reform

Some unions hate to say, "you have legal rights."
(unions appearring in this article: Carpenters(UBC); Machinists(IAM); Plumbers and Pipefitters(UA); Longshore(ILA); Seafarer's(SIU); Transportation Workers (UTU); Treasury Employees(NTEU); Theater and Stage Employees (IATSE); ...your union here.)

When President Kennedy decided to appoint his own brother as attorney general---so the story goes---he explained how he intended to make the somewhat embarrassing news public. "Sunday at 3:00 AM, I will tiptoe out on the deserted White House lawn and whisper: it’s Bobby."

Now that a federal Appeals Court has ruled that unions are obliged to inform their members of their democratic rights under section 105 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, some are falling in line to whisper their compliance---"voluntarily"---but begrudgingly and unobtrusively in the obvious hope that no one will notice.

The Carpenters union, which is reorganizing democracy out of its constitutional structure, has hit upon the perfect formula for typographical evasion of democracy in its magazine. It has printed one of the court’s requirements, only one, in blue ink on a blue background so that it is not only difficult to read, but virtually impossible to reproduce by photocopying. In the same issue of its magazine, same format and also blue on blue, it prints the required "Beck" announcement that non-union agency shop fee-payers can get some of their money back. Obvious implication to the unwary reader: democratic unionism is flavored with anti-unionism.

To make clear what follows here, we remind readers that section 105 requires unions to inform their members of the provisions of the LMRDA, the federal law which protects civil liberties and fair elections in unions and affords recourse in federal court and the Labor Department against abuses. When the law was first adopted in 1959, many unions, under the illusion that the law would be vigorously enforced, hastened to comply with section 105. In the 40-years vacuum that followed, a whole generation of unionists was replaced by another, but unions never again complied. The problem is that section 105 is enforceable only by private suit; unions had nothing to fear from government agencies.

And so section 105 moldered for those 40 years until 1997 when three machinists took their International Association of Machinists into federal court where the judges ruled that the one-shot act 40 years ago did not suffice, that unions had a continuing responsibility to comply and remain in compliance. The IAM was ordered to do the following:

1. Provide every member with a summary of the act in a form mandated by the court.

2. Publish the summary in three issues of the IAM Journal.

3. Post the summary permanently and prominently on the IAM website.

Inform members of their democratic rights? Following the appeals court decision, a group of AFL-CIO attorneys hastened to confer on how to meet this distressing challenge. Here was (or is) their dilemma: If they wait until they are forced into court by a members’ suit, they will probably be forced to comply as effectively as the IAM, or even more so. But if they want to avoid a court suit, and avoid a strong compliance order, they will have to comply swiftly and, above all, minimally. Here is the latest scorecard since that meeting:

Carpenters: The union obviously hopes that its fast printing of blue on blue can deter a lawsuit and provide another 40 year armistice in the war to avoid effective compliance.

IAM: Surprise! The IAM complied in full. The law’s summary did appear prominently on the first page of its website...for a short moment. But then it dropped off the first page, to be buried in electronic chips and only brought back by the clicks of skilled surfers. It was returned to its proper prominence only after a complaint from Andrew Rotstein, the three machinists’ attorney.

Plumbers and Pipefitters: When two union members, represented by Arthur Fox, sued for compliance in federal court, the union rushed to print the required summary in its magazine, hoping to moot the suit and avoid an extensive court order. But the pipefitters demand that the union do more. They want the summary appended to the union’s constitution, a document that is readily available precisely when a member might need it.

International Longshoremens’ Association: In federal court, several longshoremen, represented by Michael Goldberg, are defending themselves against repressive disciplinary charges. As part of their suit, they demand compliance with section 105.

Seafarers International Union: When seafarer Joseph Allum wrote to SIU President Michael Sacco asking the union to comply with section 105, he got a prompt reply only three days later. "It is the position of the [SIU] that the monthly ‘Know Your Rights’ section of the Seafarers Log fully complies...." The section, which makes no reference the law, simply lists some right which are inscribed in the union constitution and advises "If any member feels that he or she is denied the equal rights to which he or she is entitled, the member should notify union headquarters." Not very reassuring. What to do if the union headquarter is the offender?

In reply, Allum’s attorney, Arthur Fox, noted that "the Log does not impart nearly as much information ... as the LMRDA summary....and does not inform members how they can obtain a copy of the statute itself." He reminded the union of "the fiscal implications of a refusal" to comply fully, namely, that a federal court might "require the responsible officers to reimburse the union treasury for all legal expenses out of their own personal funds." In a swift apparent change of heart the union attorney replied that the union intends to comply with the Court’s mandate." It remains, now, to see if it fulfills it promise.

United Transportation Union: No problem, no fuss .... maybe. In reply to a demand letter from a member, the union promptly agreed to comply.

National Treasury Employees Union: Answering a demand letter from Vera Nigro, an NTEU member in Washington DC, union president Colleen M. Kelley replied that the NTEU, as a union of federal employees, is only partially covered by the LMRDA and therefore "NTEU is under no legal obligation to inform its members of the provisions of the LMRDA." Its "legal obligation" will obviously have to be enforced by a complaint to the Labor Department. Meanwhile, the union might consider whether it has a moral obligation to inform members of their rights. (The Civil Service Reform Act, which does apply to federal employee unions, establishes rights analogous to the LMRDA.)

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees had a unique opportunity at its national convention in July to comply voluntarily with Section 105. A group of delegates introduced a resolution directing the union to inform its members of the provisions of the act by, among other measures, posting a summary on its web site. Michael Everett, a delegate from Hollywood Local 728, reports that the convention turned it down. He was part of a small group of delegates who fought to pry open the union to more democratic discussion.

Is your union in compliance?
Federal law requires labor organizations to inform their members of their democratic rights under the LMRDA. If your union is not in compliance, and you want to correct that lapse, contact AUD at (718) 564-1114 or info@uniondemocracy.org.

Other articles on LMRDA Section 105:
Victory: Federal unions must let their members know
Section 105 Update: Obeying union democracy law, belatedly
Pipefitters win points in battle for democracy
Some unions hate to say, "you have legal rights."
Court to IAM: Inform members of their rights
Is your union in compliance with Section 105 of the LMRDA?
Text of LMRDA Section 105

back to top

Previous Article: Coming out for Union Democracy: AUD at Pride at Work

Next Article: Charleston Longshore workers lead battle for reform

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.