The Public Review Board receives many appeals from UAW members who are dissatisfied with union decisions in grievance and collective bargaining disputes, but the board is not authorized to decide such cases unless it finds that malice, discrimination, or irrationality shaped the outcome. That aside, now and then, some cases are of special interest.

Randall Testerman: Back in 1993, Testerman was fired by Chrysler on charges of excessive absenteeism. The union refused to process his grievance to the appeals level, so he went to the Public Review Board which ordered the union to reinstate his grievance. Three years passed before the union put his grievance back into the process. That was October 1996. Then, surprise! He wins his case before the Impartial Chairman, is reinstated and awarded $37,820 in back pay for the period between October 1996 when the grievance was reactivated and the date of reinstatement, October 1998.

But, wait a minute! What about those 39 months between 1993 and 1996 -- the time he was unemployed while appealing to the PRB? He got back pay for only a little over one year, but he had been out for more than five years. After Testerman went into federal court to sue the union for $262,186 ---39 months of wages, benefits, interest, costs --- the judge ordered him back to the PRB for an opinion.

The technicalities of law and the union contract are complicated. But the PRB managed to avoid all that. It ruled that his appeal was untimely. It will be interesting to see what the judge decides.

Local 2244 at the NUMMI plant in Fremont CA: This was an election case, clearly within the jurisdiction of the PRB.

To fill a vacancy on the local’s executive board, the election committee voted to hold a special election at the local’s hall on Sunday, October 22, 2000 between 10:30 AM and 12:30 PM, only two hours. Victor Quesada, local vice president, objected that the Sunday date, the limited hours, and the inconvenient location would discourage members from voting. He argued that elections were usually held at the plant on a workday. He submitted a petition signed by 1145 local members backing his position. In response, the election committee merely extended the voting period for an additional two hours. The election results confirmed their misgivings. While 2,000 of the local’s 4,500 members had voted in an earlier regular election, only 160 voted this time.

When an appeal from Quesada and others was rejected by the UAW international executive board, they sought recourse at the Public Review Board. In the course of the PRB hearings, the complainants abandoned their request for a new election. Caroline Lund, one of the appellants wrote, "Our main aim was not a rerun, but to get a clear statement that the procedure in this election was wrong." In that respect, they were successful at the PRB. (See Lund's newsletter, "the Barking Dog")

The election committee decision, said the PRB "technically, at least did not violate the provisions of the local’s bylaws." On the other hand, it noted, it did "appear contrary" to the UAW’s Guide for Local Union Election Committees which advises or directs them to "Select a polling site(s) and schedule polling hours which will provide all members a reasonable opportunity to vote." The board added: "The election of October 22 was decidedly not an example of democracy in action....We trust these comments will be heeded by future Local 2244 Election Committees." For the appellants, it was a moral victory.