Previous Article: Who will police the Longshoremen's ethics code?

Next Article: Leadership overturned in National Writers Union

Autoworkers, get all the news: SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!

A sometime deterrent: The UAW Public Review Board

The Public Review Board of the United Auto Workers, composed of prominent persons independent of the union administration, is authorized, on appeal, to reverse decisions of the UAW international executive board. Many appeals come for its review, but those which are related to decisions on grievances under the collective bargaining agreements are not within its jurisdiction, unless the complainant charges that union decisions were blatantly incompetent, or irrational, or discriminatory. And so, most PRB decisions uphold actions of the executive board. Nevertheless, the PRB remains a deterrent to arbitrary actions by the union power structure. Our experience at AUD confirms this fact.

From time to time, UAW members come to AUD with complaints of obviously unfair actions taken against them in the union. They are often unfamiliar with their rights under the PRB system. Usually, when their complaints appear well-founded and, upon our advice they inform the union that they intend to appeal to the PRB, the union backtracks and reverses the decision against them.

Here are three random samples of cases heard by the PRB. In two the PRB overturned executive board decisions. In the third, it upheld the IEB but admonished a local union for running an undemocratic election.

Case No. 1430, decided August 28, 2003: James Lescoe appealed against a decision of the UAW International Executive Board. On the eve of the election for a district committee representative at Ford Local 900, the union had classified him out of the unit and thereby denied him the right to run. The IEB rejected his complaint. In reversing that decision and ordering a new election, the Public Review Board commented: "for no apparent plausible reason, other than preventing Lescoe from becoming a candidate for District Committeeperson, the Shop Chairman removed him from his historic placement in Group 12 .... though Lescoe continued doing exactly the same job in exactly the same location, and on exactly the same shift as before the redistricting .... [the] act violated Lescoe's rights under the Union's Ethical Practices Codes....."

Case No. 1435, decided September 25: John Carver sought a rerun election for Shop Chairperson at GM Local 163 in Romulus, Michigan. He had been narrowly defeated in a runoff election. He charged that, in violation of UAW policy, "special purpose representatives appointed by the Local and International unions were permitted to campaign in the plant, giving an unfair advantage to Administration Caucus candidates." The IEB rejected his complaint, asserting that he had produced no evidence of the improper intervention by the appointees. But in its own hearings, the PRB made quite a different finding of fact and ordered a new election: "... there is substantial and unrebutted evidence that at least four of the international appointed special purpose representatives were actively engaged in the election campaign ...."

Case No. 1370, decided April 17, 2002, The Public Review Board upheld the decision of the International Executive Board, but nevertheless the text of the PRB decision may have satisfied the appellants.

Six members of Local 2244 at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, California, criticized the conduct of a special election to fill a vacancy on the local executive board. When the local scheduled the election for a Sunday between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM at the union hall, one of the complainants submitted a petition signed by 1145 members asking that the election be rescheduled for a workday with balloting at both the plant and union hall. When the local went ahead with the limited hours and place, only 160 of the locals 4,500 members had voted. The winning candidate got 68 votes in a five-way race. The runner up came close with 56.

The complainants noted that over 2,000 members had voted in the previous general election. The IEB rejected their complaint, ruling that the local election committee had violated no union rule. The PRB agreed but at the same time expressed misgivings in its findings: "The decision of the election committee ... technically at least did not violate the provisions of the Local's bylaws. Nevertheless, appellants do have a valid argument that the date, time, and place selected by the election committee certainly was not intended to maximize voter participation." The decision, the PRB noted, was contrary to the UAW's own Guide for Local Union Election Committees directing them to "Select a polling site(s) and scheduling polling hours which will provide all members a reasonable opportunity to vote." This election, the PRB declared, "was decidedly not an example of democracy in action."

After the hearings and just before the PRB made its decision, Caroline Lund, one of the appellants, wrote, "Our aim was not a rerun but to get a clear statement that the procedure in this election was wrong ... we appellants are very hopeful of a positive decision in this case which would further strengthen the democratic rights of the membership."

Post Script: This is a fitting place to record a letter, sent on April 2, 2002, by a member to Solidarity, the UAW magazine: "In your April issue, you made passing reference to that great institution, the UAW Public Review Board, concluding 'For further information please call or write your regional director.' Doesn't make sense. If you could always count on regional directors, or any other union officers, for fair treatment, who would need a PRB? Suppose I don't want my RD to know I'm thinking of appealing against him/her? Why not get right to the point and refer members directly to the PRB with its current address? Apart from that lapse, keep up the good work."

The letter was never printed, nor was the suggestion taken up. Apparently the failure to list the PRB address is not an oversight but a deliberate policy decision. Again in November last year, Solidarity noted that UAW members have the right to appeal to the Public Review Board on "ethical" and some other issues. Here too it advised: "For further information, please call or write your regional director."

The PRB is intended to afford members recourse to a body independent of the union's own power structure. Interposing regional director between member and PRB violates the public review spirit. Why not list the address and give members a direct link to their PRB?

More articles on the UAW:
Free speech under attack from within in the National Writers Union, UAW 1981 (11/03-12/03)
UAW Toledo Local 12 forced to end ban on petitions (1/03-2/03)
At the UAW Public Review Board (6/7 2002)
"In Canada: Auto Workers and Carpenters leave U.S. internationals" 3/2001

Links to UAW member's websites (including Caroline Lund's "Barking Dog")

back to top

Previous Article: Who will police the Longshoremen's ethics code?

Next Article: Leadership overturned in National Writers Union

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.