We add this page of information about the Association for Union Democracy (AUD) because AUD is, for rank-and-file union members, one of the shining stars of organized labor.
AUD has always stood ready to help union members who want to defend democratic rights in their union.
"Using the Internet for Union Democracy: limits and possibilities." © By Matt Noyes
Here is what AUD had to say about the SMART merger:
UTU-Sheet Metal Merger Blocked By Federal Judge
By Judith Schneider, Association for Union Democracy
In June, Federal Judge John R. Adams granted a preliminary injunction blocking a pending merger between the 85,000 member United Transportation Union, representing railway and bus workers, and the 130,000 member Sheet Metal Workers Union, which includes some railway and bus workers, into a new entity to be called SMART (Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers.) The suit challenging the merger was brought under LMRDA Title I by Roy Arnold, then a UTU Vice President; John Hasenauer and Jim Eubanks, then UTU local officers; and Ed Michael, a UTU member.
The merger was approved by UTU members in a mail ballot referendum in Summer 2007, but soon after the ballots were counted and before the actual merger had been consummated, two new facts muddied up the waters: 1. At a UTU convention, a new set of officers replaced the old; 2. it was revealed that UTU members had been denied crucial information before the referendum vote.
Represented by Arthur Fox, an AUD Director, the plaintiffs claimed that UTU members had been denied a meaningful discussion and debate before the vote. Members had been falsely assured, the plaintiffs charged, that UTU autonomy would be preserved and that the UTU constitution would be transferred "intact" into a new SMART constitution. However, no text of any new constitution was available before the vote. Only after the vote did it become clear that numerous UTU constitutional provisions would need to be eliminated or modified to conform with Sheet Metal Workers provisions.
The judge concluded that there was "substantial evidence" supporting the plaintiffs and that they were likely to succeed on those claims. In reaching his decision, the judge noted that a meaningful vote under the LMRDA requires "full disclosure of the terms of the proposals submitted to the membership for a referendum in order to ensure that the vote is meaningful and that the membership has fully participated in the decision making process."
The "plain language" of the merger agreement, Judge Adams said, required a new SMART constitution to have been presented to the membership at the time of the vote. Further, "Members were forced to vote with little or no knowledge of the conflicts between the … [UTU and Sheet Metal Workers] constitutions that could ultimately lead to a SMART Constitution with terms very different from that of the UTU Constitution. The SMART constitution would then govern their working lives for the foreseeable future."
"Absent information about the possible changes to their own governing document," the judge wrote, "the UTU members' votes cannot be said to be meaningful."
Because the merger is now only on hold by virtue of the judge's preliminary injunction, the case seems doomed to an extended period of intricate litigation. The merger agreement had been negotiated and strongly pushed by outgoing president Paul Thompson. After the new president, Malcolm Futhey, took office in January 2008, however, he proposed to rerun the referendum so long as a new SMART Constitution was presented for membership before the revote; and there was consensus among 140 UTU officials for support of that proposal, which could have resolved the whole dispute amicably and reasonably democratically. But it was not to be, because the proponents of merger seemed determined to ram it through.
Seven members of the current UTU Executive Board, supporters of the merger, have been permitted to intervene in the suit. They claim that the judge lacks jurisdiction even to hear the case, and so they are seeking dismissal of the entire action. They argue that the dispute is really over the 2007 election of UTU officers and that under LMRDA Title IV only the U.S. Labor Department, not the judge, is authorized to consider the complaint. Meanwhile, they are in the federal Court of Appeals challenging the preliminary injunction. The Kansas City Star reports that the Sheet Metal Workers union strongly backs completion of the merger but apparently it does not want further consultation with the UTU membership.
If the injunction were lifted, the UTU would be dissolved into the Sheet Metal Workers even though the legality of the questionable merger referendum would still be subjected to legal challenge. Then, even if the merger was finally declared unlawful, merger opponents point out, it would require "putting Humpty Dumpty together again."
Moral of the story? An intricate, painful, expensive litigation is forced upon the membership of two unions, simply because a few union officials cannot tolerate a simple democratic referendum.
From the Association for Union Democracy
Email: info@uniondemocracy.org
