In June 2007, then UTU International President, Paul Thompson, announced at the Regional Meeting in Kansas City that he and a few select others had secretly been crafting a merger with the SMWIA. The new union created by the merger was to be called the International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART).
Thompson sprung the secret news on the UTU Board of Directors the previous evening and pushed the Board to immediately approve the merger. Thompson assured the Board members that the UTU constitution would be inserted intact into the SMWIA constitution to create the SMART constitution. He further assured them that UTU autonomy would be maintained. Even though Thompson produced only the merger agreement and not the SMART constitution, the Board somehow accepted Thompson’s assurances and immediately approved the merger and Thompson’s plan for a quickie ratification vote by the membership. Thompson wanted the vote to be done before the convention in August. He did not want the convention delegates to be able to affect the sell-out he had designed.
Merger ballots were mailed on July 17 and the vote was counted on Aug 8. In the failed 2001 merger vote with the BLE, the UTU had arranged town hall meetings and sent International officers to explain the merger and answer members’ questions. We were given sufficient time so that locals could discuss the merger at their meetings. The ballots in that merger attempt included the merger agreement and the proposed constitution for the new union.
It wasn’t to be this time. Thompson rushed the vote and would not arrange to educate the members or answer their questions about the merger. He was asked by several members to delay the vote in order to give them time to understand the merger and its’ implications. Thompson refused. Most significantly, even though the merger agreement specifically required that the Board of Directors and the members approve both the merger agreement and the SMART constitution, Thompson refused to circulate a SMART constitution and would not include it in the members’ voting package.
In an odd action, when the vote was announced, Thompson crowed that 71% of the voting members approved the merger, but he never would publicly release the vote totals. It wasn’t until the subsequent court case that the actual voting numbers were completely revealed.
Approximately 68,000 ballots were mailed, but only 12,097 of those were voted. It was the lowest percentage of votes in a referendum in UTU history. 8,625 voted in favor of the merger and 3,472 voted against.
The UTU held their quadrennial convention and election of International officers in August immediately following the merger vote. Thompson had announced that he would not be running again and would retire on December 31 at the end of his term.
It seemed the assembled delegates were in a house cleaning mood and several new officers were elected. Three International Vice Presidents were elected to the top three positions. Malcom “Mike” Futhey was elected President, Arty Martin was elected Assistant President and
Additionally, the UTUIA convention was held the day after the UTU convention. There Thompson managed to ram through a package of UTUIA Bylaw changes. The changes allowed him to appoint more members to the UTUIA board. Mike Sullivan was also elected to the board and remains there today.
It wasn’t until later in October that the truth about the merger was to come to light. Thompson, still angry at the delegates, began to spill the beans at the October Board of Director’s meeting and later at a General Chairmen’s Association meeting in
Thompson let it be known that Mike Sullivan, SMWIA President, would appoint Thompson’s losing candidate for President to the position of Director of the newly formed SMART Transportation Division. That meant that the democratically elected UTU officers would be answering to the defeated appointee. Thompson further let it be known that wholesale changes were being made to the UTU constitution as it was to be inserted into the SMWIA constitution. He said he was making changes that the delegates would never approve.
Four UTU members, knowing the merger was flawed, recognized the fact that the merger had not been legally ratified. Union members have a legal right to the information they need in order to make an informed vote. They were not given that information. The merger agreement required that the SMART constitution be approved, but it was never given to the Board of Directors or sent to the members for that approval.
Those four members,
On
Judge Adams has said that he finds that the Plaintiffs “have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that they were deprived of a meaningful vote.” He further states, “The plain language of the Merger Agreement required approval of the SMART Constitution.”
Mike Futhey, the current UTU President, has proposed that the UTU and the SMWIA craft a SMART constitution that he could submit to the members for a fully-informed ratification vote, but Mike Sullivan declined. Sullivan has said he would negotiate a SMART constitution if the merger is going forward, but he will not negotiate one for approval by the UTU membership.
Seven International officers, unhappy with Futhey’s position on the merger have intervened as defendants in the court case. They want the merger to proceed as designed by Thompson and Sullivan and do not want their members to be allowed to vote on a SMART constitution. They contend “the well has been poisoned” by the information thus far revealed and they admit that the UTU membership, if given a vote, would likely not ratify a SMART constitution.
These seven officers are National Legislative Director, James Brunkenhoefer and Vice Presidents, John Babler, Victor Baffoni, Roy Boling, J.R. Cumby, John Fitzgerald and Tony Iannone. In a court hearing, they revealed that their attorney fees are being paid by the Sheet Metal Workers. They contend that although the SMWIA is paying their legal costs, they alone are directing their intervention in the case. In a court hearing on May 28, John Babler had the audacity to testify that they receive recommendations from their counsel, but he doesn’t know if those recommendations come from the SMWIA.
The intervening defendant officers have appealed the Preliminary Injunction to the Federal Court of Appeals. This effectively subjects the case to a lengthy period of litigation. The Plaintiffs feel their legal position is solid and they will eventually prevail.
If not for the intervening officers and the deep pockets of the SMWIA paying for their legal costs, this case would be settled and UTU members would either get to vote on a SMART constitution or the merger would be dead in the water.
Fortunately, many members and subordinate bodies have understood just how bad Thompson’s sellout of the UTU would harm our union. They have encouraged and supported the Plaintiff’s actions and have joined in bringing solidarity and unity to Save Our Union.
Unfortunately, the litigation is costing a lot of money. The Plaintiffs’ and the UTU’s legal costs continue to mount as the intervening officers continue to do everything they can to drag out the case. Actually, those intervenors are the only ones who have no cost in this battle. They are being paid their salary as UTU officers while they use Sheet Metal workers dues monies to continue to increase the costs to UTU members.
To quote Judith Schneider from the Association for Union Democracy:
“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.”
Other Merger Related Events
The SMWIA filed suit in Federal Court in
Several UTU members have brought internal charges against the seven intervening officers. They contend those officers are guilty of dual unionism (by virtue of their actions as surrogates for the SMWIA in the court case) and attempting to usurp the constitutional powers of the UTU President.
The seven (they are often referred to as the seven dwarfs) have used their SMWIA attorney to file suit in Federal Court against the UTU Executive Board (which will hold the trials on the charges) in an attempt to stop the trials from happening until AFTER Michael v UTU is completely litigated.
They have also brought suit in Federal Court against a number of UTU members who have filed the charges
Additionally, dwarf Fitzgerald has filed internal charges against President Futhey.
Conclusion
The UTU has a Constitution which is the rule and guide for the operation of our union and which details the behavior permissible by members and officers. By circumventing the proper and accepted processes of this organization, those seven officers who are acting as surrogates for the Sheet Metal Workers International Association have made themselves susceptible to the leveling of charges and the possible expulsion of membership in the United Transportation Union.
These seven officers and their supporters have made it obvious that they believe they do not have to comply with our Constitution, nor do they have to be at all concerned with the rights of our members.
