by Carl Biers

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit in Maryland unanimously ruled on January 27 that unions have a continuing responsibility for complying with the provision in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act that requires unions to inform members of their rights. The decision overruled a district federal court.

The LMRDA provides federal protection for civil liberties, due process in trials, and fiscal responsibility in unions and provides recourse in the courts and to the U.S. Labor Department for members whose rights are violated in their unions. Section 105 reads simply and in full, "Every labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this Act."

The suit was filed in district court by three members of the International Association of Machinists who sought a court order directing the IAM to comply with section 105. They are represented pro bono by attorney Andrew Rotstein. The Association for Union Democracy submitted an amicus brief, prepared by Barbara Harvey and Michael Goldberg, in support of their appeal.

The LMRDA was adopted in 1959. In district court, the Machinists union argued that it had already informed its members back in 1960 by printing the full text of the law in its magazine, that this one-time publication was sufficient, and that no further action was required. The Appeals Court rejected that position: "the IAM’s insistence that section 105 is satisfied by a single decades-old notification makes little sense."

The decision is an impressive victory for union democracy because its impact goes far beyond the IAM. For the first time, all members---old and new--- in all unions have won a clear cut right to be informed of their full range of democratic rights under federal law.

"This is a fantastic win for the rank and file throughout the labor movement," said Keith Thomas, the IAM member in Wichita KS. who was the lead plaintiff in the case. He said that internal union democracy will flourish as more members learn of their legally protected rights.

The Appeals Court indicated that it was not adequate for the union simply to inform members that they had certain rights under the union constitution. Members had to know that these rights are protected by law and are enforceable outside the union in the courts.

In 1989, AUD submitted a petition to the Department of Labor signed by 232 members of 35 unions asking it to issue a regulation informing unions of section 105 and advising how they might comply. The department rejected the petition, noting that it had no enforcement authority for section 105.

Even after this clear decision by the Appeals Court, section 105 is not self-enforcing. If any union still refuses to act voluntarily, it will require legal action by some of its members to force compliance.