AUDLinks

Previous Article: ATU election rule nixed

Next Article: Coming out for union democracy: AUD at Pride at Work

Section 105 Update: obeying union democracy law, belatedly

Slowly, one by one, with varying degrees of lack of enthusiasm, top union leaders are learning that they must comply with federal law and let their members know that the LMRDA protects their rights in their unions. First, the Machinists. Then, the United Transportation Union. Then, the Plumbers and Pipefitters United Association. And latest, dragging its heels, the Carpenters.

The full text of LMRDA Section 105 requires, briefly and simply, "Every labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this Act." The Act is the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which provides federal protection for free speech, fair elections, due process, and financial accountability in unions. But in the last 40 years, with the single, honorable exception of the Masters, Mates, and Pilots, not one union has voluntarily complied with this provision.

Section 105 has remained dormant and defanged all these years because it can be enforced only by the private federal suit of union members, union by union. If unions continue to resist, it could require more than a hundred lawsuits, one union at a time, to force compliance. Until recently, no union members could afford such a suit or risk it, and no attorneys were available, pro bono, to take on the burden of so costly a venture. All that changed last year, and the logjam was broken, when three machinists, represented by Attorney Andrew Rotstein, successfully sued the International Association of Machinists.

After the machinists won their case in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the IAM was responsible for continuing compliance with Section 105, the union was ordered to:

• Publish a court-approved one-page summary of the act in three issues of the union’s journal: in 2001, then in 2004, and finally in 2008.
• Post the summary permanently and prominently on its website.
• Provide every new member with the summary.

So far, the IAM is now in compliance. In March, Eugene Ruocchio, represented by his Attorney Arthur Fox, notified his union, the United Transportation Union, of the Machinists case and called upon it to comply with Section 105."Your failure to do so," he wrote, "and your precipitation of another quite consuming and costly lawsuit defending unlawful union conduct would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty ... requiring the responsible officers to reimburse the union treasury for all legal expenses out of their own personal funds." The UTU got the message. Within a week, it agreed to comply by accepting the terms of the Machinists order.

Meanwhile two Pipefitters, Charles Callihan and Wilbur Thomas, also represented by Fox, are suing in District of Columbia federal court, asking the judge to order their union to comply with Section 105. But the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters is not as malleable as the UTU. Under pressure, the UA agreed to print the summary in its Journal, (and did so in its recent issue), and it was willing to inform new members; but it refused to post the summary on its website where it would be permanently and readily available. Fox, for the Pipefitters, is asking the judge to strengthen the Machinists decision by ordering the union to reprint the summary as an appendix to the union’s constitution.

The Carpenters union is a special case. In an apparent effort to deter a suit in federal court and avoid a court order that would require effective and continuing compliance, the Carpenters "voluntarily" reprinted the summary of the law in a recent issue of its Journal, but has agreed to nothing else. The reluctant quality of its action is typographically obvious: the text, printed in blue ink on a blue background, is impossible to duplicate on your photocopying machine, guaranteeing against mass distribution. If the Carpenters could escape with this minimal one-time compliance, it might take another 40 years to force them back on track. Will the courts permit such an evasive maneuver? Remains to be seen.

In the last 40 years, only the Masters, Mates, and Pilots has voluntarily taken effective action to comply with Section 105. When Arthur Holdeman, since deceased, was an MMP vice president, he wanted to send the full text of the law to all the licensed deck officers in his jurisdiction. But he discovered that the law was momentarily out of print at the Department of Labor. He reprinted the text at his own expense and had it sent to all his members. A few years later, the MMP national organization printed an earlier version of the LMRDA summary in its publication distributed to all members.

Other articles on LMRDA Section 105:
Victory: Federal unions must let their members know
Section 105 Update: Obeying union democracy law, belatedly
Pipefitters win points in battle for democracy
Some unions hate to say, "you have legal rights."
Court to IAM: Inform members of their rights
Is your union in compliance with Section 105 of the LMRDA?
Text of LMRDA Section 105

back to top

Previous Article: ATU election rule nixed

Next Article: Coming out for union democracy: AUD at Pride at Work

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.