AUDLinks

Previous Article: CSEA members try to stay in SEIU

Next Article
Court orders UA to remove Section 199

(We need your help -- see below. For the text of the decision see link at end.)

Carpenters in Massachusetts have just won an important procedural round in their legal battle for the right of members to vote. On February 19, in the case of Harrington v. Secretary of Labor Chao, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declared inadequate the Statement of Reasons submitted by the Labor Department to explain why it rejected the Carpenters demand for a membership election of regional officers. The case is now remanded back district court while the Labor Department makes its mind up on what to do.

The amicus brief prepared by Alan Hyde and submitted by the Association for Union Democracy in support of the Carpenters was an important factor in shaping the court's decision.(No. 01-1577)

The Regional Council of the Carpenters Union in New England, like similar bodies throughout the union, had been established in accordance with an overall international union reorganization plan. Under the new structure, locals are reduced to administrative shells; no local officers or business agents can be paid by the locals; control over collective bargaining is shifted away from the locals to the region; authoritarian power is bestowed on a regional executive secretary treasurer who is elected not by the membership but by delegates.

The Massachusetts Carpenter complainants in this case argue that because the regional council has taken over the functions that are normally performed by locals and has preempted their authority, it should be subject to the requirements imposed on locals by the LMRDA. In particular, its officers must be elected by membership vote. When the Carpenter complainants asked the Labor Department to order an election, it rejected their appeal. They sued the Labor Department, asking the court to overturn the DOL decision.

In its Statement of Reasons rejecting the Carpenters appeal, the Labor Department bypassed the arguments and the facts relating to the council's collective bargaining functions. It simply noted that locals still exist within the council and that, as a delegated body the council could elect officers by vote of delegates.

In our amicus brief, AUD told the judges that the position taken by the DOL in this case was in sharp contradiction to its position in two other court cases and in contradiction to its own earlier decisions. In one case, for example, the DOL itself argued that a so-called "division" was, despite its designation by the union, was actually a local because "it negotiates terms of employment with contractors, handles grievances, maintains referral lists, and collects dues" precisely the functions performed by the Carpenters regional councils.

The Appeals Court, agreeing with AUD's analysis, rejected the DOL statement as apparently contradictory and directed it to come back with an explanation. In a concurring opinion, Judge Torruella went further. He noted that the DOL decision in the Carpenters case was a clear reversal of its earlier decisions. "I must await with morbid curiosity," he wrote, any attempt by the DOL to reconcile the two positions. He held that the DOL really faced only two choices: 1. On the basis of its earlier position, to uphold the Carpenters complaint and order and election of regional officers by direct vote, or 2. To note clearly that it had reversed its own position and issue a new statement of reasons justifying its new position.

The DOL now must decide which way to go. Meanwhile, members of other unions, perhaps your own, will have a stake in the outcome. The issues that face the Massachusetts Carpenters are fundamentally the same that face members of other unions where the right of members to elect their union officers is being undermined as locals are deprived of traditional functions. If that applies to your union, we would like to hear from you promptly.

To read the court's decision (on Findlaw): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=011577

Articles on the Harrington case and the Carpenters reform movement:
Carpenters win right to elect regional council officers
Consolidation in the Construction Trades
Carpenters form National Reform Group
Reformers Jolt Carpenters Convention
Carpenters Reformers Win in New England
Court challenges DOL on Carpenters Regional Council
Harrington v Chao: Judge Stearns's "memorandum and order" (pdf)
AUD Bill of Rights for the Building Trades
AUD brief opposing stay of order
Sample letter requesting direct elections
Letter to Carpenters from Carl Biers
Court deals setback for democracy in Carpenters union
Links to Carpenters rank-and-file websites

back to top

Previous Article: CSEA members try to stay in SEIU      
Next Article: Court orders UA to remove Section 199

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.