Construction Crafts
The “Mongan Slate” claims they have the “experience” over the “Members First Slate”
so lets compare what their experience has brought to the Local.
Seven years ago before the “Mongan Slate” took control of the Local we had four hundred (400) members in the
construction trades.
Today we have eighty-eight (88) members left.
Seven years ago before the “Mongan Slate” took control of the Local the business agents attended all pre-jobs
to secure Teamster work.
Today 722 business agents rarely, if ever, attend pre-jobs and our work has gone to the Operators and Labors unions.
Seven years ago before the “Mongan Slate” took control of the Local construction was a core industry of the
Local.
Today 722 agents don’t even visit job sites and as far as contract enforcement; well forget it.
Seven years ago before the “Mongan Slate” took control of the Local we had the funds to pay for arbitrations
to enforce the contracts.
Today nothing is arbitrated because the 722 treasury has dropped from $600,000 to nothing so there is no money for contract
enforcement.
If this is the “Mongan Slate's” idea of “experience” we don’t need it!
Public Sector Teamsters
The “Members First Slate” is by far the best choice for public sector Teamsters. Two of our candidates, Jeff
Roseland and John Dyke, are long time 722 stewards representing the needs of the membership in I.D.O.T. District 2 and 3.
Our slate members have dealt successfully with city, county and school boards. We have the experience and knowledge.
We plan to hire a professional public sector business agent for the specific needs of our public sector membership.
Public sector representation requires finesse and professionalism so lacking in the other slate. School yard bullies can
not work with the state, county or local authorities to get good contracts or issues resolved. The “Mongan, Barger,
Baker Slate” has been much more of an embarrassment than an asset.
If you are tired of being ignored by the present officers and truly seek professional representation by dedicated officers
that actually work in and understand the public sector needs then please give us your vote.
Problems at Mid-States Express
The good people at Mid-States in Peru Illinois self organized to become Teamsters recently. What they could
not have known was that Steve Mongan would attempt to negotiate a first contract on their behalf. Mr. Mongan does not seem
to have the skill to take on such a challenge and the employees at Mid-States are paying the price.
Instead of trying to negotiate a contract, Mr. Mongan took the easy way out and has put the employees of Mid-States out
on strike. He is treating negotiations as if it were a small construction company working a bridge job on some back highway
and attempting to resolve a contract issue with a strike. Mr. Mongan did not even wait for a federal mediator to be assigned and
present at the negotiations before calling this untimely strike.
By following Mr. Mongan’s lead the employees at Mid-States have lost a key bargaining position as well as wages and
insurance for their families. Drivers from other Mid-States facilities are running freight all around the Peru terminal and
thus causing little or no suffering for the parent company. Already several of the Peru employees are crossing the picket
line with more to follow.
A strike and picket line should be respected even when not justified. Mr. Mongan has made a real mess of things for the
good employees of Mid-States but they deserve our support. If possible, visit the strike line off Plank Road in Peru and bring
coffee, donuts, and words of encouragement. They are our future brother and sister Teamsters unless Mr. Mongan's poor leadership
totally blows their hopes and dreams.
News Flash:
The striking workers at Mid-States are supporting the "Members First Slate" even though these striking workers are
not Teamsters yet.
Quotes from the picket line said, "Mongan put us out on strike without a long term plan and has just left
us hanging... We did vote to go on strike thinking the leadership at Local 722 would get us a contract with insurance benefits...As
the months drag on there is no support from the officers of the local union...722 members stop by to show support and all
say to hang in there as the "Members First Slate" when in office will set getting a contract as a priority...The "Members
First Slate" seems our only hope."
Victory in Court on Hours of Service
July 24, 2007: The US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC today vacated the 11th driving hour and 34-hour restart in the
Hours of Service regulations, thanks to litigation filed by 1 P abd ublic Citizen.
The unanimous decision was a victory for drivers’ health as well as highway safety. The practical impact of the decision,
however, remains to be seen.
The court’s mandate will be issued in 45 days, barring any delay, and the 10-hour limit will then be in effect.
The last time the court struck down the hours of service regs in 2004, the industry got Congress to enact a law to delay
implementation of the court decision. It is not so likely that Congress will do the same this time. The carriers may, however,
ask the court to delay the mandate, claiming the need for more time to reconvert operations to 10-hour driving time.
The decision does not change other aspects of the revised hours of service, such as sleeper regs and 14 hours maximum on-duty
time.
Public Citizen argued that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) changed its justification for the changes
after the 2004 court decision struck down virtually the same rule, but didn’t provide any notice or comment on what
it was doing. The court also agreed that the agency never even dealt with the problem of the added fatigue that would be caused
by the 34-hour restart, which permits more driving time per week.
For a copy of the court decision, click here.
Will New Deal Let UPS Split Teamster Pensions?
Hoffa has all but made it official that he intends to let UPS rip 42,000 UPSers
out of the Central States Pension Fund. This move would undermine pension security for all Teamster members.
Concerned Teamsters can save our pensions if we speak up now.
In an August 2 letter, James Hoffa and Ken Hall have made it official: "UPS has
reached an agreement in principle with the Central States pension establishing conditions for a potential UPS withdrawal from
Central States."
They go on to claim that the deal is a long way from final, and they will "protect
all of our members" in bargaining with UPS. But they wouldn't be going through all this if they weren't trying to soften us
up to accept the deal.
It's up to us to stop it.
Pension Deal Would Hurt All Teamsters
Under the law, UPS would be required to pay some $6 billion in withdrawal liability
to Central States. This is a one-time payment. In return, UPS gets to walk away from the Central States Fund forever. As a
result, the Central States Fund will lose $600 million per year in contributions.
If allowed to go through, the UPS pension pullout will gravely undermine the
Central States Fund. As ABF CEO Bob Davidson recently told employees, "A UPS withdrawal, or other adverse factors, would make
[Teamster pension funds] even less stable or cause their complete collapse."
UPS's plan would remove 42,000 of the fund's 143,000 participants, eliminating
the fastest-growing segment of the fund. The result will be a smaller and older group of participants--and a much weaker fund
for the long term. The UPS pullout would not just hurt Teamsters in the Central States. UPS management will look to pull out
of other Teamster funds. So will other employers starting with ABF. Our union's second largest freight company has already
announced that they want to leave all Teamster pension plans and start a company 401(k).
We Don't Have to Settle Short
Hoffa's father started the Central States Fund. Teamsters built it up over decades.
Now Hoffa Jr. is threatening to tear it apart. It doesn't have to be this way.
UPS management is under pressure from shippers and stockholders to settle the
contract early. This gives our union leverage and we need to use it.
UPS should not be given an early settlement unless they agree to realistic proposals
to strengthen Teamster retirement security, including: higher pension and benefit contributions, the immediate restoration
of affordable retiree healthcare and a timeline for increasing pension benefits.
UPS made more than $4 billion in profits after taxes last year. Why are Hoffa
and Hall surrendering on the pension issue a year before the contract even expires?
Get Involved to Save Our Pensions
Many Teamster members oppose this deal--including local officers and officials
in the Freight Division. They know it sets a dangerous precedent for the NMFA, the carhaul contract and negotiations with
UPS Freight--and that it recklessly undermines our Teamster benefit funds.
Concerned Teamsters need to act now to defend our pensions. Talk to your local
officials. Call the International Union at 202-624-6800 and speak with the General President's office.
Victory For Union Democracy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
CHARLES CALLIHAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND
APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY, et
al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 00-2988 (JR)
MEMORANDUM
Charles Callihan and Wilmer Thomas are members of the United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry who have sued their union and its president, Martin Maddaloni, claiming
violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) , 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531. Plaintiffs have moved for
partial summary judgment on their claim that a provision of the union's constitution violates their free speech rights under
29 U.S.C. § 411 (a) (2). For the reasons detailed below, their motion will be granted.
Background
Section
199 of the union's constitution provides, "Any member of the United Association found guilty of sending out circular letters
of falsehood and misrepresentation shall be expelled, and the Local Union that permits such action shall also be expelled."
In March 2000, the business manager of Mr. Callahan's local union filed formal internal union charges against him under section
199. The grievance asserted that Mr. Callihan had circulated a "Members for Union Democracy" flyer containing "falsehoods
about the Local Union" and "inflam[m]atory statements used to insight [sic] the membership and
cause disruption." Although
the charges were dropped a few months later, Mr. Callihan has filed an affidavit stating that he feels constrained in voicing
opinions about United Association officials and fears he will be subject to section 199 charges in the future because he continues
to publish materials that are highly critical of union leaders' performance.
Mr. Callihan and Mr. Thomas filed suit
in December 2000 to challenge section 199 and to assert that the union had failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. § 415 by informing
members of their rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Defendants' first response was a motion to
dismiss for lack of standing. The argument was that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they suffered a concrete injury
and that any such injury was caused by the United Association national organization, rather than by local officials. The motion
to dismiss was denied in May 2001, and the plaintiffs subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on their section 299
claim.1
____________________
1 The 29 U.S.C. § 415 claim may now be moot; plaintiffs report that the union has taken
steps to publicize LMRDA rights.
Analysis
Plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to section 199 under
the overbreadth doctrine, a principle developed in the context of First Amendment cases to invalidate laws that can be validly
applied in some circumstances but are so broad that they inhibit the protected speech of other parties. American Library Ass'n
v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178, 1188, 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1992).2 This case, however, involves union officials rather than government
actors, and it invokes statutory rights established by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. That Act provides,
in relevant part:
Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members;
and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates
in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established
and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings:
____________________
2 The defendants' attempt to revive
the standing issue is not persuasive. Standing requirements are relaxed in facial challenges under the overbreadth doctrine.
American Library Ass'n, 956 F.2d at 1188, 1190. Mr. Callihan's affidavit indicates that he intends to continue his criticism
of union officials. Given that they have already brought charges against him once and that section 199 requires local unions
to enforce its commands or face expulsion, there is a sufficiently objective and credible risk of prosecution. Mallick v.
International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 644 F.2d 228, 235-36 (3d Cir. 1981) ; see also Decarlo v. Salamone, 977 F. Supp. 617,
623-24 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (union member injured by prosecution even though no discipline imposed). Even if Mr. Callihan has not
been chilled, he may vindicate the interests of union members who have. American Library Ass'n, 956 F.2d at 1193; United Presbyterian
Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375, 1378-79 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed
to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member
toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of
its legal or contractual obligations.
29 U.S.C. § 411 (a) (2). Subsection 411 (b) provides that union constitution
provisions or bylaws that are inconsistent with § 411 (a) (2) shall have no force or effect. Plaintiffs seek a declaration
that section 199 of the union constitution is void and an injunction ordering the United Association to refrain from processing
any section 199 charges (except to reverse any outstanding guilty verdicts), to remove the provision from all future printings
of the union constitution, and to publish a prominent notice of the judgment in the United Association Journal.
1.
Legality of section 199
Section 411 (a) (2) is part of a "Bill of Rights" for union members, intended to promote and protect
democratic governance of labor unions. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 109-10 (1982). It incorporates
"a principal First Amendment value - the right to speak one's mind without fear of reprisal," although its scope is more limited
than the First Amendment. Thus, union rules need not be "carefully" tailored to meet a "compelling" interest, but speech restrictions
must be reasonably related to conducting meetings, insuring the responsibility of members to unions as institutions, or preventing
interference with unions' legal and contractual obligations. Id. at 111; Semancik v. United Mine Workers of Am. District
5, 466 F.2d 144, 152-53 (3d Cir. 1972).
In this case, the defendants argue that section 199 is "capable of lawful application"
to speech interfering with the union's legal and contractual obligations (for instance a letter to employers falsely stating
that the union planned and illegal strike) and violations of members' duties to the institution (for instance a letter to
other union members falsely stating that they do not have to comply with lawful union rules).3 Section 199 does not restrict
itself to these types of speech, however. Cf. Kofoed v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 48, 237 F.3d 1001, 1003
(9th Cir. 2001). Instead, it provides for - in
fact, it requires - expulsion for any "circular letters of falsehood and
misrepresentation" sent to anyone, no matter what the subject or the circumstance.
A number of similarly vague and broad
union rules have been held invalid as unreasonable restricting more speech than is necessary to accomplish the three legitimate
union purposes recognized in § 411 (a) (2). E.g., Semancik, 466 F.2d at 147, 153-54
____________________
3 Defendants
argue that they are entitled to deference in interpreting and applying their own constitution, yet they merely assert that
section 199 could be applied lawfully without explaining how they interpret it or have interpreted it.
(provision
barring "dishonest or questionable practices to secure the election or defeat of any candidate for district office") ; Ruocchio
v. United Transp. Union, Local 60, Civ. No. 97-5732 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2000) (provision barring members from "willfully circulariz[ing]
untrue statements") ; Nelson v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, & Ornamental Iron Workers, 680 F. Supp. 16,
18, 25 (D.D.C. 1998) (provision barring communication of "any statement reflecting on the character of any officer or member
or relating to matters of gerneral interest to the membership, or resolution to the international Convention, or requesting
financial aid" without prior approval); Nix v. Fulton Lodge No. 2, Civ. No. 10463, 1972 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13026, at *2-*3,
*5-*9 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 1972) (provision banning "any false statement reflecting upon the private or public conduct, or falsely
or maliciously attacking the character of any member or officer"), aff'd on other grounds, 479 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1973) ;
see also Mallick v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 644 F.2d 228, 231 n.1, 236 (3d. Cir. 1981) (remanding for consideration
of declaratory and injunctive relief against provision prohibiting "[p]ublishing or circulating among the membership, or among
[local unions] false reports or misrepresentations").
The same result is warranted here. The language of section 199 is
so broad that [A] reasonable [union member] might well refrain from taking full advantage of his rights [T]here is no definitive
construction for the subjective terms. Further, [the section] makes no attempt to relate the conduct it prohibits to the proviso
in [§ 411 (a) (2) ] . It gives no indication to a member as to how he should accommodate his rights and obligations under
the statute.
Semancik, 466 F.2d at 154. Contrary to the broad language of section 199, even false and outright libelous
speech is gererally protected from union disciplinary procedures under § 411 (a) (2) . Kowaleviocz v. Local 333 of the Int'l
Longshoremen's Ass'n, 942 F.2d 285, 290 (4th Cir. 1991) ; Semancik, 466 F.2d at 153-54; Fulton Lodge No. 2 of the Int'l Ass'n
of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 415 F.2d 212, 217-19 (5th Cir. 1965) ; International Bhd. Of Boilermakers, Iron
ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Rafferty, 348 F.2d 307, 312 (9th Cir. 1965) ; Salzhander v. Caputo, 316
F.2d 445, 450-51 (2d Cir. 1963) .
2. Appropriate relief
The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment
that section 199 is of "no force or effect." 29 U.S.C. § 411 (b), because it is inconsistent with union members' rights "to
express any views, arguments, or opinions," id. § 411 (a) (2). To counteract the chilling effect of the language, the defendants
will also be enjoined from including the provision in future provisions of the union constitutions and ordered to publish
a notice of the Court's decision in the United Association Journal. However, because there is no evidence of any pending prosecutions
under section 199, it appears unnecessary on this record t
enjoin such activity. Carothers v. Presser, 818 F.2d 926, 931
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (after a court has made a particularized finding that a union rule violates a right specifically enumerated
in § 411 (a) (2) , it should fashion a remedy tailored to the violation) .
An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum.
{Signed in original}
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge
Dated: March 6, 2002
Copies
to:
Arthur L. Fox II
Lobel Novins & Lamont
1275 K. Street, N. W.
Suite 770
Washington, DC 20005
Sally
M. Tedrow
Dinah S. Leventhal
O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue
4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHARLES CALLIHAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY, et
al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 00-2988
(JR)
Order
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is this 6th day of March 2002,
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [#10-2] is granted.
And it is
DECLARED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that section 199 of the constitution of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry is inconsistent with 29 U.S.C. § 411 (a) (2) and is therefore invalid.
And it is
FURTHER ORDERED
that the plaintiffs submit a form of injunction consistant with the accompanying memorandum.
And it is
FURTHUR ORDERED
that the parties appear on March 27, 2002 at 4 p.m. for a status conference
Dated: March 6, 2002
Signed
in original
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Arthur L. Fox II
Lobel Novins
& Lamont
1275 K. Street, N. W.
Suite 770
Washington, DC 20005
Sally M. Tedrow
Dinah S. Leventhal
O'Donoghue
& O'Donoghue
4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel for Defendants
|
