Poor Local Union Leadership

Our Union has its Bylaws, Constitution and General Laws that governs how it is to operate. Section 21.7 “Disclosure of Union Business” of our Constitution and General Laws states “No officer or member of the L.U. shall furnish to any unauthorized person a list of the names and addresses of the membership. All business of the L.U. must be kept strictly private from persons outside of the Union, unless publication be authorized by the L.U., and persons giving out any information contrary to the L.U. shall, after proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 22, if found guilty, be fined, suspended or expelled.”

National Labor Relations Board and U.S. Constitution govern over Unions to assure a person’s freedom of speech is not violated. With past events I have learned a lot about what a Union can intervene on and what must be taken to civil court. Unions are very limited in actions that can be taken towards a member for their use of freedom of speech. There are a few areas that our Union is able to act upon though. If members participate in a Union function and a Union member releases a list of participant’s names to management or the public to discourage future participation, the union can take action to protect those members. If a Union member was to release a list of member’s names to a rival Union then the Union is able to protect its membership.

On February 18^th, 2011 Sandra Guengerich and I had a meeting with TriMet HR. A complaint had been filed against me and the meeting was to get my side of the story. During this meeting the investigator presented a copy of a preferring of charges that I had filed with the Union towards another member. The member that I had filed the preferring of charges towards with the Union had released the documents to TriMet HR (management). The last two pages of the Union paper work included two lists of member’s names, employee numbers and signatures. The investigator informed us that at least one of the members had been questioned by management about their participation. On June 11^th, 2011 the same member that I filed a preferring of charges towards publicly post all the lists of printed names, employee numbers and signatures of all the members that participated.

On June 14^th, 2011 I filed another preferring of charges towards this person because of the release of member’s names and the violation of section 21.7 of our Union Constitution. On June 24^th, 2011 I received this letter from our Union President Jonathan Hunt. He has questions and concerns about some of the signatures listed on the preferring of charges. It is within his and the member being charged rights to question the signatures and to have them validated. It is not in anyone’s rights to release this information of other members to management or the public.

In this letter President Hunt states “Since both you and Sister --- have chosen to publish petitions showing member names and employee numbers on your respective blogs”. I am not clear of the purpose for this statement and if President Hunt feels that preferring of charges should also be placed on me then that should be addressed outside of this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right if that is what he is attempting to state.

I did not have a contact number for the member that the signature was being questioned. I found it would be easier to replace that member’s name with another member who I can provide contact information for. I filed a second revised preferring of charges and assured that all members’ that had signed could easily be contacted.

On June 30^th, 2011 I submitted a revised preferring of charges. The revisions are listed as followed:

1.       Replaced the last name, employee number and signature to a member that I had contact information so that verification of information can be obtained.
2.       Updated the dates to reflect the changes.
3.       Updated the website address that a stored image of the said posting was stored.

These are the only changes that had been made to the charges and it was done to assure all members have the equal opportunity for representation.

On July 7^th, 2011 I received this letter from President Jonathan Hunt about the revised charges filed June 30^th, 2011. Again there were questions about the signatures and a request for confirmation. I contacted the other four signatories and advised them to contact President Jonathan Hunt to confirm their signatures and to please confirm back with me once they have confirmed the needed information. On July 8^th, 2011 by 7:30pm all signers of the petition had confirmed to me that they had made contact with President Jonathan Hunt and confirmed their signatures on the petition dated June 29^th, 2011 and submitted June 30^th, 2011.

On July 28^th, 2011 at 12:53pm I sent President Hunt an email questioning the status of the charges. On July 29^th, 2011 President Jonathan Hunt replied to my email stating that I needed to send copies of the charges to the member being charged. I questioned this commenting about the past statements that had been made in the past two letters from him. He has not replied about that and I currently do not know the status of the charges.

It is to my understanding that the member that is being charged has just learned of these charges on July 29^th, 2011. In both letters from President Jonathan Hunt it had clearly stated that the Union will mail a copy of the charges to the member being charged. As of July 8^th by 7:30pm all information that had been requested to confirm had been. Failure to produce documents to the member being charged is uncalled for. Here is clear documentation that indicates that our Union stated that they would perform an action and have failed to do so. I question the lack of actions from President Jonathan Hunt and wonder if this would be considered malfeasance or nonfeasance in office?