1606 Grima v. Regional Director Rory Gamble

There is no evidence in the record that an administratorship was necessary to prevent corruption or financial misconduct within the meaning of Article 12, §3(a), of the Constitution. The fact that Grima questioned the propriety of pension and insurance contributions for the Local Union’s part-time janitor does not amount to financial malpractice. The decision to impose an administratorship to restore democratic practices pursuant to Article 12, §3(c), of the Constitution can only be understood in the context of the problems that occurred during the first election of officers. The executive officers of West Side Local 174 breached UAW democratic procedures by refusing to allow alternative views of election procedures to be discussed at a meeting of the Joint Council. The administrator might have removed the entire executive board in order to restore the democratic decision making process. The explanation for singling out Grima is not convincing, however. The issue of his removal has been rendered moot by a subsequent election. Grima’s protest of that election must be addressed in a separate appeal.