1750 Hubbard v. International Union

Given the genuinely ambiguous text defining the president’s compensation subsequent to the sale of the Saline plant, if Hubbard had submitted claims for compensation based on occasional, carefully documented, telephone calls and other demands on her time outside of business hours, her right to such compensation would be difficult to challenge, even within the restrictive reading of the bylaw recommended by the UAW’s Administrative Letter. That is not the case presented by this record, however. The substantial problem with Hubbard’s claims for overtime, as noted in the schedule attached to the audit, is that they are undocumented. The overtime is based solely on the bylaw and not on the documented performance of duties on behalf of the local union. Furthermore, Hubbard had an affirmative obligation to obtain a clear, documented interpretation of the existing bylaw before accepting compensation for any hours in excess of forty hours per week and she failed to pursue that obligation responsibly.

At the same time, we do not believe the record supports a finding of deliberate financial misconduct. The Regional servicing representatives knew that the local union’s situation had been completely altered. They ought to have taken a more active role in educating this inexperienced president about her responsibilities. At the very least, they ought to have informed the local union of its need to adopt a bylaw relevant to the local union’s altered circumstances. The IEB’s determination that Hubbard engaged in financial misconduct is reversed. Nevertheless, Hubbard was the recipient of the improper payments, and therefore, the person ultimately responsible for the mistake. Although the improper payments were the result of a misunderstanding as opposed to misappropriation, Hubbard’s obligation to reimburse the local union remains.