1634 Lartigue v. IEB

The aspects of Lartigue’s behavior that required the extraordinary remedy of a disqualification to run for office include her defiance of parliamentary procedures for reaching a consensus as well as her misrepresentation of her own actions at a local membership meeting. Her actions were not errors or even negligence but deliberate strategies to evade the local union’s established decision making process. Lartigue’s insistence that her judgment should be permitted to overrule decisions made in accordance with the procedures established for operation of the local union runs contrary to the democratic principles embodied in the UAW Constitution and the Ethical Practices Code. It justified the International President’s conclusion that a suspension was necessary as a remedial measure to protect the local from further financial misconduct such as that identified by the auditor.