1689 Pearson v. Local Union 140
Case No: 1689
It is up to the local union membership to determine whether any expenditure is “necessary” within the meaning of Article 46, §1, of the Constitution, unless there has been a specific policy established by the IEB with respect to the issue. The membership rejected Pearson’s argument that he should have been reimbursed for assuming the duties of the president during his absence. The membership also denied his appeal from the president’s decision to change the local union’s policy authorizing the payment of two days lost time per week to the vice present to perform his duties. The membership’s decisions with respect to Pearson’s claims are controlling.
Issues addressed in this decisionEstablishment of Local Union policies
Local Union expenditure
Powers of membership
Uniform application of Union rules