Powers of International officers

1819 Rankin v. UAW International Executive Board

The PRB has jurisdiction to review the IEB’s decision to impose a suspension under Article 30, §4 of the International Constitution.  Under Article 30, §4, the default rule is that an accused International officer will continue to function in his or her elected capacity pending trial.  However, Article 30, §4 ...
VIEW DETAILS

1807 Slight et al. v. UAW International President

Appellants acknowledge that they did not file an appeal within 30 days of when they first became aware that their grievances had been withdrawn.  As a result, they recognize that the International President must grant a request for a waiver of time limits in order for them to proceed with ...
VIEW DETAILS

1490 Turner v. IEB

The membership’s determination that the full-time editor was a necessary expense did not preclude a determination by the International President, acting on behalf of the IEB, that such a provision was inappropriate in the Local Union’s bylaws. Although the membership is entitled to determine what is a necessary expense for ...
VIEW DETAILS

1497 Larkin v. Local Union 148

The authority to challenge the use of the UAW’s official seal or name is vested solely in the International Secretary-Treasurer by Article 13, §16, of the International Constitution. That section preempts the use of charges presented by UAW members pursuant to Article 31 for that purpose.
VIEW DETAILS

1526 & 1542 Donovan et al. v. UAW Ford Dept.

Once the membership of Local 2000 voted to reject Vice President Bantom’s recommendation that it combine Units 1 and 2 for purposes of conducting its triennial election, there was no Constitutional basis for Bantom’s insistence that it do so. Nevertheless, the Union’s error in insisting that Local 2000 conduct its ...
VIEW DETAILS

1532 II Reighard v. International Union

The International President’s refusal to refer Reighard’s appeal to the IEB violates not only the appellate procedures clearly enunciated in the UAW Constitution, but also the principles of fairness and ethical conduct espoused throughout the Constitution. No useful purpose would be served by remanding this appeal to the IEB once ...
VIEW DETAILS

1540 Williams and Brown v. International President

Appellants were not the candidates “who would have been elected if the election had not been challenged” within the meaning of Article 38, §12, because the outcome of that election was still undecided. The accuracy of the initial count had been called into question, so the results of the election ...
VIEW DETAILS

1584 Staley v. International President

This record demonstrates that the President’s staff considered whether the issues presented by Staley’s appeal required Constitutional correction, and they decided that further review was not warranted. There is no claim or evidence that staff abused their discretion in coming to that conclusion. There is no basis, therefore, for this ...
VIEW DETAILS

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 ...
VIEW DETAILS

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 ...
VIEW DETAILS