Uniform application of Union rules
1827 Turner v. UAW Local Union 2209
The Local 2209 Election Committee found Appellant ineligible to run on two grounds: (1) the requirement under Paragraph 17 of the UAW-GM National Agreement that an individual’s name must appear on the applicable seniority list to be eligible to serve as a committeeperson; and (2) the Interpretations of the Constitution ...VIEW DETAILS →
1479 Thielen v. Local 72 Executive Board
The procedure adopted by the Local was consistent with the Local’s bylaws and the International Constitution. Thielen only submitted two articles during the period relevant to her appeal, so there is little basis for concluding that the policy is being applied unequally. Challenges to the unequal application of policies must ...VIEW DETAILS →
1476 II Gaston-Kelley v. UAW DaimlerChrysler Dept.
A Department Director has broad discretion in the matter of appointing and removing special purpose representatives, but there is no evidence of an exercise of that discretion in this case. Gaston-Kelley never received anything from the DaimlerChrysler Department removing her from her appointed position as Local Heath and Safety Representative. ...VIEW DETAILS →
1609 Bradley et al. v. Local Union 3520
Appellants’ failure to certify in accordance with Article 16, §19, was not the result of reliance on anything the financial secretary said to them, but rather was based on their mistaken belief that the certification requirement did not apply to local union officers. One of the basic obligations of union ...VIEW DETAILS →
1622 Lartigue v. Region 1
The casino unequivocally invoked the seven-day notice policy and denied Lartigue’s request for union leave based on it. At that point, the proper procedure would have been for Lartigue to ask a member of the International Union staff to have her excused. If that failed, her only option was 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 →
1648 Amore and Russo v. International President
The UAW’s policy against allowing retired members to hold executive offices that require bargaining or grievance handling is by now well established. When appellants objected to the local president, recording secretary, and financial secretary continuing in office after they retired, the International Union removed the president from office in accordance ...VIEW DETAILS →
1655 Englehart v. UAW Heavy Truck Dept.
The International Representative refused management’s offer to return the Appendix D transferees to their home plant or adjust their seniority dates at Jacksonville based on equitable considerations, but he failed to consider the adverse impact this decision had on the seniority rights of employees already at Jacksonville. The Company’s offer ...VIEW DETAILS →
1665 Lange v. UAW Ford Dept.
Lange lost all recall rights to Ford Motor Company once she broke seniority in 1981. She would have given up her March 9, 1987, Ford Motor Company seniority date if she had transferred back to Rawsonville when the former Rawsonville employees were rehired in 1998. She may have been willing ...VIEW DETAILS →
1674 Osborne v. Local Union 600 General Council
The IEB’s investigator recounted all of the ballots cast in the race for chairperson. The recount cured any defects in the Election Committee’s tabulation of the ballots. The Local Union’s rule that allows a unit chairperson to be elected by a plurality of the votes cast resulted in the chief ...VIEW DETAILS →