Chapter 9 REGULATING INTERNAL
UNION CONDUCT
Labor & Employment Law 74
Case Questions
9.1, Ramey v. District 141, IAM, p. 298
1. (Q.) Does a union have the general democratic right to favor loyal members and disfavor
disloyal members when negotiating collective bargaining agreements with an
employer?
(A.) No. It is well settled that a union does not have the right to prefer one group over
2. (Q.) Was the IAM able to prove that it had an independent rational basis supporting its
decision to deny the plaintiffs Eastern seniority, in that they had resigned from Eastern
prior to being hired by Trump Shuttle?
9.2, Vaca v. Sipes, p. 302
1. (Q.) May an individual employee compel his union to progress his grievance to arbitration
when the employee is convinced that he has been wrongfully terminated?
(A.) No. An individual union member has no right to compel his union to progress his
Chapter 9 Regulating Internal Union Conduct
Labor & Employment Law 75
2. (Q.) What discretion, if any, does the union have in making decisions on the merits of
grievances?
(A.) The union has the discretion to make the decision whether or not to spend union
3. (Q.)
recourse is available to the member?
(A.) rievance to arbitration, the
1. (Q.) Vaca v. Sipes
duty of fair representation in contract negotiations?
(A.) The tripartite (three-part) standard announced in Vaca v. Sipes
2. (Q.)
Vaca v. Sipes rule?
(A.) Vaca v. Sipes rule if, and only if, in light of
3. (Q.)
(A.) Viewed in light of the legal landscape at the time of the settlement rather than viewed
in a retrospective sense the settlement was by no means irrational. The settlement
9.4, NLRB v. IBEW, p. 308
1. (Q.) Why did the employers rather than Schoux and Choate file the Section 8(b)(1)(B) unfair
labor practice charges?
(A.) Section 8(b)(1)(B) protects the employer, not the supervisor, in the selection of
Chapter 9 Regulating Internal Union Conduct
Labor & Employment Law 76
2. (Q.) When is discipline of a supervisor member prohibited under Section 8(b)(1)(B)?
(A.) Discipline of a supervisor member is prohibited under Section 8(b)(1)(B) only when that
3. (Q.) Were Schoux and Choate Section 8(b)(1)(B) supervisors?
4. (Q.) Why was Section 8(b)(1)(B) made a part of the NLRA?
9.5, United Steelworkers of America v. Usery, p. 312
1. (Q.) What is the basic objective of Title IV of the LMRDA?
(A.) The basic objective of Title IV of the LMRDA is to guarantee free and democratic union
2. (Q.) What does the Court focus on in finding the meeting attendance rule invalid?
3. (Q.) How does the union defend the rule?
(A.) The union defends the rule by asserting that it is reasonable because it encourages
9.6, Varity Corp. v. Howe, p. 318
1. (Q.) Was Varity acting as a fiduciary at the special meeting held with workers, or was it
acting as an employer giving an optimistic view of a new venture?
(A.) Varity was acting as an ERISA fiduciary when it significantly and deliberately misled
Chapter 9 Regulating Internal Union Conduct
Labor & Employment Law 77
It is a very significant ruling that not only officials who have titles indicating their
2. (Q.) -imposed fiduciary duties?
(A.) Yes. In misleading Howe and the other employees, Varity violated the fiduciary
3. (Q.) Does ERISA Section 502(a)(3) authorize lawsuits for individualized equitable relief for
breach of fiduciary obligations?
9.7, U.S. v. Stolfi, p. 324
1. (Q.) would
-length bargaining.
(A.) -length bargaining indicates an unethical
2. (Q.) Under what circumstances may two separate enterprises become a singular RICO
enterprise?
(A.) Entities that are separate and distinct enterprises for some purposes may jointly be an
3. (Q.) Assess the fairness of the Hobbs Act conviction where the defendants did not seek nor
(A.) Stolfi and Casalino, as union officials, were obligated to be the exclusive representatives
of Wed-tech employees. In fact, they were subtly selling out union interest for
Chapter 9 Regulating Internal Union Conduct
Labor & Employment Law 78
Chapter Questions and Problems, p. 325
1. (Q.) How are union members given protection by the law from unfair or arbitrary treatment
by union officers or a union majority?
(A.) The LMRDA of 1959, Titles I and IV, as well as the common law precedents provide
2. (Q.) What reporting requirements are contained in the federal laws regulating unions?
3. (Q.) What financial responsibility does a union have at law? Where does this liability rest?
(A.) It is liable for acts committed by anyone acting as an agent if they act in its behalf, the
4. [Rights of union members and free speech, Section 9.5.]
reasonable hearing
procedures . . . withi ]. The court in this case, as well as
others, has ruled that this provision does not exclude a member from court action if all
5. [Qualifications for office, Section 9.5.] The U.S. District Court issued an order enforcing the
ction was null and void. The Court cited Steelworkers v. Usery
and Wirtz v. Hotel Employees [Section 9.5
Chapter 9 Regulating Internal Union Conduct
Labor & Employment Law 79
6. [Right to a full and fair hearing, Section 9.2.] The court ruled that a full and fair hearing under
the LMRDA must incorporate the traditional concepts of due process, citing Allis-Chalmers
7. fair representation, Section 9.2.] The Board held that the union did breach its
duty of fair representation [IBEW v. Foust, Section 9.2] where the Court held that the duty of
fair representation imposed on unions flows from their status as the exclusive bargaining
8. fair representation, Section 9.2.] Under Vaca v. Sipes [Section 9.2] the Board
–
In this case the union has acted in an arbitrary way, denying these members their right
9. [Union discipline for filing charges against the union, Section 9.4.] The Board ruled that Local 212
had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by removing Nance from his union position because he filed
a charge against the union with the NLRB. Citing Scofield v. NLRB [Section 9.4], the Board
10. [Rights of members, Section 9.5.] Under Sadlowski the court must employ a two-step standard
of review. First, the court must decide if the union practice of not providing simultaneous
translation of monthly meetings conflicts with Section 101(a)(1). Second, if the court finds
that the union rule interferes with a right protected under Section 101(a)(1), the court must
].
Chapter 9 Regulating Internal Union Conduct
Labor & Employment Law 80
:
One circuit court judge dissented, stating that Section 101(a)(1) was not intended to
Sadlowski.
11. fair representation, Section 9.2.] The standard that applies to DFR cases is
developed from Vaca v. Sipes. A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions
are (1) arbitrary, (2) discriminatory, and/or (3) in bad faith.
A union does not shed its duty of fair representation by operating a hiring hall