I. INTRODUCTION

The UAW

First, it holds its officers to high ethical standards, higher standards than other unions, or corporations, require of their own.

In 1992 in San Diego, the long-serving chairman of the Public Review Board ("PRB") addressed the convention, the UAW's highest body, reporting recent PRB activities. He observed:

[T]he UAW is the only major labor union in America to entrust the ultimate guardianship of the democratic rights of its members and subordinate bodies to a group of independent outsiders. That is an enormous grant of power which no other organization outside the UAW, to any significant degree, whether in labor or out of labor, has ever tried to do.

...

The ultimate guarantor of democracy in any institution is not the people who run it, but the legal structures which form the foundations upon which the institution is constructed. I think you can be extremely proud of the fact that your institutions are the best in the United States, or perhaps in the world.

Proceedings, 30th constitutional convention (1992), pp 234-37 (report of PRB chairman).

As to corporations, the PRB compared them in one of its early decisions. In 1957 Russell White resigned as president of UAW Local 652 in order to accept an appointment as Michigan's labor commissioner. But then the Michigan Senate rejected the appointment. Brother White said he had the right to go back to his office in the local; the local had never formally accepted his resignation. The International Executive Board ("IEB") said that in fairness and justice resuming the presidency should be allowed. Disagreeing, the PRB pointed to White's public statements to the effect that he had broken ties to the union:

[T]o permit White to take a public posture of severance of Union connections while at the same time privately purporting to continue to hold the office of Local president is inconsistent with the high ethical standards of the Union. We are, of course, cognizant of the pattern that has come to exist in our society of business executives resigning to go into governmental service, and, in so doing, theoretically severing their connections with their former employer, only to return after such service to their old positions.... But we cannot condone a practice simply because it has become conventional through repetition.

Egres, 1 PRB 50, 55, 62 (1959);

see also EP complaint of Trapane, 3 PRB 15, 26 (1980) (PRB imposes no higher standard than the UAW would impose on itself),

Drake v Local 659, 4 PRB 84, 88 (1983) (PRB imposes no higher standard than the UAW would impose on itself),

Alli v UAW, 4 PRB 222, 227-28, 232 (1984) (in charging expenses to the union members should be guided by "informed judgment applying [the constitutional requirements] with an eye to what the UAW is all about"),

Page v Local 961, 6 PRB 288, 294 (1991) (PRB not so naive as to expect that a union election campaign will be conducted on a higher level than a US presidential one),

Gaston-Kelley v DaimlerChrysler Department, PRB Case 1476 II (4/12/05), pp 19-23 (employee-members must be given notice of adverse personnel actions, and a chance to try to convince the decisionmaker to change the decision and to appeal if necessary).

Second, the UAW is united in militancy and solidarity. The constitution points out the authoritarian structure of work and its contradiction to the democratic heritage members have as citizens. The UAW is an industrial union. It bands employees together so their collective strength can get a modicum of bargaining parity and counter the company's might. On a larger scale, the collective strength of all members by whomever employed enhances the power even more.

Preamble (structure of work and authoritarian workplace);

Hess v Local 287, 1 PRB 375, 379 (1966) ("The laws which a union adopts are, like any other laws, binding upon those who comprise its society.... [E]ffective collective efforts depend for their success upon the degree of adherence by all who are involved.... Labor then must have a means of enforcing its laws upon those who would disobey them for, if it cannot, then the sources of its strength are undermined."),

Kizelowicz, 1 PRB 705, 707 (1971) (historically UAW as industrial union has presented one contract for production and skilled together),

Liddell v UAW, 2 PRB 92, 102, 113 (1974) (UAW evolved as an industrial union in auto, pursuant to egalitarian principles that all employees would be part of a single bargaining unit in a single organization),

Poszich v UAW, 2 PRB 125, 135, 146 (1974) (UAW evolved as an industrial union in auto, pursuant to egalitarian principles that all employees would be part of a single bargaining unit in a single organization),

Unit 1, Local 412, 2 PRB 251, 259 (1975) (quoting the IEB asserting the local union is "the unit of structure which is the foundation of mutual assistance in collective bargaining matters and in other activities in which the union engages"),

Hammersmith v GM Department, 6 PRB 439, 443 (1992) (collective strength of all UAW members by whomever employed enhances bargaining power),

Morris v Local 1853, 9 PRB 213, 220 (1996), quoting from Alspach v Local 977, 1 PRB 300 305 (1963) ("trust relationship ... is created when an employee surrenders to a labor union his individual right in dealing with his employer concerning the terms and conditions of his employment.... [T]he very purpose[] for which a labor union exists [is] the protection of the workers who comprise it."),

Quesada v Local 2244, PRB Case 1370 (4/17/02), p 7 (maximization of voter participation, so as to more accurately reflect the preferences of the electorate, is a union responsibility);

compare Franks v UAW, PRB Case 1520 (12/20/05) p 13 ("[A]ssumptions that might be valid about an employee's knowledge of her dues obligation in the context of the automobile industry are not necessarily appropriate in the context of a Casino."),

Pearson v Local 140 PRB Case 1534 (2/15/06), pp 7-8 ("[Barring retirees from representing active members in collective bargaining] is a good rule. Retired members are not as accountable to the current Union membership as active ones. They may be less accessible. They may also be more prone to represent the interests of other retired members instaead of current members. All of these factors may diminish the ability of the Union to react to the changing nature of the work place. They may also expose the Union to legal liability...."),

Fetting v GM Department, CAC Decision (5/26/06), pp 6-8 (historic UAW promises, proclamations, and success in preventing cutbacks on retiree health care benefits cannot be twisted into a requirement that the union disregard economic reality and the long-term best interests of its retired membership, when modification of retiree benefits may be the best hope for restoring economic viability to the company that provides the benefits),

Lapso v Local 1250, PRB Case 1550 (2/20/07) (in decision discussed more fully elsewhere, PRB declines to address argument premised on union's obligation to maximize membership participation).

When a strike is necessary, it is the equivalent of war. Members do not cross each others' picket lines. In cases of great emergency the UAW can even call a general strike.

Article 50 sections 8-9 (in cases of great emergency IEB has power to call a general strike within the industry);

Local 257 v Kellog, 1 PRB 309, 313 (1965) ("A strike in the labor-management field is analogous to a war in international affairs.... A strike is not only an economic weapon; it is also a human situation. People are out of work. Anxiety and apprehension increase as the days pass. Workers' families are daily asking their provider when will they resume work, since some of the children need new clothing or the house requires repairs."),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 343 (1994) (according to PRB, appellants argue compellingly that crossing picket lines, whipsawing, undermining contracts, and interfering in elections violate principles of solidarity regardless of local union jurisdictions).

Third, the union is highly political. The constitution embraces this, uniting employees regardless of affiliation, and encouraging them to participate in civil political life. Inside the union it is the same. A 1993 PRB decision said there was nothing wrong about a local solidarity committee whose genesis lay in discussions with a member of the New Directions Movement, a particular UAW caucus. In other decisions it said political debate is the lifeblood of a democratic institution, even in a one-party union like the UAW, dominated as it is by the Administration Caucus.

Article 2 section 2 (one object of UAW is to "unite in one organization, regardless of ... political affiliation ... all employees under" UAW jurisdiction),

article 41 sections 1-3 (members' duty to "participate in all ... [public] elections through registration and balloting");

Appeal of Piper, 2 PRB 541, 542-43 (1977) (UAW's removal of UAW-appointed local insurance rep, whom the local leadership was out to "hatchet" because of local politics, upheld on theory that UAW investigated carefully and found that even though the problems may have been beyond the rep's control he could no longer function effectively in his job),

Appeal of Kelsey, 4 PRB 46, 47 (1983) ("The UAW is, after all, a highly political institution...."),

Local 148 appealing Powell v Local 148, 8 PRB 129, 130, 138 (1994) ("genesis" of local Solidarity Committee in discussions with member of New Directions political caucus "does not establish that the Solidarity Committee was an adjunct of New Directions"),

Yettaw v Local 599, 6 PRB 236, 241-42 (1992) ("The term 'politics' does not reference traditional partisan political activity, but rather is intended to embrace the spectrum of issues which may be the subject of legitimate debate among union members. [footnote omitted] Such debate is the lifeblood of any democratic institution. Stifle it and that institution will inevitably be crippled or even die."),

Brandt v UAW, 5 PRB 330 (1987), reconsideration denied 5 PRB 337, 342 (1988) (for over 20 years the UAW has been a one-party institution in that the Administration Caucus controls the government),

Downs v UAW, 8 PRB 548, 553 (1995) ("For political issues, there are political processes," being the CAP Councils),

Thielen v Local 72, PRB Case 1479 (10/25/04), pp 11-13 (fact that local president as convener of local press committee is more likely to find fault with articles submitted by critics is simply a fact of political life),

Turner v IEB, PRB Case 1490 (9/2/05), p 17 ("In a context so politically volatile as Local 148, the International Union had some obligation to investigate one faction's argument...."),

Austin v Local 594, PRB Case 1514 (1/24/06), pp 17-19 (drive to recall shop chair is a political process not a punitive one).

On the other hand a decision whether to arbitrate a grievance is not a political question. A shop chair who processes a grievance untimely due to political differences can be brought up on charges before a trial committee. A proved conspiracy to oust a member as chief steward for political reasons would entitle the member to financial damages. Trying to use the PRB itself as a weapon to achieve political goals can get you a summary suspension of membership.

Ruzicka v Local 166, 1 PRB 654, 657 (1971) ("[Appellant] ascribes the motivating influence for this action [processing his grievance untimely] to political differences. Faced with similar allegations, we have heretofore held them subject to trial procedures."),

Dietrich v Local 1313, 1 PRB 773, 776-77 (1972) ("[Appellant] indicates a belief that a conspiracy existed to oust him from his [chief steward] position for political reasons. Were we satisfied that this was the case, we should be willing to entertain the question whether [he should be financially compensated for his improper removal as steward]."),

EP complaint of Tucker, 8 PRB 7, 14 (1992) ("But to attempt to involve and force the PRB to act on the very eve of the UAW's Convention, when our proceedings could only have seriously disrupted scheduled work of the Convention, smacks of an effort by Mr. Tucker to use the PRB as a weapon to achieve his political goals rather than as a forum to consider and dispassionately resolve his claims."),

Soncrant v Local 1889, 9 PRB 538, 541 (1997) (PRB asserts decision whether to arbitrate a grievance is not a political question or a matter of rallying troops to a cause).

Political activity is the lifeblood, but it can also be ugly. In a 1984 appeal the IEB said there was nothing wrong with politics playing a role in a local redistricting procedure. The PRB itself said it was a legitimate political strategem for the UAW to eliminate a region at the 2002 convention because of a surprise result in the election for its director. In a 1994 decision it said forgery of an election protest would be yet another example of a political dirty trick which the Administration Caucus and New Directions Movement are each quite capable of of perpetrating on the other.

Vicola appealing Patrick v Local 653, 4 PRB 108, 117 (1984) (IEB "understands very well that politics may have played a part in deciding the procedure [for reallocation of districts after redistricting; but that] it is neither unusual nor wrong for political considerations to enter into decisions of this nature."),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 344-45 (1994), reconsideration denied (1/10/95) ("This whole dispute is simply yet another manifestation of the ongoing political battle between the proponents of New Directions and the supporters of the Administration Caucus. To be sure, if Neldrett is guilty of the act with which she is charged, her conduct was indeed reprehensible, and she reasonably could be compelled to answer for it. But, viewed from another perspective, even if the allegations against her were proved, it would simply be yet another example of a dirty political trick which each side is quite capable of perpetrating upon the other."),

Davis v UAW, PRB Case 1441 (4/15/03), PP 1-4 ("The Convention's action was a political strategem designed to counter Davis' own political effort to circumvent the Administration Caucus' rule that no one older than 65 may seek election to an International Executive Board office. Nothing in the Ethical Practices Codes prohibits such political maneuvers.").

Ethics, solidarity, politics. A volatile combination. One discerning member summed it up this way:

The union is supposed to protect its members from unfairness, not practice it on each other.

Gaston-Kelley v DaimlerChrysler Department, PRB Case 1476 (9/15/04), record pp 100, 107.

To manage it the union has developed elaborate appeals procedures. It may be they trivialize the union's purpose, especially as they have become more bureaucratic over the years. Or to the contrary perhaps they enliven the democratic traditions of the organization.

I leave that discussion to the members. For the time being, my purpose is to explain and demystify the procedures, which the UAW pledges to apply uniformly, and make them accessible to members generally.

The UAW itself knows well enough how to navigate through the process, as an insightful PRB concurrence noted in 1976. But:

members seldom appear twice before us, although the Union is always a party; and when members appear they and their occasional spokesmen almost always know far less about the PRB and the UAW Constitution than does the union. ... But the Union, at least when it appears before us in an adversary role, has no interest in aiding an appellant to frame his case in such a way as to take maximum advantage of our jurisdiction. And if the burden of sophisticated analysis then falls, as it must, upon individual appellants, it is unlikely to be discharged. I stress, though it should not be necessary to do so, that the Union is in no way to be blamed for this state of affairs.

Badura v Local 93, 2 PRB 173, 187-88 (1976) (concurring opinion).

The UAW education department has pamphlets on grievance-handling, local elections, local trials, political action, and other issues. But there is no practice manual on appeals procedures. A resolution recommending a pamphlet and education on UAW appeals went to the 1995 convention and died.

Constitution committee resolution # 696, 31st constitutional convention (1995);

see also proceedings, 21st constitutional convention (1968), p 87 (report of PRB chairman) (recommending that UAW and PRB jointly engage in educational campaign to make average members more aware of constitutional remedies).

With this manual I hope to fill the gap. The method is to have the UAW speak in its own voice (or that of the PRB); cited sources are practically all UAW documents. Occasionally I add my own opinions. The purpose is to move UAW appellate practice to a higher plane, that disputes be resolved cleanly according to union principles, and that the organization be freed for its primary goals of organizing, bargaining, and political action.

Disclosure

I participated, at one level or another, in some of the cases cited or discussed in this manual. Certainly this affects my opinions.

Webster v Local 51, 2 PRB 856 (1981),

Bier v Local 2500, 5 PRB 805 (1990),

Yettaw v Local 599, 6 PRB 236 (1992),

Grant v Local 163, 6 PRB 472 (1992),

Ware, CAC, session 10/92,

Funti, CAC, session 11/93,

Yettaw v Local 599 I, 8 PRB 28 (1993),

Yettaw v Local 599 II, 8 PRB 31 (1995),

Eastman v Local 1292 I, 8 PRB 49 (1995),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331 (1994) reconsideration denied (1/10/95),

Hale v Local 326, 9 PRB 35 (1995),

Johnson, CAC, session 5/96,

Hoskins, CAC, session 5/96,

Perez, CAC, session 6/96,

Thompson v GM Department, 9 PRB 64 (1996),

Feldman v Local 900, 9 PRB 332 (1997),

Gardner, CAC, session 10/97,

McTaggart, CAC, session 10/97,

Vogen v Local 900 I, 9 PRB 614 (1998),

Vogen v Local 900 II, 9 PRB 624 (2000) reconsideration denied (7/19/00),

Shillings, CAC, session 10/98,

Noall v Local 599, PRB Case 1261 (6/29/99),

Butina appealing Petty v Local 1264, PRB Case 1273 (6/22/00),

Reed v UAW, PRB Case 1290 (1/25/02),

Local 2036 v UAW, PRB Case 1325 (4/26/01),

Karras v Local 653, PRB Case 1332 (3/7/01), reconsideration denied (5/11/01),

Engle in the matter of Ellis v Local 600, PRB Case 1336 (3/16/01),

Colley v Local 235, PRB Case 1342 (8/8/01),

Badalamento v Ford Department, PRB Case 1394 (11/11/02),

Davis v UAW, PRB Case 1441 (4/15/03),

Genshaw v Local 5960, PRB Case 1447 (11/20/03),

Gaston-Kelley v DaimlerChrysler Department, PRB Case 1476 II (4/12/05),

Karras v Local 653, PRB Case 1512 (11/22/05)

Reighard v UAW, PRB Case 1532 (1/24/06),

Fetting v GM Department, CAC Decision (5/26/06),

Reighard v UAW, PRB Case 1532 II (6/27/06),

Lombard v UAW, PRB Case 1525 (11/15/06), reconsideration denied (1/20/07),

Lapso v Local 1250, PRB Case 1550 (2/20/07),

Sorice v Region 1, IEB Decision (8/6/07).

I have also sued the UAW and various of its locals, represented the UAW and various locals, and been joined as amicus by the UAW in non-UAW labor suits.

Workers Unity Slate v Harvey, Eastern District of Michigan Case No 570689 (Feikens, 1975) (represented plaintiffs, UAW Local 140 one defendant),

Chrysler Corporation and Smith, 232 NLRB 466, 96 LRRM 1382 (1977), aff'd 1979 WL 6182, 125 LRRM 3063 (CADC, 1979) (represented Smith, complaint against UAW withdrawn),

Conaway v FAA, Appeal UCF-81-89419, UCF-81-8703 (MESC Board of Review, 1/2/90) (represented claimants, UAW amicus for claimants),

UAW v Michigan Department of Mental Health, AAA Case No 54-39-1371-85 (Lyons, 5/27/86) (represented UAW),

DeDuijtsche v UAW Local 2500, Wayne County Circuit Court Case No 87-721665-NO (Olzark, 1987) (represented Local 2500)

Ryan v General Motors Corp and UAW, 929 F2d 1105, 136 LRRM 2995 (CA6, 1989) (represented Ryan),

Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 115 LRRM 1025 (1984), remanded sub nom Prill v NLRB, 755 F2d 941, 118 LRRM 2649 (CADC, 1985), cert denied sub nom Meyers Industries v NLRB 474 US 971, 120 LRRM 3392 (1985), decision on remand 281 NLRB 882, 123 LRRM 1137 (1986), affirmed 835 F2d 1481, 127 LRRM 2415 (CADC, 1987), cert denied sub nom Meyers Industries v NLRB, 487 US 1205, 128 LRRM 2664 (1988) (represented Prill, UAW amicus for Prill),

UAW Local 594 v UAW, 956 F2d 1330, 139 LRRM 2549 (CA6, 1992) (represented Local 594),

Hoskins v UAW Local 1853, 188 F3d 507, 1999 WL 618074 (CA6, 1999) (represented Hoskins),

Davis v UAW, 390 F3d 908 (CA6, 2004), cert denied 125 SCt 1984 (2005) (represented Davis),

Fowler v UAW, 2006 WL 456012, 2006 Fed.App. 0143N (CA6, 2006) (represented Fowler),

UAW v GM, 2006 WL 891151 (ED Mich, 2006) (represented objector Lopez),

UAW v Ford, 2006 WL 1984363, 39 Employee Benefits Cases 1896 (ED Mich, 2006) (represented objector Lapso).

I am the web steward of Labor Notes, which carries occasional articles about the UAW.

Et Cetera

The tone of this manual is sometimes tentative. In several instances I note uncertainty whether I have the most recent version of a particular UAW document or contract. I ask interested members to contact me and provide updated materials. Being located in remote northern Michigan without an editor, I will depend on help for future updates.

If I state a fact not found in the decision, there should be a citation either to a page of the record or to a UAW document. But a project of this size certainly contains errors, omissions, unclear phrasing, and unfair opinions. You are invited to make suggestions and critiques.

Before the first public release in January 2004, I delivered copies of a draft to the IEB, CAC, and PRB. The cover letter solicited comments or corrections but none came.

Letter, Ellis Boal to CAC, IEB, and PRB, dated 12/10/03, delivered 12/12/03 (enclosing 20 copies of release 0 on floppy disks),

email, Jay Whitman to Ellis Boal, 12/15/03 (acknowledging receipt),

email, Ellis Boal to Jay Whitman, 12/15/03 (offering to provide more floppies, and offering to take any corrections and comments into account before upload).

Corrections should be accompanied by supporting materials in the record of the appeal or some official UAW document. Otherwise, if the IEB, PRB, or CAC as decisionmaker made an incorrect fact-finding, for purposes of this manual we will live with it.

I write for UAW members. The manual does not treat of the relations between the UAW and non-member employees that it represents.

Thanks to Bill Parker, Mike Parker, Ron Reosti, Gregg Shotwell, Jane Slaughter, Wendy Thompson, and Dave Yettaw for encouraging me to write this.

II. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Definitions:

• An "appeal" is a proceeding brought under articles 32 or 33.
• An "agreement" and a "contract" are the same thing.
• "Appellant" and "appellee" are the parties in an appeal.
• "Arbitrator" and "umpire" mean the same thing.
• "Article ___ section ___" refers to an article number and section number of the UAW constitution.
• A "charge" is a proceeding brought under article 31 or rarely, articles 10, 30, 48, or 49.
• The "constitution" is the document which is the supreme law of the UAW and its subordinate bodies. It is regularly amended at UAW conventions.
• "Handbook" means the UAW's Local Union Bargaining & Grievance Representative's Handbook.
• "The international" is a term I don't use in this manual. But customarily it means the UAW.

Article 1.

• A "local" means a local union chartered by the UAW.
• "Pocket guide" means the UAW's Grievance Handlers Pocket Guide.
• The "president" means the international UAW president, currently Ron Gettelfinger.
• The "secretary-treasurer" means the international UAW secretary-treasurer, currently Elizabeth Bunn.

Abbreviations:

• "AC" means Administration Caucus.
• "Ag Imp" means Agricultuarl Implement.
• "CAC" means the Convention Appeals Committee.
• "CAP council" means a community action program council.
• "EP" means "ethical practices," usually as an adjective.
• "EPC" in the singular means the "Democratic Practices" ethical practices code unless one of the three other codes is specified. There are four EPCs. In the plural "EPCs" means the four codes collectively.
• "DOL" means the US department of labor.
• "EEOC" means the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• "FEP" means Fair Employment Practices.
• "HWTC" means honorable withdrawal transfer card.
• "IEB" means the International Executive Board.
• "LEB" means a local executive board.
• "NDM" means New Directions Movement.
• "LMRA" means the Labor Management Relations Act, also often called the "Taft-Hartley act", 29 USC 141 et seq.
• "LMRDA" means the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, also often called the "Landrum-Griffin act," 29 USC 401 et seq.
• "MOU" means a memorandum of understanding, typically between a company and a union.
• "NLRA" means the National Labor Relations Act, also often called the "Wagner act," 29 USC 151 et seq.
• "NLRB" means the National Labor Relations Board.
• "PRB" means the Public Review Board.
• "UAW" unless qualified means the international union, as defined in the constitution, and as distinguished from the locals, and other subordinate bodies and administrative arms.

Article 1.

III. SOURCES

Constitution, bylaws

Thought of as a contract among all members, the UAW constitution is the "supreme law" of the union. It governs the convention itself, even while amending the constitution. Local bylaws may not contradict it. If you are considering an appeal of anything, get a current copy. Last amended at the 2006 convention, it has a blue cover. Printed constitutions are freely available from your local union. There is also one on the UAW website.

Article 3 (constitution is supreme law of UAW and can be amended only by majority vote of delegates at conventions),

article 8 sections 15-16 (amendment procedure);

Schrade v UAW, 3 PRB 370, 376 (1983) (language of constitution, not historical practices of convention, are dispositive),

Shinn v Region 1A, 6 PRB 250, 254 (1991) (constitution supreme law of UAW, though president and IEB may interpret it),

Ford v UAW, PRB Case 1529 (5/8/06), pp 7-8 (local bylaws may not contradict the constitution).

When you get one in hand, start by reading article 33. Then read it again. It is sometimes confusing. But given that appeals stand or fall on it, it is well to get to know it.

If the appeal involves anything that happened within the local union you should also get the local bylaws.

Within a local, initial responsibility for enforcing the constitution lies with the local president. Within the UAW generally, it is the president and IEB.

Article 12 section 6,

article 13 section 8,

article 40 section 1.

Contracts

If the appeal involves the handling of a grievance against the company then you should get a copy of the national and local agreements, or at least those parts that have bearing on your appeal. These would include any shop committee settlements resulting in changes to or modifications of a contract; such settlements must be reported to and made available to the members. So must verbal changes or modifications agreed to by the shop committee; they must be reduced to writing and given to requesting members.

Article 19 section 1 (agreements must be reduced to writing and signed);

Pocket guide, pp 49, 173 (member has right to copy of contract);

Hopkins v Local 730, 1 PRB 469, 474-75 (1969), vacated 1 PRB 477 (1969) (oral agreement of shop committee must be ratified),

Strohmeyer v GM Department, PRB Cases 1434 and 1439 (12/22/03), p 21 (memo which was not signed and has been disavowed by union and company officials is of no force and effect),

Aston v Local 1714, PRB Case 1551 (1/24/07), pp 8-9 (though settlement of equalization-of-overtime grievance under 1999 contract was never put into writing, 2003 contract introduced team concept which favored flexibility and included a transition period, so it was reasonable for union to conclude 2003 contract did not require union to abandon settlement agreement).

My experience is that UAW locals freely give copies of contracts to requesting members covered by them.

For members employed by GM, links to the 1999 agreement, umpire decisions from 1940 to 1990, and other dated interpretive material from the GM department are found elsewhere.

I have the 2003 GM agreement. But my copies of the Ford and Chrysler agreements are dated 1996. I would appreciate receiving 2003 copies from interested members. The UAW has posted the 2003 highlights, but not the 2005 amendments at GM and Ford.

Constitutional changes and retroactivity

If you cite a decision be careful that the constitutional or contractual provision on which it is based has not been amended since the decision.

See for instance Turner, 1 PRB 12 (1958) (trial, notice of hearing, proxy quorum),

Szymczak v Dewyea, 1 PRB 35 (1958) (exhaustion of UAW remedies before a member can sue a fellow member),

Smith, 1 PRB 44 (1958) (composition of appeals committee),

Smith, 1 PRB 66 (1958) (composition of appeals committee),

Gaikowski, 1 PRB 84 (1959) (appeals committee hearing),

Local 685, 1 PRB 122 (1960) (subordinate body),

Kulinski v Rostek, 1 PRB 142 (1960) (trial procedure),

Ellis v Lindy, 1 PRB 154 (1960) (trial and penalty in amalgamated local),

Davis, 1 PRB 214 (1961) (appeal under predecessor of article 31 section 19, of IEB requirement in 1961 that appellants execute non-Communist affidavit as condition of restoration of membership rights suspended in 1953, is to convention because convention rejected appeal of suspension in 1953, despite that election to appeal to PRB was unavailable in 1953 because PRB didn't exist then),

Weissman v Local 122, 1 PRB 336 (1964) (effect of discharge on membership relationship),

Badura v Local 93, 2 PRB 173, 178 (1976) (scope of PRB jurisdiction).

If there has been a constitutional change, sometimes there is a question on its retroactivity.

Proceedings, 24th constitutional convention (1974), pp 224-29 (article 48 section 6, debate on retroactivity of procedure for collecting non-dues money);

Appeal of Atwan, 1 PRB 95, 96 (1960) (suggesting AFL-CIO EPC was not retroactive),

McCreesh v Local 1152, 3 PRB 122, 128 (1981) (PRB jurisdiction of grievance appeals),

Resnick v Local 906, 3 PRB 221, 225-27 (1981) (PRB jurisdiction of grievance appeals).

Presidential interpretations

Article 13 section 8 provides that the president shall decide disputes, controversies, and questions of constitutional interpretation, except for appeals under articles 32 and 33. Appeals from presidential interpretations under article 13 section 8, and all other presidential decisions, go first to the IEB, whose review power is unlimited.

Article 12 section 18;

Reighard v UAW, PRB Case 1532 (1/24/06), p 5 (by its inherent power IEB may overrule, rescind, reverse, or repeal any decision of the president),

Williams v UAW, PRB Case 1540 (8/2/06), p 18 ("Article 13, §8, states that the President shall resolve disputes and controversies which are not addressed by procedures and conditions already outlined in the Constitution. [footnote omitted]")

Where an interpretation under article 13 section 8 goes from there is confusing. What the section says is "to the Convention." But the CAC is a standing committee of the convention empowered to decide appeals for it. There is no appeal from a CAC decision to a convention.

The PRB is not helpful on this point. In its 1989 Taylor decision, it said on the same page:

• "[a]ppeals from Article 13 §8 interpretations may be had only to the Convention Appeals Committee," and
• "the route [is] prescribed by Article 13 §8, that is, to the International Executive Board and then to the Constitutional Convention."

My own view is that a presidential interpretation can be appealed to the IEB and then the CAC.

At any rate a presidential interpretation is of lesser weight than the constitution itself. Article 13 section 8 procedures only apply if the section is specifically invoked and both parties agree to its submission. In a 1996 appeal the PRB said that a presidential ruling under this section arguably should be circulated to the IEB under article 33 section 3(d) review by the full international executive board, the effect being that if no IEB member objects to it within ten days it automatically becomes the decision of the IEB.

Special note to article 33 of 2006 constitution, p 173 (matters appealed to CAC are considered to have been decided by the convention),

Oates v UAW, 1 PRB 170, 172-73 (1961) (no deferral to president under article 13 section 8 when issue comes to him as IEB's agent to receive appeals directed to it),

Ryan v UAW, 1 PRB 186, 189-90 (1961) (presidential interpretation based on disputed facts will not bar review of the facts, appellant not having joined in submission of question to president under article 13 section 8 he has not elected that procedure or waived right of appeal to PRB),

Weissman v Local 122, 1 PRB 336 (1964) (presidential interpretation ratified by IEB in 1951 does not rise to level of constitutional provision, and cannot substantively change or add to the constitution),

Payne v Local 453, 1 PRB 580, 582 n 1, 583 n 3 (1970) (decision of nine-member committee became decision of IEB after ten days unless IEB member objected),

Lain v UAW, 1 PRB 482, 483-84 (1968) (article 13 section 8 procedures are not actually invoked unless a specific request is made for a determination thereunder and unless both parties to the dispute agree to the submission),

Balicki v Local 47, 2 PRB 931, 935-36 (1981) (in order for article 13 section 8 procedures to be invoked there must be a specific request by a member for a constitutional interpretation),

Schrade v UAW, 3 PRB 370, 377 n 11 (1983) (though article 13 section 8 might control appeal, no party having raised the issue the PRB will not consider it),

Vicola appealing Patrick v Local 653, 4 PRB 108, 112 (1984) (primary but not exclusive authority for interpreting the constitution is the president, the IEB, and convention; PRB will overturn interpretations of the president and IEB only in the event of "clear error"),

King v Local 600, 5 PRB 265, 268 (1986) (appellant proceeded under article 13 section 8 so there is no PRB jurisdiction),

Taylor appealing Russell v Local 25, 5 PRB 680, 688-91 (1989) (limitation of article 33 section 2(a) replicates that of article 13 section 8 and defeats jurisdiction of PRB even though appeal was not decided under article 13 section 8, since to decide appeal PRB must affirm or overrule an official 1959 constitutional interpretation),

Sabin v Local 599, 5 PRB 566, 570 (1988) (unless a member requests it president may not defeat PRB jurisdiction by declaring interpretation to arise under article 13 section 8),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 343-45 (1994) (exception in article 8 section 13 allows PRB to review constitutional interpretations of president made during an appeal, but PRB will accord a presidential interpretation great weight),

Thompson v GM Department, 9 PRB 64, 73-74, 78 n 17 (1996) (part of appeal which was decided under article 13 section 8 arguably should have been circulated to IEB members, and PRB recommends to president to grant extension of time now to appeal president's ruling to IEB),

Reighard v UAW, PRB Case 1532 II (6/27/06), p 7 n 18 (article 13 section 8 inapplicable because there was no request for a constitutional interpretation and no need for one because the requirements are so clear),

Williams v UAW, PRB Case 1540 (8/2/06), pp 18-19 (president may not invoke his powers under article 13 section 8 without the consent of the appellant as a means of defeating PRB jurisdiction);

letter, Jay Whitman to Ellis Boal, 10/14/97 (where an appeal is underway article 8 section 13 leaves constitutional interpretation to the tribunal).

In one remarkable appeal, the PRB upheld a presidential interpretation that relied on specific language in the constitution and in the convention debates, even though it agreed that on close reading neither the constitutional language nor the debates actually supported the president. The PRB majority explained the ruling, saying the point was it was being sensitive to the "spirit" as well as the language of article 13 section 8.

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 341, 343-44 (1994).

IEB interpretations get even more deference than presidential interpretations.

PRB decisions

Throughout this manual are citations to PRB decisions, always listed in order of PRB case number.

I use two formats for citing PRB decisions. First, decisions through #1200 in mid-1998 have been bound into eight volumes. There are also two index volumes. Actually, the eight are numbered 1-6 and 8-9 in roman numerals; I think they just forgot about 7.

I cite decisions in bound volumes by volume number, page number, year, and sometimes page number of a particular passage within the decision. For example Moran v Agricultural Implement Department, 6 PRB 303 (1992) is a decision at page 303 in volume 6, and Brandt v International Union, 5 PRB 337, 348 n 15 (1988) is a case in volume 5 beginning on page 337, with a cited passage on page 348 footnote 15.

Starting with # 1201, I cite PRB decisions by number, date, date of reconsideration if any, and page number, such as Warner v Local 599, PRB Case 1291 (4/25/00), reconsideration denied (6/14/00), or Taylor v Local 1853, PRB Case 1202 (8/15/01), p 11.

For reasons I don't understand, the union lists some case names in a non-adversarial manner, that is, with only one party in the caption rather than two.

My citations use a personal shorthand. If there are two or more parties one one side of a case caption I list only the first. Sometimes I abbreviate the names of union entities. But the numbered parts of citations should be correct.

Compare Genshaw v Local 5960, PRB Case 1447 (11/20/03), p 6 n 11 (correcting caption as styled by IEB).

Copies of decisions issued through the end of 2003 (# 1455) are available to members at no cost from the president's office and from the PRB's office. Until then, the PRB published all decisions to various public libraries, so members could do research there. I contacted the PRB and the president's office in 2002 about getting a list of the libraries for listing in this manual. The PRB referred me to the UAW, which did not respond. Anyway, in 2004 the PRB started a website and began publishing decisions online. You can also download them here. The first is # 1456.

PRB rules of procedure series 17, rule 8 (10/1/03) (PRB decisions are sent to various libraries, media, and subscribers),

PRB rules of procedure series 18, rule 8 (7/1/04) (PRB decisions are posted on its website sixty days after issuance, unless prior written objection is received from any party),

email, Ellis Boal to prb@htdconnect.com, 12/10/01 (requesting list of public libraries to which PRB decisions are sent),

letter, David Klein to Ellis Boal, 2/22/02 (referring request to the UAW),

letter, Ellis Boal to Dottie Jones, 3/1/02 (repeating request to UAW).

Convention debates

Sometimes PRB decisions cite convention debates or IEB debates. Or you might wish to refer to them yourself in making an argument in an appeal.

Oates v UAW, 1 PRB 170, 172 (1961), second decision 1 PRB 174 (1962), third decision 1 PRB 178 (1962) (predecessor to article 33 section 3(d)),

Davis, 1 PRB 214, 217-18 (1961) (predecessor to article 31 section 19),

Dimeo v Local 72, 1 PRB 459, 462-63 (1968) (LEB members-at-large not executive officers),

Bridgewood v Local 707, 1 PRB 533, 537 (1969) (predecessor to article 10 section 7),

Appeal of Collins, 1 PRB 694, 698 (1971) (strike benefit rules),

Liddell v UAW, 2 PRB 92, 102, 104, 106 (1974) (skilled trades separate ratification rights),

Poszich v UAW, 2 PRB 125, 135, 137, 139 (1974) (skilled trades separate ratification rights),

Unit 1, Local 412, 2 PRB 251, 261-62 (1975) (predecessor to article 33 section 3(f)),

Stevens v Local 595, 2 PRB 493, 498 (1976) (out-of-work credits),

Schrade v UAW, 3 PRB 370, 373-78 (1983) (reaffiliation with AFL-CIO),

Taylor appealing Russell v Local 25, 5 PRB 680, 684, 689-90 (1989) (voting rights of members of defunct units in amalgamated locals),

Yettaw v Local 599 II, 8 PRB 31, 38-40, 42-43 (1995) (vote margin necessary to suspend local bylaws, delegates' travel expenses to convention),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 341 (1994) (standing of member of one local to charge member of another local),

Thompson v GM Department, 9 PRB 64, 69-71 (1996) (article 33 section 2(b)),

Lescoe v Local 900, PRB Case 1296 (11/29/00) p 9 (article 6 section 4 dating membership retroactively to first day of month in which member joined);

but see McKenzie v UAW, 4 PRB 73, 76 (1984) (though time limitations of article 33 section 4(b) date from time of appellant's knowledge of action appealed, date of knowledge of non-appellants control in this appeal, based on apparent intent of convention, which PRB determines without reference to convention debates).

UAW debates are sometimes difficult to come by, but in the past I have found the Wayne State University's Walter Reuther Library helpful for doing research.

CAC and IEB decisions

I cite few CAC or IEB decisions. IEB decisions are not published or summarized anywhere, that I know of. CAC decisions are summarized in the CAC report at each convention. I have the reports only at the conventions of 1995, 1998, 2002, and 2006. I have no actual decisions except the few in which I participated. Without success, I have asked the CAC to mail me copies of its decisions and reports.

Letter, Ellis Boal to Stan Geis, 9/26/97 (requesting and offering payment to be on CAC mailing list for decisions and convention reports),

letter, Jay Whitman to Ellis Boal, 10/14/97 (responding to other parts of 9/26/97 letter).

The summaries are not always clear as to which party is the appellee. Also the summaries do not show the date of each decision. They show the dates of the CAC session -- they last 2-3 days -- at which the CAC heard the appeal. Accordingly, my format for CAC decisions lists only the appellant's name, and the first date of the session. Appeal descriptions are taken from the summaries, not actual decisions.

Union past practices

Past practices are of two types, those of the company and those of the union. This section is about union past practices. Company past practices relied on in the grievance procedure are discussed elsewhere, but the PRB analyzes the two types the same way. With a couple of exceptions, the rule is that practices may help to understand or interpret language, but the PRB will adhere to specific rules set out in in the constitution or bylaws, even in the face of longstanding contrary practices.

Wright v Local 501, 1 PRB 78, 80-81 (1959) ("The specific provisions of [the local] bylaws may not be simply disregarded by an organization which functions democratically on the ground that changed circumstances have made the provisions unsuitable. The democratic process is to be used in keeping pace with new conditions. (Footnote: We note the bylaws were revised in 1956.) The usurpation by the few of the right possessed by the many on the ground that it was inconvenient or difficult to refrain from doing so cannot be condoned by this panel."),

Beach v Local 653, 1 PRB 502, 505 (1969) (if local decides to change its practice and insist on literal adherence to a contractual provision it must first announce the change and then enforce the policy rather than the reverse),

Schrade v UAW, 3 PRB 370, 376 (1983) (PRB looks to the language of the constitution in rejecting appeal which challenged decision to reaffiliate UAW with AFL-CIO, made by IEB after advisory votes in regional conventions, rather than made by convention vote, despite historical UAW practice of deciding affiliations by convention votes),

Sanders v Local 685, 8 PRB 257 261 n 2 (1994) (if local practice is to notify members of the date of consideration of their appeals, then the notices should be sent sufficiently in advance to the member actually receives it before the meeting),

Pearson v UAW, PRB Case 1264 (6/10/99), p 22, reconsideration denied (10/28/99) (in light of past practice in this and other locals, ex post facto interpretation of local bylaw regarding compensation of president offends EPC),

Gaston-Kelley v DaimlerChrysler Department, PRB Case 1476 (9/15/04), p 11 (in ordering re-investigation by IEB, PRB notes appellant's removal as local health and safety rep was contrary to settled practice, contrary to assurances of union official on which she relied, and contrary to union policy that frowned on using local politics as a basis for changing reps),

Gaston-Kelley v DaimlerChrysler Department, PRB Case 1476 II (4/12/05), pp 17, 22 (had local president requested appellant's removal as appointee of DaimlerChrysler department, the established past practice, the promise made to her at the time of her appointment, and the EPC guarantee of uniform treatment might well have constrained the department director's discretion to remove her),

Ford v UAW, PRB Case 1529 (5/8/06), Pp 6, 7-8 (despite 30-year history that delegate allocation worked well in amalgamated local, unambiguous language in the constitution requires that every autonomous unit have at least two delegates to the joint council),

but see Oates v UAW, 1 PRB 170 (1961), second decision 1 PRB 174, 176-77 (1962), third decision 1 PRB 178 (1962) (IEB's literal interpretation of timeliness provision not in keeping with fair play),

Valdez v Local 31, 9 PRB 298, 301-02 (1996) (PRB decisions over the years saying officers and agents are not answerable to charges arising out of discharge of official responsibilities may be wrong in light of article 31 section 9; on the other hand article 31 section 9 may be a relic overlooked by constitutional drafters in 1962),

Lescoe v Local 900, PRB Case 1296 (11/29/00), pp 8-10 (despite constitutional provisions indicating membership status begins on the date of local approval of a worker's application to join union, "we are convinced by the Union's long history of making membership retroactive to the first day of the month in which an individual applies, pays dues or signs a check-off authorization" that membership begins on the first day of the month of the application).

Union past practices specifically involving the IEB are discussed elsewhere.

Pamphlets, administrative letters, Solidarity

The UAW Education Department has a variety of publications for local unions. These are official expressions of UAW policy and members may rely on them. Below I list the most recent editions of the publications I have and their dates. I would appreciate hearing from a member with other or later editions of the same publications.

Local Union Bargaining & Grievance Representative's Handbook, August 1996 (the "handbook"),

Local Union Bargaining & Grievance Representative's Workbook, August 1990,

Local Union Bargaining & Grievance Representative's Answer Book, January 1991,

Grievance Handlers Pocket Guide (undated; the most recent dated document in the most recent version of the pocket guide I have is an administrative letter of 11/2/98.), $1.50,

UAW Local Union Civil Rights Committee Policy and Procedures Guidebook (undated; the most recent dated document in the edition I have is the 1992 version of article 2 section 2.),

Guide for Local Union Bylaws, July 2002,

Local Union Trials, April 1994,

Guide for Local Union Elections, April 1998, $1 (the "election guide"),

10 Points for Meetings, February 1998 (basic parliamentary procedure),

The Meeting Will come to Order, Simplified Guidelines to Parliamentary Procedure, April 1994.

The President's Job, January 1989,

The Local Union Financial Officers, January 1989,

The Local Union Recording Secretary, January 1989,

Local Union Standing Committees and How They Work, September 1998,

Accepting the Challenge, Leadership Skills, January 1989.

In particular, one recent PRB decision makes reference to a booklet I do not have, the UAW Grievance Handler's Handbook. I would appreciate a member providing me with a copy of the current version.

Taylor v Local 1853, PRB Case 1202 (8/15/01), p 11.

Since 1948 the UAW has also published periodic dated and numbered administrative letters to the local unions. I have some but do not receive them regularly. I assume the president's office collects and keeps them in researchable form for interested members. Occasionally the PRB relies on them as authoritative.

Weissman v Local 122, 1 PRB 336, 338 (1964) (presidential interpretation lacks authority of constitutional provision),

Liddell v UAW, 2 PRB 92, 117-18 (1974) (explanation of precedent regarding contract ratification),

Poszich v UAW, 2 PRB 125, 140-41 (1974) (explanation of precedent regarding contract ratification),

Stevens v Local 595, 2 PRB 493, 499 (1976) (presidential interpretation published in administrative letter lacks authority of constitutional provision),

Ramey v Local 652, 3 PRB 393, 396 (1983) (slate voting),

Brandt v UAW, on reconsideration 5 PRB 337, 343 (1988) (administrative letters are used to announce important policy determinations),

Taylor appealing Russell v Local 25, 5 PRB 680, 688-91 (1989) (eligibility of laid-off and retired members in closed unit of amalgamated local to vote for officers),

McKenzie v UAW, 8 PRB 108, 114 (1993) (IEB can change its mind but administrative letters must be uniformly applied),

Austin v Local 594, PRB Case 1270 (8/31/99) (administrative letters are the device by which matters of union policy are normally communicated to subordinate bodies).

The UAW also publishes a magazine for members, Solidarity, to educate them and acquaint them with UAW activities. The magazine is under the supervision of a committee of three IEB members, which is itself responsible to the IEB. It is mailed to all members, and is also online. I recommend that members read it regularly, though not being a member myself, I do not.

Article 29 sections 1-6;

but see Liddell v UAW, 2 PRB 92, 105 (1974) (dissent) (Solidarity responsible for impression of skilled-trades members that they had a right of separate ratification),

Poszich v UAW, 2 PRB 125, 148 (1974) (dissent) (Solidarity responsible for impression of skilled-trades members that they had a right of separate ratification).

Websites

The UAW and PRB each have a website. The UAW's is http://uaw.org . It has several important features, including Solidarity magazine, news about unions and strikes, highlights of the major auto contracts, summaries of UAW procedures and protocols, a list of the locals with their own websites, a list of UAW-made products, and the text of the LMRDA. Recently the constitution was added.

Unfortunately there are no databases of contracts, umpire decisions, administrative letters, or CAC decisions. The grievance-handlers' guide, and the guide for local union election committees are not posted. That is unfortunate. They are useful documents. When I emailed the web steward in 1996 to ask why the constitution was not there she answered

C'mon Ellis, lighten up. This is a site to promote some basic unionism and get news out fast. I'm sure that you and other lawyers (and anyone who goes to a convention) can get your hand on the constitution and PRB decisions.

Email, Nancy Brigham to Ellis Boal, 5/7/96.

Nine years later a constitution was posted.

The PRB now has its own site, http://www.uawpublicreviewboard.org, on which decisions beginning in 2004 are posted in numerical order. They start with # 1456. The site is an improvement from the old system of mailing copies of new decisions only to the parties and to inquiring observers like myself. Now everyone has automatic and immediate access. Soon presumably the site will add decision summaries so members can research topics without having to read every case.

Announcement, PRB director Barbara Klein, 5/10/04.

The Walter Reuther Library in Detroit has a site at http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/ with official and semi-official UAW archival material, such as the transcripts of old convention debates and caucus literature.

Other websites of interest to UAW members are mentioned occasionally in this manual, but these three are the only official UAW sites.

Clarity

There are sometimes problems reading UAW documents. For example:

• Since 1992, article 33 section 4(h) of the constitution has begun with this sentence:

Hearings, when held, shall be such as, in the discretion of the tribunal, and shall bring to light all the facts and issues involved.

• The 1989 constitution had so many printing errors it was reprinted in 1990.

Letter, David Klein to Ellis Boal, 9/8/95 (highlighting article 33 section 3(d), article 10 section 20).

• Article 37 section 3 says local bylaw changes don't become effective until submitted to the IEB for ratification, except for those enacted pursuant to section 5. But section 5 reverses the exception; it requires specific bylaws concerning non-attendance at meetings by elected officials, and it says bylaws on that subject do not become effective until submitted to and approved by the IEB.
• Since 1983, article 32 section 7 has allowed the PRB to assess a non-monetary penalty against a frivolous EPC claimant

  limited to suspension from membership for a period of not less than three (3) months.

• In 1964 the PRB said interpretation 4 of article 17 section 2, issued originally in 1951, is not a mere guideline but changes or adds to the constitution. Yet the interpretation appeared substantially unchanged until the 2006 constitution.
• In a 1996 decision the PRB noticed a contradiction between article 31 section 9 and a long line of its own decisions saying local officers are not answerable under article 31 for charges of dereliction of duty. It recommended that delegates at a future convention resolve the problem, but they haven't.
• In a 1992 appeal, the Local 51 bylaws were so obscure that the PRB recommended the local retain an instructor in English composition. By the time of another appeal in 2001 the local had not.

Campbell appealing Cox v Local 51, 6 PRB 335, 343 (1992),

Nardicchio v UAW, PRB Case 1314 (3/20/01) p 9;

compare Lefebvre v Local 1163, 4 PRB 361, 363 (1985) (PRB conducts its affairs in English).

• In 1996 the PRB could not agree within itself whether the second-to-last paragraph of article 33 section 2(b) was comprehensible.
• The 1996 handbook recommends that at the beginning of contract negotiations local bargainers demand data from the company concerning "[n]ew order backlogs -- current and year end for 1982-84."
• Referring to the provisions regarding dues obligations of discharged members the PRB said in 2005:

We question whether a set of consistent rules regarding the obligations of discharged members can actually be gleaned from these provisions, but in any event, it is clear that an understanding of these provisions cannot be imputed to individual members.

Karras v Local 653, PRB Case 1512 (11/22/05), p 12.

• A dissent in a 2006 appeal noted that article 35 section 3(a) is "inherently in conflict" in guaranteeing proportional representation among delegates to joint councils in amalgamated locals, and also guaranteeing that small autonomous units including single-member units will have two delegates.

Ford v UAW, PRB Case 1529 (5/8/06), pp 8-9 (dissent).

What if a situation arises which convention delegates did not consider when drafting the constitution? May provisions be applied which the delegates would have adopted had the situation occurred to them?

In a 1978 decision the PRB said no: "[I]t may be ... that the issue [appeal of the procedures leading to an acquittal of a member on charges] was never considered by the framers ... [but] we are bound by what the Constitution actually provides and not by what we might think it ought to provide."

But in a 1984 ratification appeal it said time limits barred the appeal even of an appellant who hadn't been hired yet and had no way of promptly knowing of the action he was now appealing. Compare article 33 section 4(b) which sets the time limits. It speaks of the time that the "appellant" first becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the appealed matter. But the PRB reasoned that starting the limitations period running at the time of knowledge of a non-appellant local rep was the "apparent" intent of the convention. It cited no convention debates, or IEB or presidential interpretation, to show how this intent was apparent from the word "appellant." I believe in 1984 it did what it said it would not do in 1978.

Laughery v Local 72, 2 PRB 717, 721-23 (1978), reconsidered 2 PRB 724 (1980) (PRB is bound by what constitution actually provides not by what PRB thinks it ought to provide; it may be that article 31 section 11 bars an appeal from a judgment of acquittal under any conceivable circumstances, but charging member can appeal procedure by which verdict of acquittal was reached);

Schrade v UAW, 3 PRB 370, 376 (1983) (historical convention events are not dispositive, PRB must look to the language of the constitution to decide appeal),

McKenzie v UAW, 4 PRB 73, 76 (1984) (apparent intent of convention was to bar appeals by members who were not yet members at time of challenged action);

see also Pfeiffer v Local 556, 1 PRB 485, 489 (1968) (PRB rejects interpretation of word "appellant" to refer to status of party when he or she was before the IEB, though that may have been intent of drafters of article 33, because holding would be strained in light of other language),

Tencza, 1 PRB 497, 501 (1968) (PRB orders local to enact bylaw mandated by predecessor of article 37 section 5),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 341, 343-45 (1994) (PRB must be sensitive to the spirit as well as the language of consatitution).

Most of the time common words have their customary meanings.

Smith, 1 PRB 44, 47-48 (1958) ("shall"),

Oates v UAW, 1 PRB 170, 173 (1961), later decision 1 PRB 174 (1962), still later decision 1 PRB 178 (1962) ("shall"),

Schrade v UAW, 3 PRB 370, 378 n 14 (1983) ("such"),

Wright v Local 1069, 5 PRB 775, 789 (1990) ("and/or"),

Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 340 (1994) ("must");

but see Hess v Local 287, 1 PRB 375, 378-79 (1966) (the term "any" employer excludes certain employers),

Testerman v Chrysler Department, 9 PRB 151, 164 n 11 (1996) (in context, word "may" is mandatory),

Davis v UAW, PRB Case 1441 (4/15/03), letter, Ron Gettelfinger to PRB, 1/16/03, pp 21-22 ("must" is not mandatory),

Shotwell v GM Department, PRB Case 1504 (11/29/05), p 21 ("ratification" may precede negotiation);

but see Berryman v Skilled Trades Department, PRB Case 1236 (12/11/98), p 10 ("similar" trades are not necessarily "related" trades).

Under ordinary contract principles, ambiguities in a contract are construed against the drafter. In interpreting collective bargaining agreements for instance, if an arbitrator has no other way of determining the intent of a document, he or she resolves doubts against the party that proposed the language during bargaining.

Elkouri and Elkouri: How Arbitration Works, Fourth Edition (BNA, 1985), pp 362-63.

Should ambiguous provisions in the UAW constitution therefore be construed against the UAW or its locals in appeals by members, particularly members who were not delegates to the conventions which adopted the language?

The PRB and CAC have not addressed this particularly, but the answer would seem to be no, on the theory that the constitution was drafted by all the members:

Appellants are members of a voluntary, unincorporated association, the UAW, which is governed by a Constitution that is the product of the membership's own choices and determinations. The Constitution is, in effect, a mutually agreed upon charter decreeing the nature of the relationship of member to member, and member to organization.

Ponce v Local 492, 8 PRB 449, 453 (1994);

see also Hess v Local 287, 1 PRB 375, 379 (1966) ("The laws which a union adopts are, like any other laws, binding upon those who comprise its society.... [E]ffective collective efforts depend for their success upon the degree of adherence by all who are involved.");

Local 257 v Kellog, 1 PRB 309, 311 (1965) (a "contractual" relationship),

Liddell v UAW, 2 PRB 92, 111 (1974) (dissent) ("contract"),

Poszich v UAW, 2 PRB 125, 144 (1974) (dissent) ("contract"),

Shinn v Region 1A, 6 PRB 250, 253 (1991) ("contract"),

Hammersmith v GM Department, 6 PRB 439, 442 (1992) ("charter").

Finally, sometimes to discern the meaning of a document you must consider what it does not say as well as what it does say.

So even if it is difficult, try to make the best sense you can out of UAW documents you have to deal with. As these decisions say, governing documents are thought of as a contract among the union and its members.

Procedural advice

At any rate a source for procedural advice about appeals is the president's office and the PRB. I have always found both to be helpful.

Letter, Jay Whitman to Ellis Boal, 10/14/97 (excepting when appeal is underway, advice about procedural and substantive constitutional issues is available to members from the president's office, but whether and how to advise is in president's discretion),

PRB 48th annual report (2005), p 5 (online version) (procedural advice available from PRB via phone, fax, letter, or email);

Edwards v Local 148, PRB Case 1468 (6/22/04), p 13 (request for advice to president from local president, and response from president's administrative assistant, were not unbecoming conduct).

Finally, it should be noted that UAW sources are not always terrific. Ronald Woods was a member of Local 862 working in production at a Ford assembly plant in Louisville. In 1992 he asked the skilled trades committee chair about getting into industrial truck repair, a skilled trade. He already had the skills for an automotive mechanic card. The local agreement had the automotive mechanic classification and paid it a skilled wage, the chairman told him. The UAW then issued him an automotive mechanic journeyperson card. So he dropped his pursuit of an industrial truck repair position, and awaited a vacancy in his new trade.

One came up in 1999. The company awarded the job to a senior member who had no card (though the union quickly got him one). Brother Woods grieved, but the union dropped it. Officials explained that automotive mechanic was not a recognized skilled trades position, and the skilled pay rate was "in the nature of a gift."

Woods then applied for and got the industrial truck repair position based on the same skills he had seven years earlier in 1992. Given the contract language he did not protest dropping the grievance. But he appealed the advice to get the worthless automotive mechanic card, which caused him to forego $3.35/hour for several years. He argued

Union representatives should be educated and informed well enough to provide guidance to their members. The Union should be held accountable for the policies it administers. These policies affect people's lives.

The UAW defended the appeal in two sentences:

In his appeal to the Public Review Board, appellant has not asserted that hostility, discrimination, or bad faith on the part of the International Representative affected the handling of his grievance. Therefore the appeal should be denied.

That convinced the PRB. It added:

We must say it appears that Woods has been the recipient of some very bad advice. It is hard for us to understand why, when he expressed an interest in acquiring the skills of a journeymen, his Union officials would have recommended that he enter a dead-end classification that is not even recognized as a skilled trade in the UAW/Ford National Agreement. That said, there is no provision in the UAW Constitution requiring competence on the part of those seeking or holding positions that involve the dispensation of advice. The Union does, however, regularly conduct educational seminars at its Black Lake, Michigan, [family education center] and it actively encourages its Local Unions to take advantage of these education programs for their elected and appointed officials. This is probably the most the Union can reasonably do to prevent the unfortunate circumstance that resulted in Woods receiving the erroneous advice that had a substantial negative effect on his career.

Woods v Local 862, PRB Case 1361 (11/29/01), p 5;

see also Karras v Local 653, PRB Case 1512 (11/22/05), pp 12-13 (erroneous advice regarding dues obligations of discharged member given by local president and financial secretary),

Shotwell v GM Department, PRB Case 1504 (11/29/05), p 17 (local president erroneously advised membership that appellant did not need approval of membership for EPC claim against UAW),

compare Franks v UAW, PRB Case 1520 (12/20/05) pp 13-14 (in context of confusion in 2001 on all sides about dues in newly organized unit, when member asked in 2003 whether she owed dues for 2001 and was told no, this disposes of issue whether she was ineligible to run in 2004 election due to dues delinquncy in 2001).

Courts and NLRB

The occasional court decisions and NLRB decisions I cite are available from a number of on-line sources.

See http://guide.biz.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html (supreme court decisions),

http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/10fedgov/judicial/appeals_courts.html (courts of appeals decisions),

http://www.nlrb.gov/ (NLRB decisions).

Academic writing

There is abundant academic writing about the Public Review Board.

Walter Reuther, The Public Review Board -- Why, What, How in A More Perfect Union, UAW Publication # 100P (1947),

Jack Steiber, Walter Oberer, Michael Harrington, An Analysis of the UAW Public Review Board, in Democracy and Public Review, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Box 4068, Santa Barbara, CA (1960),

Jerome Brooks, Impartial Public Review of Internal Union Disputes: Experiment in Democratic Self Discipline, in Ohio State Law Journal, volume 22 # 1 (winter, 1961),

David Klein, UAW Public Review Board Report, in Rutgers Law Review, volume 18 # 2 (winter 1964),

David Klein, AFT's New Public Review Board: Lessons from Another Union, in Changing Education, Journal of the AFT, 716 N Rush Street, Chicago, IL, 60611,

David Klein, Enforcement of the Right to Fair Representation: Alternative Forums, in The Duty of Fair Representation, Jean McKelvey editor, ILR Publications Division, NY State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853 (1977),

David Klein, Exhaustion of Internal Union Remedies after Clayton and Bowen, in The Changing Law of Fair Representation, Jean McKelvey editor, ILR Publications Division, NY State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853,

Leonard Page and Dan Sherrick, The NLRB's Deferral Policy and Union Reform: A Union Perspective, 24 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 647 (1991),

Paul Alan Levy, Deferral To The Intra-Union Appellate Process: A Response, Public Citizen (undated),

Mike Parker, Appealing for Democracy, New Labor Forum (Fall 1998).

Of the foregoing I have read only the sixth one and the last one, and I am unclear on some citations. I would appreciate receiving copies from a member that has the other articles. Additionally, certain libraries contain files of closed PRB appeals. I have not reviewed them.

McCulloch papers, 1971-87, University of Virginia Law Library,

McKelvey files, 1957-1980, Kheel Center, Cornell University Library,

PRB files, 1957-1988, Reuther Archives, Wayne State University.

IV. Internal law / external law

Internal / external

There are two types of "law" to consider regarding the UAW: internal and external. Internal law comprises the constitution, interpretations by the IEB and president, appellate decisions of the IEB, PRB, and CAC, administrative letters, past practices, and all the utterances and traditions which govern UAW organization, authority, administration, and conduct.

Davis v UAW, PRB Case 1441 (4/15/03), letter, Ron Gettelfinger to PRB, 1/16/03, pp 1-2 ("The structure and governance of the UAW itself ... are questions of private law.").

The font of all this is the constitution, the "supreme law" of the UAW. In most cases UAW locals, officers, and reps agree with internal laws, and even if they don't they try to follow them.

Article 3 ("This Constitution ... shall be the supreme law of [the UAW]."),

article 6 section 14 ("All members of the Local Union are also members of this International Union and subject to the orders, rulings and decisions of this International Union and the properly constituted authorities of the same.")

External law is the law of society, determined by acts of Congress and state legislatures, by decisions of courts, and by social practices. Regarding the UAW, the most important external laws are the NLRA, LMRA, LMRDA, and the various state and federal employment laws regarding discrimination, injuries, health, safety, unemployment, insurance, and the like. This manual does not discuss external law much.

Talk of "law" and "legality" in the UAW is appropriate when the reference is to internal law.

Peterson v UAW, 1 PRB 508, 510 (1969) ("legality" of ratification procedures),

Bolling v Local 306, 2 PRB 24, 29 (1973) ("legal conclusions to be drawn" by PRB),

Liddell v UAW, 2 PRB 92, 117 (1974) (dissent) ("litigated"),

Poszich v UAW, 2 PRB 125, 150 (1974) (dissent) ("litigated"),

Witt v Local 1111, 6 PRB 18, 23 (1990) (grievance procedures as "legalities"),

Ahmad v Region 3, PRB Case 1309 (8/31/00), p 6 ("no legal basis for pursuing his grievance"),

Novicenskie v Local 1069, PRB Case 1326 (2/22/01), p 7 ("That is all that Union law requires."),

Baxter v Local 659, PRB Case 1357, p 6 (10/12/01) ("legal status" of challenger).

But internal and external law sometimes conflict, as well they should. Thus the preamble of the UAW constitution asserts without qualification:

The structure of work established by management is designed to make of the workers an adjunct to the tool rather than its master. This, coupled with the authoritarian climate of the workplace, robs the worker of her/his dignity as an adult human being. This belies the democratic heritage we cherish as citizens in a society rooted in democratic values.

Preamble, paragraph 4.

Or as the PRB explained to a GM member:

The charter [among UAW trade unionists] bands together GM's hourly employees so that their collective strength can establish a modicum of bargaining parity to counter GM's might. On a larger scale, the collective strength of all UAW members by whomever employed, further enhances that bargaining power.

Hammersmith v GM Department, 6 PRB 439, 443 (1992),

see also Douglas v UAW, 8 PRB 331, 335, 343 (1994).

Again, as described elsewhere, PRB decisions have given different treatment to members accused of ratting, according to whether they ratted to management or the police.

To counter management, the UAW represents its members and institutionalizes militant collective action. The constitution goes so far that, when the union and its members are threatened in cases of great emergency, the UAW can call "a general strike within the industry."

Article 6 sections 15-16 (members delegate UAW and locals to act as exclusive bargaining representative and to appear for them in court in matters related to employee or membership status),

article 50 section 8 (general strike);

Pfeiffer v Local 556, 1 PRB 485, 491 (1968) (when union ceases to fulfill representation function its reason for existence also ceases);

but see Davidson v Local 1282, CAC, session 1/81 (CAC declines an opinion on propriety of a possible future sympathy strike by a local unit),

Butina appealing Petty v Local 1264, PRB Case 1273 (6/22/00), p 6 (local bylaws give the shop committee no grieving, bargaining, or redistricting duties, and make no mention of bargaining, grievances, labor disputes, or strikes).

External law provides for nothing of the sort. Employers and anti-union people help to enact and administer it. If the UAW called a general strike it would be enjoined on the spot.

But see Memos, Ellis Boal to Labor/Community/Religious Coalition in Support of the Striking Detroit Newspaper Workers,

Legal Notions Concerning Proposed General Strike (9/21/95),

Government By Injunction (12/3/95),

Update On Sympathy Strikes (12/13/95).

True, some external laws provide for protection for employees. But uninterrupted production is the overriding policy. In the courts, rights "are protected not for their own sake but as an instrument of the national labor policy of minimizing industrial strife" by encouraging collective bargaining.

Emporium Capwell Co v WACO, 420 US 50, 62, 88 LRRM 2660, 2665 (1975).

In appeals, external law is only relevant if re-enacted by the union as internal law, or recognized by the union as applicable to internal law. For instance the PRB said in a 2000 decision that the election guide incorporates certain provisions of external law.

Warner v Local 599, PRB Case 1291 (4/25/00), pp 6-7, reconsideration denied (6/14/00) (election guide incorporates federal election law that union funds must not be used to promote the candidacy of any individual);

see also article 37 section 9 (local shall not make its membership list available to anyone except for the performance of official union business or to satisfy the requirements of law);

compare King v Local 600, PRB Case 1464 (4/27/04), p 8 (president's office opposes appeal partially on basis that appellants' argument is contrary to public policy which encourages citizens to report wrongdoings to police).

Seeming to contradict all the foregoing, one section of the constitution's defining "Objects" article does appear to re-enact all laws including antiunion laws. I have not seen any appeal or any PRB, CAC, or IEB decision which refers or alludes to this section.

Article 2 section 4 ("[A UAW object is to] enforce existing laws [and] work for the repeal of those which are unjust to Labor....").

There are lots of laws and regulations and court decisions governing the subjects in this manual. Lawyers and manuals are around that can explain them. Members sometimes bypass articles 32 and 33 in favor of court litigation. Appeals where that occurred are noted elsewhere. If you want professional counsel I suggest it be someone or something that specializes in labor law, by which I mean the subset of employment law which deals with union-management relations.

In the UAW

If you are before the PRB and you cite a rule of external law, it usually answers that its job is only to enforce union rules.

Hess v Local 287, 1 PRB 375, 379-80 (1966) (right-to-work laws not considered),

Bridgewood v Local 707, 1 PRB 533, 535 (1969) (US constitution not considered),

Badura v Local 93, 2 PRB 173, 183, 189 (1976) (PRB rejects "law" sense of dictionary definition of "fraud"),

Gonzales v Local 163, 2 PRB 386, 389 (1976) (first amendment is irrelevant),

Gally v UAW, 2 PRB 67, 69 (1973) (DOL settlement irrelevant to article 33 claim),

Lynch v Local 302, 2 PRB 787, 789 (1972) (PRB declines to endorse DOL election regulation),

EP complaint of Trapane, 3 PRB 15, 22 (1980) (PRB distinguishes between EPC and NLRA rights),

Adams v Local 148, 4 PRB 332, 337-38 (1985) (questioning whether PRB has authority to apply principles of NLRA when they contravene specifically a provision of the constitution),

EP complaint of Tucker v UAW, 5 PRB 228, 234, 366, 372 (1987) (PRB doesn't resolve tensions between constitution and law, decisions of IEB or PRB do not bind courts or department of labor, and conversely),

Kyles v UAW Ford Dept, 5 PRB 561, 565 (1988) (workers compensation claim not considered),

Spencer v Local 140, 8 PRB 210, 214 (1993) (damages for libel other than lost wages or benefits should be sought in the civil courts),

Loomis v Local 362, 8 PRB 322, 328 (1994) (affirmative action),

Gray v Local 6000, 9 PRB 31, 34 (1995) (state law mandating advance notice of closing of state mental health facility),

Salyers v Local 1681, 9 PRB 187, 191 (1996) (NLRA),

Rider v Local 1853, 9 PRB 429, 434 (1997) (disability law);

see also Pearson v UAW, PRB Case 1264 (6/10/99), p 22-24, reconsideration denied (10/28/99), pp 10-13, related case Pearson v Auto Workers, 1999 WL 547882, 161 LRRM 2893, 2896 (ED Mich, 1999) (court and PRB disagree about bylaw interpretation),

Fried v General Dynamics Department, PRB Case 1232 (12/23/98), p 10 (member may have right to sue employer over unilateral company pension plan),

Strohmeyer v GM Department, PRB Cases 1434 and 1439 (12/22/03), p 21 (EEO rights),

Davis v UAW, PRB Case 1441 (4/15/03), p 4 (age discrimination law),

Kidd v Local 1264, PRB Case 1467 (3/19/04), p 9 (UAW appellate procedures do not provide for discovery as in courts),

Avery v GM Department, PRB Case 1522 (2/16/06), pp 19-20 (despite UAW's acknowledgement that appellants were wronged, "[t]he damages appellants seek are actually in the nature of a tort claim against Delphi."),

Bays v GM Department, PRB Case 1538 (9/28/06), p 9 (substance tested positive for amphetamine even if it could not have been admitted in a criminal trial),

Esposito v UAW, PRB Case 1563 (4/17/07), p 7 ("Esposito's claims arising from sources other than the UAW Constitution and the Ethical Practices Codes are not before us.").

If you have a problem with the UAW, writing one of its lawyers is pointless. As a UAW attorney wrote to a local president who had sent him materials:

While I am flattered at being favored with this material, you must understand that the Legal Dept. is not responsible for interpretation of the UAW Constitution, does not handle appeals under Article 33, and is not responsible for advising Locals on proper administrative procedure.

In the UAW, we elect people to interpret, handle appeals, and advise on procedure.

Letter, Jay Whitman to Richard Debs, 11/14/88 (emphasis in original).

Accordingly in appeals I do not cite analogous external legal precedents, even those under the LMRDA. The EPC closely tracks the LMRDA, the PRB says; but the PRB is not bound to follow the LMRDA.

Davis, 1 PRB 214, 220 (1961) (LMRDA does not expand PRB's jurisdiction),

Foreman v Local 699, 4 PRB 123, 125-26 (1984) (PRB adopts court's LMRDA reasoning),

EP complaint of Tucker v UAW, 5 PRB 228, 234, 366, 372 (1987) (PRB and court decisions not binding on each other, member may pursue both court and article 33 remedies simultaneously),

Brandt v UAW, 5 PRB 337, 348 n 15 (1988) (PRB constitutional decision expresses no view on parallel LMRDA proceeding in court);

see alsoHopkins v Local 730, 1 PRB 469, 475 n 8 (1969), vacated 1 PRB 477 (1969) (factual setting of court precedent cited for comparison),

Hughey v Local 425 2 PRB 401, 404 (1976) (language of election guide and LMRDA compared),

EP complaint of Tucker, 8 PRB 16 n 6, 17 n 8 (1992) (arguments under the constitution and LMRDA compared).

Similarly, though the PRB says its standard for grievance appeals mirrors the court-imposed duty of fair representation, I do not cite analogous NLRA precedents. Most of the time it doesn't either.

So in any appeal if one side is rooted in union principle and the other opposes it, in theory and other things being equal the principled side prevails. The theory doesn't always work. But it has a better chance of working within the union than without, and this is why you are better off in a union appeal than in a court.

Be careful if you refer to "law" in an appeal to make sure it is understood which type of law you have in mind. A side-benefit is this: UAW members are not expected to have training in legal draftsmanship. The arguments made and the decision rendered are usually (not always) free of intimidating jargon.

Local 257 v Kellog, 1 PRB 309, 309-10, 313 (1965) ("[A] lay tribunal cannot be held to the formal procedure which is followed in a court."),

Marshall v Local 1364, 1 PRB 522, 530 (1969) (dissent) ("stewards and officers are ... laymen ra