Metro’s largest union admitted that rules may not have been followed “to the letter” in its disputed 2015 officer elections, but argued that any violations were not committed with malicious intentions and that the $300,000 cost of conducting a new election would be an unjust punishment.
The union is asking a judge to deny the Labor Department’s request that it hold new elections for officers. Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez demanded the a new vote last year, alleging some candidates were improperly barred from running and voting, and that the union did not send out adequate notice of the December 2015 elections. ATU President Jackie L. Jeter won reelection as a result of the vote.
But the Labor Department argued that ATU Local 689 had allowed members not in good standing to run for office and vote, and approved “alternate, secret policies” allowing late dues payments for some members, but not others after it sent out more than 800 past-due notices in October 2015. Allegations include: the union mailed election notices a day later than required; allowed members whose dues payments were more than two months late to remain in good standing, in violation of an established provision; and held “secret” payment standards for members who were late on their payments by more than two months.
Those factors affected the outcome of the election, the Labor Department said.
In its court filing last week, the union pushed back, saying there were no “secret” payment arrangements and that mailing election notices a day late didn’t affect the outcome of the election. The union made a “good faith” effort to reach out to members who were late on the dues payments, it said, aiming to maximize eligibility for the upcoming vote. But it had been instructed by the International not to accept payment plans from members more than a year behind on dues, it said.
But the Labor Department pointed out inconsistencies in the union’s application of its policy.
The suit named two members, Harry Johnson and Glenn Jarrett, whose candidacies were thwarted because they were more than a year late on payments. But another member in a similar situation, Luis Chevalier, was permitted to run, the filings say. Union provisions require officer candidates to have been in good standing for two consecutive years.
Further, the union said the Labor Department could not prove “actual harm” as a result of mailing out notices late.
“Due to the lack of evidence that any members were unaware of the election and the fact that there was 5,470 votes cast in the President’s race alone, the harm caused by the single day delay is nonexistent,” the union said.
The Labor Department had argued that it counted at least a dozen members who denied receiving an election notice as a result of the flub, a number that could have overcome the smallest margin of victory in the Dec. 2, 2015 races — 11 votes — justifying a new election.
But the union says the department failed to produce any record of those 12 conversations. Further, the union says, the department based its contention on an informal election night tally.
For that reason, the union argues, it would be an unjust punishment for it to have to conduct another election — a $300,000 undertaking, as the union points out three times in its latest argument.
If the court finds wrongdoing, the union argues, “then the question is one of degree.” Because of the high cost of an election, and the immense preparation and planning that goes into an election, “Local 689 would not want to conduct another election before the scheduled December 2018 one takes place.”
Union members had voted in favor of new elections in January 2016, according to court documents, but Jeter appealed to the International union. When the International union did not rule on the appeal in timely fashion, the Labor Department said, it asked a judge to order new elections.
The union, which is currently in tense contract negotiations with Metro, was not immediately available to comment.