This kind of win has got to send one super positive message to the Power Source regarding freedom of speech and expression.
Makes you wonder how/why this "unconstitutional" provision would have been passed in the first place? Makes you wonder who's idea was it to restrict members freedoms and why?
UA reformers win in court
Section of constitution struck down
In another courtroom victory for union reformers, MFD has learned that a US judge has struck down a section of the United Association's Constitution. Section 199 provided that:
"Any member of the United Association found guilty of sending out circular letters of falsehood and misrepresentation shall be expelled , and the local union that permits such action shall also be expelled."
Yesterday Section 199 was ruled unconstitutional, bringing to a successful conclusion a lawsuit initiated by two UA members. In an open letter to members of the UA in March 2001, Carl Biers of the Association for Union Democracy had this to say about the purpose and effect of Section 199:
"This provision has been used to stifle and repress members' rights to speak out... Even when it is not enforced, the existence of this provision hangs over members and officers who might otherwise exercise their free speech rights to speak up about union affairs.
It got worse than that. Even though the UA knew of the challenge in court of sec.199, they still allowed UA Local 787 to initiate a by-law that made it an offence to "spread rumours" and they allowed a member of Local 787 to be charged under these sections. The local union officers gave the executive board the power to pass this by-law and even though some members complained to the UA that their right to vote on the by-laws had been violated, the UA decided to ignore them.
I wonder how much of an effect this court ruling will make if it is challenged here?. Will Canadian Locals decide that as it is a US decision it won't apply to them? I wouldn't put it passed them. It should be interesting to see how a Canadian judge would interpret this problem. We once knew of an Ontario lawyer who decided to tell a judge that a BC decision had no standing in Ontario. The judge told him that even a first year law student should know better than to argue that point. But, for a sum, these lawyers would be willing to argue anything.