Can CUPE Local bylaws require that all of the members must have permission from their CUPE Local to attend CUPE education workshops?

If CUPE Local bylaws were used to prevent only dissident members from attending CUPE education workshops (at their own expense) which laws might be violated?

"... The Brother who told us how great our contract was promoted to Regional Director in Manitoba and has since retired and now acts as a consultant for CUPE. This is the very same brother who sent out an official CUPE letter preventing members from attending CUPE courses unless they had the explicit permission of their local..."

CUPE at Work: CUPE Tried to Silence Me

[ 14 May 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Yet the article you link to doesn't discuss this bylaw issue at all except for the one brief and somewhat vague reference you quote above.

The way I read the article you have linked, it is a somewhat revealing perspective on the realities of local union politics in one particular CUPE local in Manitoba. Since the author was very involved in his local union politics, the article is of course slanted towards his perspective but it could provide some interesting subject for discussion nonetheless.

But the article is also vague in places and makes allusions to things it doesn't fully explain, like the section you quoted above.

As far as I can tell from the article, the author was not put on trial for violating any bylaw or alleged interpretation of a bylaw about attending union education courses. Rather, it appears that the author was put on trial for his conduct as acting union president while another person who had been acting as union president was on vacation. The ultimate outcome of this trial also appears ambiguous.

So I have to ask: What is it you actually want to talk about here? Is it this supposed local union bylaw about attending union education courses? Or is it the more general article you have linked about Br. Kenny and his experiences?

If you do want to talk about this supposed union bylaw, it would help if you could provide some more information, like:

(1) What does the bylaw you are referring to actually say?

(2) If there was a letter sent by a CUPE Rep purporting to interpret that bylaw, what did that letter say?

(3) What sort of penalties would be contemplated for violating this bylaw?

(4) Has anyone actually ever been charged with violating this bylaw?

quote:

---

I find your post a little confusing. You are asking about a CUPE local bylaw that you claim prohibits members from attending union educational workshops at their own expense without explicit permission of their CUPE local.

---

I only want to know if such a Local bylaw would violate the CUPE Constitution and or the labour laws. The above official CUPE letter affected CUPE members in Manitoba.

2003 CUPE Constitution

[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

That's really hard to answer without knowing what the bylaw says. Do you have the text of the bylaw or a reasonable approximation of it?

If you suspect that the bylaw violates the CUPE constitution, which article is it that you suspect the bylaw may violate? The copy of the 2003 CUPE Constitution you've linked is an 84 page PDF document.

---

I do not have the text of the Local bylaw. I expect to see the text of the proposed Local bylaw this week.

In my opinion the Local bylaw would violate Article B.1.4 Membership of the CUPE Constitution.

"Conduct contrary to the obligation or the Oath of Office... shall be punishable as decided by a legally constituted Trial Committee."

In my opinion refusing to allow members to attend CUPE education workshops is punishment without a trial.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Have the people who have proposed the bylaw given any reason for why they are proposing it?

If there is some concern about the local being on the hook for any costs related to a person attending a training workshop, I could see the local requiring that members get explicit permission before attending. But if this is really about prohibiting members from attending trainings entirely at their own expense that justification doesn't make sense.

If (contrary to your understanding) there was some sort of CUPE policy at a higher level which required members to get permission from their local before attending a training, I could understand that too. If that was the case, though, I would not see why your local would need to adopt a bylaw. It would be up to those who are providing the training to enforce any such policy.

I suppose I could see an argument that allowing some members to attend a training at their own expense, might somehow be unfair to some other members who could not afford to attend the training, so the local might try to limit those attending to a set number that they have agreed to fund.

But if that's the case, I would expect the local should at least establish some sort of process that gives everyone a fair opportunity to participate in these sort of trainings. Opportunities could be allocated by seniority, or by lottery, and/or each member could be limited to a certain number of funded training opportunities each year. The local union executive should certainly not be allowed to use this sort of policy either for favoritism or to punish dissenting members.

I don't know whether this is illegal or not. I am not a lawyer, but in the United States I know that there are some laws which specifically protect members rights to participate in certain types of union activity. I don't know what the case is in Canada and it may depend on the province.

I don't think the CUPE Constitutional section you cite would actually prohibit a local from adopting this sort of bylaw. Presumably if a member violates the bylaw and attends a training workshop anyway, the local would still have to undertake its trial procedures before it could impose any punishment on the member for violating the bylaw.

There could be other sections of the Constitution that would be more helpful to you, though.

All in all, this sounds like a very weird bylaw proposal and I have got to imagine there is something more behind it.

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The local union executive should certainly not be allowed to use this sort of policy either for favoritism or to punish dissenting members.

Presumably if a member violates the bylaw and attends a training workshop anyway, the local would still have to undertake its trial procedures before it could impose any punishment on the member for violating the bylaw.

---

I will be talking to lawyers if the proposed Local bylaw is approved.

The above trial or trap would be easier than a trial about members' freedom of speech at CUPE education workshops.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

The above trial or trap would be easier than a trial about members' freedom of speech at CUPE education workshops.

---

It seems that it would be much more useful for you to gather the facts before posting these kinds of allegations.

As for the ufcw.net site, I find while there is the occasional interesting article, all too frequently the site is a "whine fest" about everyday "run of the mill" internal union politics.

I've been involved in the labour movement all of my adult life. There are always internal political battles. Its the nature of democratic life.

quote:

---

First there's talk of a by-law with a link to an article that has nothing at all to do with the by-law in question. Then we learn that there in fact is no by-law, only a "proposed" by-law of which there is no text.

I've been involved in the labour movement all of my adult life. There are always internal political battles. Its the nature of democratic life.

---

In my first post in this thread I was only asking whether or not a certain type of Local bylaw (existent or hypothetical) would be constitutionally and or legally valid.

Some of the readers of this forum may have seen this type of Local bylaw.

The CUPE Manitoba policy (in the article) and the intent of the proposed Local bylaw (without text) makes my questions relevant.

Are not union education workshops for the benefit of all the members not just small cliques?

Why should unions discourage the few members who are willing to spend their own money to attend union education workshops?

[ 04 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

In my first post in this thread I was only asking whether or not a certain type of Local bylaw (existent or hypothetical) would be constitutionally and or legally valid.

---

Unions are private organizations that set their own rules...no different than a stamp collectors club.

It's impossible to comment without seeing the actual wording of the bylaw, but all locals must submit their bylaws to CUPE National for approval. If there's local politics that cause any concern, then CUPE National (and your CUPE National rep) would be one forum for appeal.

Just a guess...the "banned" members were probably viewed as disruptive. It would be better to have procedures for handling such situations, rather than a blanket bylaw prohibiting any and all members from attending without explicit permission. But that's just a guess...

take care,

quote:

---

It would be better to have procedures for handling such situations, rather than a blanket bylaw prohibiting any and all members from attending without explicit permission.

---

The CUPE Constitution Local Union trial procedure already exists for handling disruptive members.

The proposed Local bylaw was rejected at a Local membership meeting.

[ 15 September 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]