Tell a friend about this article
Previous Article: An Interview with John Martin -- Columbia School of Journalism Professor, Former ABC News Reporter
Next Article: At the Teamsters Independent Review Board
Please give what you can.
AUDHome--> Union Democracy Review--> Articles
SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy Review!
From the March/April 2008 issue of Union Democracy Review #172
Nurses ask court to back rights in NYS Association
Three nurses filed suit in federal court in January against their New York State Nurses Association. The case arises out of the association's decision to disaffiliate from the United American Nurses, the AFL-CIO national union of registered nurses. The complainants were members of Nurses for Unity, a caucus which campaigned against disaffiliation: Lorna Samuels is a member of the association Board of Directors and its secretary; Patricia Leo Holloman and Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez were Board members through October 2007. They ask the court to void the disaffiliation decision, to reverse disciplinary sanctions imposed on them, and to bar retaliation against them by the association for exercising their free speech rights.
In a referendum poll last year members rejected a proposal to quit the AFL-CIO union by 2,312 to 1,533. Nevertheless in December, the NYSNA Board of Directors voted to disaffiliate, a decision which the complainants charge violated federal law and the union's own established policies. "The fact that NYSNA, a union, can be governed by persons who are not union members or who are the managers and supervisors of its union members, gives rise to the issues raised in this complaint."
Actually the NYSNA is a hybrid organization, part union and part professional association. All of its 34,000 members are registered nurses; but while 32,000 are employed by hospitals as staff nurses and are unionized, 2,000 fulfill other professional non-union roles like education and research; some, in management, are the bosses of their association colleagues. To comply with federal law which bars management participation in union affairs, the association set up a separate division, the Delegate Assembly, to conduct its collective bargaining functions. According to association policy, "the board of directors cannot participate in or influence the conduct of the collective bargaining program." The Delegate Assembly independently represents the employed staff nurses.
Six of the thirteen Board members are not union members; the 2,000 non-unionists participate in electing all its members. The anomaly is that this board, which presumably is sealed off from collective bargaining affairs, asserts disciplinary authority over nurses who are engaged in collective bargaining. And it was this board that voted to cut union staff nurses off from their ties to the AFL-CIO union. Because, the complaint argues, "the board is not an 'insulated body' for purposes of federal law," that is, insulated from management, its decision to disaffiliate was illegal.
The complainants charge, too, that they and other supporters of the Nurses for Unity were victimized for their campaign, which induced a majority to vote against the disaffiliation proposal in the membership poll. After the poll results were announced charges were preferred against 23 members of the Nurses for Unity, including the three complainants in this case, charging that their website had deceived the members by misusing the association name and logo. Conceding that the actions of the 23, now represented by counsel provided by the United American Nurses, were protected by federal law, the board dismissed the charges. Nevertheless, the 23 faced retaliation:
After nullifying the results of the poll which displeased them, the association incumbents mailed a message to the entire membership explaining why the board was compelled to drop the charges against the 23, but expressing outrage at their actions. The 23 defendants were warned, "the Board of Directors is taking steps to further protect the Association." Any further unauthorized use of the acronym or logo will result in any and all legal or other action available to protect the Association."
Charging that, as board members, the three plaintiffs were required to "refrain from public dissension" and bound to "avoid creating confusion and divisiveness among the members," the board declared that they would all be barred from appointment or nomination to any association position. Samuels, still a sitting board member and a member of the finance committee, was denied the right to sit in at any board executive session.
The complaint argues that the disaffiliation decision was illegal and that the three plaintiffs were denied their rights of free speech and due process. It asks the judge to compensate them for damages and legal fees.
See also:
Four
state nurses associations quit AFL-CIO union
New York
nurses battle over union ties
Previous Article: An Interview with John Martin -- Columbia School of Journalism Professor, Former ABC News Reporter
Next Article: At the Teamsters Independent Review Board
This website is made possible by contributions from union members and supporters like you. Please help us build the movement for union democracy, join or contribute to AUD.
AUDHome; Legal Rights; Education; Union Democracy Review; Books; AUDLinks
Page designed by Matt Noyes, National
Writers Union/UAW, and Rachel Szekely
The Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org
104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn,
New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114; info@uniondemocracy.org
This work is licensed
under a Creative
Commons License.
Use
the following credit line on the materials you use:
"From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"
Please notify us at websteward@uniondemocracy.org when you use material from the site.
Send comments or suggestions on the website to websteward@uniondemocracy.org.