Assignment Detail

Assignment ID: FG133233103

Case: The services Employee International Union (SEIU) consists of 2.2 million members who work in healthcare, public services, and property services. United Health Workers(UHW) is one of many, local unions affiliated with SEIU (and represents) approximately 150,000 healthcare workers in California.

The SEIU constitution vests the SEIU International Executive Board with authority regarding alignment and jurisdiction of a local unions like UHW.

The international union intended to move 150,000 on term care workers from unions, including some 65,000 separte UHW into new local union chartered with SEIU.

The SEIU constitution grants SEIU the authority to place a local union into trusteeship” to protect the interests of the memberships” from local union malfeasance.

The SEIU international executive board gave (UHW) until January 27 2009 to confirm in writing that it would not oppose the creation of the long-term care workers union. THE UHW would not so promise, and SEIU placed UHW into trusteeships on January 27 2009.

UHW officials sought to start an ungovernable situation for trust appointed to administrative UHWby 1. blocking access to UHW buildings to prevent SEIU-appointed trustees from entering2. Removing UHW property from UHW buildings, including office equipment, computers and employee grievances files.3.intrusting lower-level UHW officials and rank and file members not to recognize the authority of the trustees.

At the same time, the UHW officlas while on UHW payroll, began to create and promote a new union.

Within a week after the trusteeship was announced, the UHW officials created the National Union of Healthcare Workers(NUHW).

SEIU filed a suit in federal district court against the NUHW and THE UHW Officials for breach of fiduciary duties. The jury returned a verdict awarding damages against individual defendants.and distinct court entered judgment against the defendants.(the defendants applelled)

THE UHW defendants posit that they owned this duty to only the rank and filed members of their local unions.Because they subjectively believed in their actions and assisted those members by establishing a more democratic union with localized control, they maintained they had done no wrong under section 501(Under section 501 of the labor-management reporting and disclosure act(“LMRDA)” officers of labor unions are held to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administrative the affairs of the association.

Their argument ignores that they diverted union resources to weaken their own union and form their own union mainly because they disagreed with the constitutionally permissible decision of the international union.

The SEIU executive committee under the authority given to it by both its constitution and the UHW constitution carefully considered and adopted a measure it beilive would better serve its members. The UHW officers disagreed which they may do and they voiced their opposition which they also may do. What they may not do under the law is use their union’s resources to actively obstruct the implementation of their decison.

The judgment of liailbility was prolepry entered when correctly instructed jury on a sufficient factual record found the defendants in breach of their fiduciary duites under section 501 LMRDA AFFIRMED

Question 1. WHat standards was at the core of the disupet in this case?

Question 2. To whom was this standard owned according to the United Health Workers officlas?(teh defendants)

Question 3. Under standard what could the defendants do and what could they not do, according to court?

Question 4. How did the court rule on the dispute in this case?Why?