Opinion ID: 309634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Claimed Procedural Defects

Text: 13 The International claims the meeting following the Hearing Examiner's decision was called with inadequate notice to the farflung membership of the Local. Inasmuch as the posted notice complies precisely with the Local's by-laws, 15 the International has been unable to illustrate what more could be required of the Local. 14 A further claim charges that the resolution contains two separate clauses (disaffiliation from the International and separation of the Death Benefit Fund) but allowed only one yes or no vote. Aside from the International's inability to cite any authority for the proposition that joint resolutions of this type are impermissible, this court finds it difficult to describe a procedure regularly followed in Congress as a breakdown in the democratic process. In any event, if the resolution for disaffiliation had carried, and the supervisors under the NLRB decision were no longer to be members of the Local, it was necessary to separate the Death Benefit Fund from purely Local administration to protect the interests of the non-member supervisors. The possibility of inconsistent votes on the two related questions was wisely not allowed. 15 Finally, the International objects to language within the resolution and accompanying it which can arguably be described as advocacy for passage of the resolution by the Local's leadership. 16 Admittedly the challenged language does not go out of its way to point out that the Trial Examiner's decision on the need to disaffiliate might not be the final NLRB action. Someone had to send out the ballots and characterize the issues, however. Absent an outright distortion of the facts and issues as reasonably perceived, we shall not presume that the Local's characterizations and comments on the issues were improper. 16