Opinion ID: 761232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Propriety of the Second Vote

Text: 23 Appellants claim that the Union breached its constitution and bylaws by submitting the Agreement to a second vote on October 31, 1998. Specifically, they contend that the Union violated Article XVI, § 20 of its bylaws, which states: Any member who voted with the majority may, at the same or next meeting, move for a reconsideration of any vote, except one by ballot; but, if once negatived, it shall not again be renewed. The Union Defendants respond that this provision was inapplicable because (1) the Union's bylaws and constitution did not require a ratification vote at all, and (2) the Union reasonably interpreted the clause except one by ballot to mean that when a vote was by secret ballot anyone could seek reconsideration, not just a member who voted in the majority, because it would not be known from a secret ballot who was in the majority. 24 We agree with appellees' second contention and therefore do not consider their argument that the provision was inapplicable because there was no requirement that Union members ratify the Agreement in the first place. It is reasonable to read Article XVI, § 20 as providing a non-exclusive method by which a member who votes with the majority may call for a re-vote. Because a secret ballot does not reveal which members voted with the majority, however, it is at least reasonable for the Union to interpret the provision as permitting any member who participates in the vote to call for a re-vote. Accordingly, we hold that the re-vote did not violate Article XVI, § 20 of the Union bylaws. 25