The LIUNA Hearings Panel (the predecessor to the IHO)
has previously held that, for purposes of determining whether a nominee is
qualified to run for office, Judges of Election are estopped from retroactively
determining that a member lacks standing because he should have been suspended
within two years of the nomination. See
Charges by Ruben Torres (Local Union 300), Special Hearings Panel (Feb.
8, 1993). The Hearings Panel in Torres
found that:
. . . . [The Constitution] requires a candidate to have been in good standing for a period of two years immediately prior to nominations. If a candidate was not actually suspended from membership during that period, the Judges of Election do not have the authority retroactively to determine that he could or should have been suspended . . . . [R]etroactive challenges to a candidate’s prior good standing should not be permitted.
See also
Protest of Roy Hopson (Local Union 194), Hearings Panel (July 22, 1986)
(A nominee whose dues had been in arrears but who
had not been suspended was eligible to run for office.).
The IHO recently adopted the rationale of the prior
rulings of the Hearings Panel in In re Local Union 580, IHO Order and
Memorandum, 97-38P (February 5,
1998).
Although they did not pay their full initiation fees at
the time they joined the union, Prince, Fracassi, and Rossi received the full
benefits of membership in LIUNA and Local 527 for a number of years. Their dues were accepted, they received
union cards, they accepted jobs, they were posted on the out-of-work list, and
they received training. They were
never suspended for failure to pay the full initiation fee. The Judges cannot, years later,
retroactively declare a member not in good standing when the local union has
accepted him into membership, has given him a membership card, and recognized
him in good standing for years, including the two years immediately preceding
the election.
Similarly, although Trunzo should have been suspended in
1997 for being in arrears in his dues payments, he was not suspended, and,
therefore, was eligible to run for office.
Curiously, the Judges ruled correctly as to Trunzo, in contrast to their
decision regarding Prince, Fracassi, and Rossi.
The Judges and attorney Randazzo were also in error in
concluding that Fracassi could not act as a nominator for Strizzi. It has been the policy of LIUNA that:
“ . . . any member who has not been suspended and is current in the payment of his dues shall not be deprived, where otherwise qualified, of his right to vote in a regular election of the Local Union.” This would include the right to nominate candidates as well. Accordingly, . . . members not then working at the calling, but who are not suspended and who are current in the payment of their dues are entitled to nominate candidates and to cast a vote for the officer(s) of their choice in the union's election.