Steward Responsibilities, Allegations & Due Process: A Response & Clarification: Response & Clarification

We normally have no interest in responding to attacks from other campaigns. We would much rather spend our time talking about our record, our plans, and what we believe needs to change moving forward. But when an allegation is repeatedly used to question the integrity of the steward group and suggest that stewards were somehow “complicit” or abandoned their Article XIX responsibilities, the facts and our actual governing documents matter.

Our bylaws are very specific about what stewards are authorized to do. Section 13 states that the authority of stewards “shall be limited to, and shall not exceed” the duties listed there. Those duties include investigating and presenting grievances with the employer under the collective bargaining agreement, collecting dues when authorized, assisting the Executive Board or Executive Council as directed, and transmitting authorized information. The bylaws do not assign stewards an independent responsibility to investigate rumors concerning the internal conduct of another union member or officer. In fact, where our bylaws do expressly create an internal investigative responsibility, they assign that responsibility elsewhere. Section 14 specifically states that the Local Union Executive Board has the duty to investigate an alleged breach of fiduciary duty when circumstances warrant it and to take appropriate action if the investigation supports doing so.

We first became aware of the allegation that an E-Board member did not have a medical when the Members First podcast began circulating. At that point, we had heard a rumor. We did not have facts or evidence establishing that any misconduct had actually occurred. Hearing an allegation is not the same thing as knowing it to be true, and it certainly is not the same thing as knowingly ignoring misconduct. Our bylaws recognize that distinction. Section 21 requires due process in union discipline: notice, a hearing, and a judgment based upon evidence. It also provides a presumption of innocence and requires charges to be proven by a preponderance of reliable evidence. Article XIX also provides a clear mechanism for dealing with alleged constitutional misconduct. It expressly allows one member of a Local Union to bring charges against another member or officer. Those charges are then reviewed through the established process and ultimately must be supported by reliable evidence.

John Corcoran, through material published by the 2750 Members First slate, has repeatedly suggested that the stewards were somehow “complicit” for not acting on this issue. But, to our knowledge, he never brought the allegation to the stewards and asked us to address it. If he believed he had evidence that Heath had violated the Constitution or our bylaws, Article XIX gave him the same formal process available to every member to present that evidence and bring charges. As far as we are aware, that process was not used. Instead, the allegation was raised publicly through campaign material and an AI-generated podcast, while the stewards were criticized for supposedly failing to act on information that had never been formally presented to us. Article XIX provides a process for addressing alleged misconduct. It does not make stewards responsible for independently investigating rumors that were never brought to them. If there is a specific provision of the International Constitution or Local 2750 Bylaws that someone believes the stewards violated, then identify it. If there is evidence showing that the stewards possessed verified information and knowingly refused to perform a duty actually assigned to them, then present it. Simply saying the stewards “should have known,” and then turning that assumption into an accusation of complicity, is not the same thing as establishing what they actually knew, when they knew it, or what duty they were supposedly required to perform.

We are comfortable being judged on our actual record. We also believe serious allegations deserve evidence, due process, and the proper constitutional process, not assumptions repeated often enough that they eventually become treated as fact. This statement is our response to that accusation. We do not intend to engage in an ongoing exchange of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals over this issue. If genuinely new factual information is presented, we will address it as appropriate. Otherwise, we will remain focused on our record, our plans, and the changes we believe will improve representation for the pilot group.