WHAT THE $%#& AFGE?
The D.C Court of Appeals recently issued a decision of minor significance to all us union advocates. But it contained “alleged” details about a union leader’s behavior that are so outrageous that it causes me to wonder who is in charge at AFGE. Here is what the federal court wrote to describe what a union member said about her local.
“In late 2017, she brought these allegations to her union’s local chapter. The local did not take any action for several months. That changed when the local’s new president, Johnnie Green, began his term in January 2018. Not long after taking office, Green filed a workplace grievance against the SBA on Lucas’s behalf. Green told Lucas that the union “had a history of animus towards female bargaining unit employees with disabilities.” Compl. (No. 22-cv-777) ¶ 31. Two months later, Green scheduled an arbitration hearing on Lucas’s grievance. Around this time, Green began professing his love for Lucas and making unwanted sexual advances toward Lucas told him to stop and reported his conduct to Michael Kelly, one of the union’s national officers. Green stepped down as Lucas’s designated representative ahead of the arbitration hearing, but the two of them remained in contact as the hearing date approached. Lucas had recently given birth, and, on one occasion, Green told her that “she did not have a right or need to be at the arbitration hearing based on the additional expenses and logistics associated with her being a nursing mother.” Id. ¶ 48. He added that Lucas’s “having a newborn was a burden to the union.” Id. ¶ 49. Lucas again reported his comments to Kelly. At Green’s instruction, the local postponed the arbitration hearing after it had begun. Six months later, Lucas filed a ULP charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, complaining of Green’s harassment and the hearing’s delay. After learning about the charge, Green called Lucas, told her she was a “b*tch,” and threatened to “ruin her federal career” if she did not withdraw the allegations. Id. ¶ 64. The local later pulled out of the arbitration proceedings. Green explained that the union “did not want to represent disabled mothers of newborns such as [Lucas].” Id. ¶ 71. Lucas filed two more ULP charges with the Authority: one asserting that the local had wrongfully withdrawn from the arbitration hearing, and another contending that Kelly had conspired with Green to restrict her rights as an employee in the union’s bargaining unit.”
We all realize that neither AFGE nor any defendant has a right to keep someone from suing them in the very public federal courts. However, defendants can keep cases out of court by offering a settlement. And even if they cannot incentivize someone to not take a complaint public, they can take actions to mitigate any damage the accuser’s allegations might cause. Sadly, according to the court’s decision, AFGE did not take any action to step in and protect the larger union’s reputation.
I realize that AFGE’s national leadership has delegated huge amounts of its inherent powers to its national vice presidents and locals. Much of that is good and I accept as reasonable. However, it cannot allow a local president or VP to do things that cast a shadow over union leaders and unionism as this case does. AFGE needs a mechanism that quickly alerts its national office leaders to questionable, if not bizarre, behavior by local leaders or even dereliction of duty by a regional VP. Other unions do this by making all staff that work with locals day in and out employees of the national president and primarily responsible for furthering the interests of the entire union, not just one misguided local or regional leader. This case suggests that it may be time for national AFGE to tighten its relationship with the members.
For more details about the case, check out Lucas v. AFGE.
