The Association for Union Democracy is currently working with a group of union members in the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 112. In that regard AUD penned the following letter on their behalf to the international IUOE’s ethics officer on January 14, 2025. The letter explains the situation. To date no response has been received from the Ethics Officer by AUD or the members.

“Dear Ethics Officer McCann,

We are writing to draw your attention to a problem several members of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 112, headquartered in Anderson, Indiana, have made us aware of here at the Association for Union Democracy (AUD). AUD, a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization established in 1969, is the nation’s only organization dedicated solely to the principles and practices of union democracy. It is AUD’s mission to inform and guide union members about their rights under the federal Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) including free speech, due process in trials,fair elections and the right to run for union office Thus, we are frequently in touch with union members who are running for union office or who believe their rights are being violated.

Such is the case with several members of Local 112. A situation has developed that has led to many long time members, including Greg Bartolina, who has publicly stated his intention to run against Local President and Business Manager Randall Hughes, being forced to sign “Alumni Group” agreements in order to continue to receive health and welfare benefits from their employer, because they have been deemed “supervisors” by the local and no longer in the bargaining unit. The agreement, once signed, stipulates that the signer is no longer a union member and is ineligible for certain benefits, and no longer has union membership rights. They may continue to receive health and welfare benefits as an “alumni group” member if they sign said agreement.Some of the employers directly dispute the assertion that these members are supervisors and have informed the local so. Moreover, the CBA that is currently in place fully covers these positions as full union members.

This is not the first instance of potential candidate Bartolina’s eligibility to run against Mr. Hughes questioned. In 2022 Bartolina publicly announced his intention to run against Hughes. Local 112 found Bartolina ineligible for office because he was Project Manager and was a“supervisor.” As such, Mr. Bartolina was not meeting the constitutional requirement of “working in the trade” and could not run for union office.

Bartolina appealed the decision to the International, which, pursuant to Article V, Section 7 of the IUOE Constitution, appointed a panel to hear the appeal. The panel issued five findings:

1) Local 112 was a unique,nationwide local and its use of the title “Project Manager” did not correspond to project managers in other locals,

2) Mr. Bartolina was being treated in all aspects as a member of the bargaining unit, including wage scales, fringe benefits and other CBA items,
3)Local 112 failed to demonstrate that Mr. Bartolina had the power to hire, fire or discipline members,

4) that the local did not document any proceedings before the NLRB Mr. Bartolina had participated in, or identify any members hired,fired or disciplined by him, and

5) in sum the local failed to demonstrate that Mr. Bartolina should be disqualified from running for office because of a failure to meet the “working in the trade” clause. The panel sent its recommendations to the IUOE Executive Board, which accepted the findings and overruled the local.

Though now eligible, Bartolina chose not to run in 2022. But he made it known to Mr. Hughes and other members that he was going to run in 2025.

So now we have President Hughes and Local 112 once again asserting that Mr. Bartolina, as well as, coincidentally, many of his supporters, are supervisors and cannot run for office, and can only continue to receive health and welfare benefits by signing the “Alumni Group” agreement.In any case, even by signing the agreement, they lose the right to run for office.

As you know, Section II of the IUOE Ethics Code entitled “Democratic Practices” subsections A and B state the following:

“A. Each member shall be entitled to a full share in union self-government. Each member shall have freedom of speech and the right to participate in the affairs of the International and his or her Local union.Subject to reasonable rules, regulations, and qualifications, each member shall have the right to run for office, to nominate through duly established procedures, and to vote in free, fair and honest elections.B. The Union shall ensure that its operations shall be conducted in a democratic and fair manner. Rules must be fairly, and uniformly applied and disciplinary procedures shall be fair and afforded due process to each member.”

Therefore, it seems to us the situation at hand is within your jurisdiction.

Several affected members have informed us that, in November 2024,they either wrote you directly, or copied you on letters to the General President. The international IUOE has not intervened (unlike the situation in 2022) but only advised members to write the Local 112 Health & Welfare Fund which has denied member appeals.

We trust you are looking into or have examined this matter, and the affected IUOE members would be very appreciative if they could receive a response regarding the outcome of any investigation you may have conducted. Even if you have not finished your investigation, they would very much appreciate your letting them know when you expect it to be completed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Kurt Richwerger
Executive Director
Association for Union Democracy