[00:00:01] Speaker 05:
23-3225 International Brotherhood of Coilermakers versus Jones.

[00:00:13] Speaker 05:
Good morning.

[00:00:13] Speaker 05:
Oh, yeah.

[00:00:16] Speaker 05:
Just so we don't get interrupted.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
I'll let you know.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Matt Viannello on behalf of the appellant Newt Jones.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
And I'm going to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
This case, the defendants in this case have done everything they can to disregard the rules of procedure to get the result that they wanted, which is to remove the international president from his role.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
It's a fundamental issue of due process throughout this.

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
And it reminds me of something that I read, Judge Hartz, that you wrote, which is, what justice would there be in a society whose members could not resort to the resolution of disputes by a tribunal that must apply neutral principles in a consistent manner?

[00:01:11] Speaker 05:
I wonder who I quoted for that.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
I think it was yours.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
It was a Denver law review article.

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
Oh, OK.

[00:01:17] Speaker 05:
Not presidential.

[00:01:19] Speaker 05:
Nobody joined that.

[00:01:21] Speaker 05:
No, not precedential.

[00:01:23] Speaker 05:
Surprise.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
So the issues that we have here along the way are numerous.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
Basically, the defendants in the case have taken the position that they are supreme in every respect and, by and large, pick and choose parts of provisions of the international union constitution that support them to the disregard of basically

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
anything that is contrary.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
So starting with filing charges, they are, at the outset, the charges that were alleged were not specific at all.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
There are a number of cases that address this that you need time, place, date, and that failure to do that is inherently prejudicial.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
Now that gets into the LMRDA issues, but from a constitutional interpretation standpoint,

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
At the outset, the defendants declared that an office of the president was partially kind of vacant for a limited period of time and appointed somebody to do certain roles of the international president.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
There is no legal, there's no authority in the Constitution that says that you can do that.

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
Doesn't Article 17

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
give the IEC exclusive jurisdiction over charges against IBB officers?

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, Judge.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
So... I mean, it seems sort of strange that you'd argue that, well, Mr. Jones is the one that was stealing all the money, theoretically, but he's the only one that can do anything, and nobody else can do anything because he's the president.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
Well, so I think that that is, to some extent, a narrow view.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
That exact same section that you're referring to, 17.3.2.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
Can you pull the mic over a little bit?

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
So that same provision that you were referring to, 17.3.2 says the executive council has exclusive jurisdiction.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
It also says any member of, it says the executive

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
Where is this?

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
Executive counsel shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear charges against a subordinate body and against an international president.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
And then it says any member of the executive counsel who is directly involved in the proceedings so that the counsel member cannot function in an impartial manner shall not participate or be subject to a challenge.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
Now, that provision cannot be read in isolation.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
because there are other sections, conduct of the hearing, that says that the required, it actually gives the international president authority to appoint.

[00:04:12] Speaker 02:
But the international president is the defendant.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
And it seems really strange to say the defendant's going to

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
tell us how everything's going to be done here.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
And there is a number of safeguards.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
So one thing that happened here, so let me go back a second and say there has to be a constitutional provision that says it.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
There's nothing that says that you can appoint somebody in the manner that this was done here.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
Now I understand that there's a conflict, potential conflict of interest, so it's important to look at what actually happened.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
Newton-Jones did not schedule a hearing.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
He did not dismiss the charges.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
He did not take any action except for to appoint other people to fill his role, which is his exclusive authority.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
Now, Judge Kelly, to your point, there are a number of safeguards within the Constitution that allow for an orderly processing of this matter.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
So for example, in Article 5.8, I believe, or 5.2, it says that

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
Any decision or action by the international president can be appealed, proper appeal that is, to the International Executive Council.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
So if there's no decision that's made, if there's some decision that's made, if there's something that's done that they don't like, there is an orderly process that you can follow.

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
To appeal a determination of interpreting the union constitution, right?

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
That is Article 7.2 that says all decisions shall be binding unless reversed by the Executive Council or appealed to the Executive Council.

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
But it's actually broader than that.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
So if in...

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
Article 5.2, which outlines the powers and authorities of the IEC, it says, it shall have the power to pass on any subject, proposition, or grievance and hear and determine all cases of appeal from the decisions and rulings of the international president which are filed by registered or certified mail.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
That's not limited to interpretation.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
OK, but doesn't Article 1.5 say when the IBB is not in convention session, the executive

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
a appointing an investigator like Creeden and McManaman, and judicial powers are vested in the executive council, not in the international president.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
But you can't read all those provisions in isolation.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
So you have to look at the entire Constitution.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
And so first off, Article 1.5.

[00:06:50] Speaker 05:
I have a fundamental question.

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
Yes, Judge.

[00:06:53] Speaker 05:
That I could address before we start interpreting the Constitution.

[00:06:58] Speaker 05:
Because I, in this case, I'm looking at the various provisions of the Constitution, trying to figure out, for the reasons, no matter if you're talking about how to interpret it.

[00:07:09] Speaker 05:
But that's not our job.

[00:07:11] Speaker 05:
We defer to the union for interpreting the Constitution.

[00:07:17] Speaker 05:
And as long as it's not unreasonable, it may even be a more lenient review than that, we adopt the union's interpretation.

[00:07:30] Speaker 05:
The question here is, who's the union?

[00:07:37] Speaker 05:
occurs to me is the only reason we interpret, the only purpose for our interpreting the Constitution is to find out in this circumstance, who is the union?

[00:07:50] Speaker 05:
Is it President Jones or is it the IEC?

[00:07:53] Speaker 05:
Do you agree that that's what we're supposed to do?

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
I think that that is, so yes, I think there is a little more than that when it comes to LMRDA,

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
Impartiality.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
But as far as... If you're relying on the NLRA, then yes.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
So to your point, and yes, you can disagree with an interpretation.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
The case law is pretty clear.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
The courts don't have to agree with it.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
They can only reject it if it's patently unreasonable.

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
Patently unreasonable is what you think is the test?

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
I think there's two tests, I believe, but let's just go with unreasonable.

[00:08:37] Speaker 00:
And so the starting place is there is an element of looking at the union constitution that the court has to do.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
So the first question is, who has the power to interpret?

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
that provision is clear, which is that the union president is the one who interprets it.

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
Now, Judge Hartz, to your question, or I think Judge Bachrach, you brought it up, there is

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
some general provisions in Article 1.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
And then there are very specific provisions about what the IEC does, what the international president does.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
And that's in Article 7.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
And it delineates what their power and authority is.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
But one of them that is expressed is that the president gets to interpret the Constitution.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
Now, the safeguard here, to your point, Judge Kelly, or to what you are asking,

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
if there's an interpretation that somebody doesn't like.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
And this isn't even before it gets to the court.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
But if somebody doesn't like that interpretation, action of the international president, it can be appealed.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
But there has to be a proper appeal.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
And what's happened in this case is the certain members of the IEC have said, our interpretation controls.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
The international president doesn't get to interpret.

[00:09:56] Speaker 00:
And the question that I have there is, where in there in the union constitution does it say expressly

[00:10:03] Speaker 05:
that the IEC gets to interpret, and there is one place which is on a proper appeal.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
Authority of the Union is vested in the IEC I do so it's and this is actually a limiting provision Okay, so it says powers of the International Brotherhood This is 1.4 and I reference this in my reply brief 1.4 powers of the International Brotherhood while in convention shall be legislative executive and judicial

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
then it has vesting of powers 1.5.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
When the international brotherhood is not in convention, its executive and judicial powers only shall be invested in an international executive council.

[00:10:54] Speaker 00:
Now, that's a limitation because it takes out this judicial aspect, but... Takes out the legislative... Legislative aspect.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
The point here, though, is if that is carte blanche authority, then why even have an Article VII?

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
Why even say that the international president is authorized to interpret and then say that interpretation can be overturned on proper appeal to the executive council?

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
Why have that at all if

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
just stop at 1.5.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
Why have a... Okay, let's just say everything, you know, we're with you, everything you just said.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
Where in the record did President Jones hear and determine any constitutional provision?

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
You know, you refer to his actions.

[00:11:49] Speaker 04:
He certainly acted at running Mr. McManaman and Mr. Creighton.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
But where did he hear arguments?

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
So I don't know if there was an appeal.

[00:12:01] Speaker 04:
There was no hearing and determination of any interpretation of a constitutional provision.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
To appeal under Rule 7.2.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
Well, there are certainly interpretations that had been made, and those are outlined.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
Where?

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
That's what I'm asking.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Where in the record?

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
So in the record, there is not a specific instance of at the international union level where there was an argument about what is the interpretation of this.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
But you also have to look at Article 7.1, which talks about

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
that the international president is the chief executive.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
His decisions, basically, in all of these provisions throughout the Constitution, there is a subordinate aspect with the IEC.

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
But let's take your point, Judge Bachrat.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
So if we say that there has to be this specific instance where there has to be an interpretation, where there has to be some

[00:13:07] Speaker 00:
event that occurs where a question of an interpretation comes up.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
Okay, fine.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
If that's the case, then how is it that the IEC can just interpret on its own without having to do anything?

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
And so...

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
The point is that Article 1.5 doesn't have that hearer language.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
What it does say is that whether it's limiting or affirmative,

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
vesting of power that the executive and judicial powers are vested in the IEC.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
And in the actual decision on June 2, the decision itself is replete with actual interpretations of specific constitutional provisions.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
They get exactly what President Jones failed to do.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
Well, I disagree with you there, because there are a number of letters that are cited throughout the brief where

[00:14:10] Speaker 02:
He starts off specifically and says Newton Jones, President Jones... Well, except Section 17.3.2 restricts Jones' ability to participate in the proceedings.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
Well, it also... He's either in or he's out, and he's out based on that.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
What is the proceeding?

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
So that's the hearing.

[00:14:30] Speaker 05:
So how is it that anything he's done before that is the... You don't think the appointment of who's going to conduct the proceeding is part of the proceeding?

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
If that's part of the proceeding, then so is one of the members showing up there to form part of the quorum.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
If that's participating, then so is Folk showing up and serving as part of the quorum.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
You can't have it where his participation stops at one point and he can't do anything, but then another person can show up and be part of a quorum, make up a quorum, and say, will we get to proceed?

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
They both really violated the provision.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
Because I don't, I mean, I understand your argument.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
That's exactly what you said in your brief, but I really didn't hear an answer to my colleague's question.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
I mean, what I heard you say is, well, if they did it, then they did it.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
I mean, that's what my kid says.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
Well, and I'm over my time here, but if I can address this.

[00:15:29] Speaker 05:
Let's get this straightened out.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
So the proceeding itself, where does it start?

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
Does it start with?

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
the filing of the charges, how far does that go?

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
And so you're asking about the proceeding.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
There's nothing that says that there's an automatic exclusion.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
And I addressed this in the brief.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
The reason why there's an impartiality provision, this goes to the LMRDA, is to protect due process rights.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
So I don't agree that anything that happened before the actual hearing is the proceeding.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
And I also don't agree that there's an automatic exclusion.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
And so it says, Judge Kelly, it says in there that you shall not participate or be subject to challenge, which means that there is no automatic exclusion.

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
17.3.2 says, the executive council shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear charges against

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
subordinate bodies and international offices, and any member who is directly involved cannot function in an impartial manner, shall not participate

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
or be subject to a challenge for cause.

[00:16:50] Speaker 02:
And it's that second part, or be subject to a challenge.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
I disagree.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
The part where it says or be subject to a challenge for cause is a limitation.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
It means that it does not happen automatically.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
If it happened automatically saying anybody who's involved is out, you wouldn't have the language that follows or be subject to a challenge for cause.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
And again, that provision cannot be read in isolation because

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
You have everything else that says the international president does this.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
International president does this.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
And I understand it's against... The international president can't take money you shouldn't take.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
I understand that.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
And there's still due process rights of an accused to be... Well, speaking of due process rights, he never showed up to any of the hearings.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
He sort of waived all those due process issues.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
Well, unless that hearing wasn't a legitimate hearing.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
Why wasn't it a legitimate hearing?

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
Well, it wasn't a legitimate hearing because they didn't have a quorum.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
So that's one issue.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
It wasn't a legitimate hearing because there were representatives who showed up who weren't allowed to review evidence.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
Well, they denied they were representatives, specifically said, we're not representing Mr. Jones.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
But then the IEC said they were representatives.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
No, they didn't.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
They let them watch.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
They were members.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
They were not allowed to participate.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
Well, I think what they said was, maybe it was just my interpretation, was Jones, they were there because as representatives of Mr. Jones, maybe I've got my kid in the section.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
My kid is there as a spectator.

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
as my representative, but it doesn't mean that my kid is authorized to get up and participate and say, I'd like to see all of the evidence that was presented in this case.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
And so I think they were just trying to say Jones obviously knew about this hearing.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
So to answer your question more fully about why it was an illegitimate hearing, you had issues of being able to call a meeting.

[00:19:02] Speaker 05:
Do we really?

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
It's addressed in the brief.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:19:15] Speaker 05:
Mr. Rosenfeld.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
I think it is still morning.

[00:19:19] Speaker 01:
It's David Rosenfeld on behalf of the Appalachians, the four IVPs.

[00:19:25] Speaker 01:
I've argued many circuit courts... You pull the microphone down a little bit.

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
There you go.

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
I've argued many cases and I've never heard an opposing colleague dig such a deep hole for himself.

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
Judge Keller, you're right.

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
The Constitution is extremely clear that the IEC has exclusive jurisdiction over charges against subordinate entities which wasn't involved or a member of the IEC, of which there's six.

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
And that's from the get-go.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
And in this case, Mr. Jones tried to avoid that command by appointing his own dubbed Article 17 committee and appointing his friends to that committee, when automatically the IEC had control.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
Now, counsel made an argument that dug into the deeper hole for himself by saying it says, or subject to challenge.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
And what that really means is if that international officer insists on participating, even though they are automatically disqualified, they can be challenged.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
So that reaffirms the proposition that if the charge is against you,

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
You're automatically disqualified.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
You can't take action.

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
The IEC then controls the process.

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
And I think that ends the case.

[00:20:46] Speaker 01:
And Judge Milgrin began his analysis when he issued the declaratory leaf from exactly the question Judge Kelly, you asked, which was, does the IEC have control of this?

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
Which it has to.

[00:21:00] Speaker 05:
But what if it makes the decision at a meeting or a hearing where there's no forum?

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
Well, Judge Melvin addressed that question.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
And what he said was that the way he read the Constitutional Quorum was that there were four members of the IEC present, which is a quorum of six.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
He didn't dispute that.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
One of the four was John Foltz, the International Vice President, who was there to participate as the charging party, but not to vote.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
And Judge Mogan properly held that four is a quorum, and that met the standard.

[00:21:46] Speaker 05:
I just want to... What if we disagree and think that

[00:21:50] Speaker 05:
There are only three there because someone who's disqualified because he's participating doesn't count toward the forum.

[00:21:57] Speaker 05:
What do we do then?

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
We have two answers to that.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
One is that's all waived because Jones never showed up, didn't protest, didn't raise the question, and so he's waived or abandoned.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
So you actually have to show up at a hearing

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
And then you're going to, but he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
Because he's a member of the IEC.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
So if he shows up, then he is the fourth member.

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
He has now satisfied the quorum requirement.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
I can avoid his damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, because he was well aware of these proceedings, but he took the tactical position

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
that his own self-appointed Article 17 committee would proceed.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
So all he had to do, Your Honor, was simply write a letter, which he was fully capable of doing, saying that there would be no quorum if Larry McMahon doesn't show.

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
and John Forbes can't participate.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
Or the day after the hearing, or two days later, when he got the decision saying, this is invalid because there was no quorum.

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
And because of his tactical decision not to comment, not to get involved, but to rely upon his self-appointed committee, he never raised those questions.

[00:23:26] Speaker 05:
What's your other basis besides waiver?

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
Well, the fact that the IEC held in its decision that it was properly constituted, and it also held that he waived any procedural willings.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
And the IEC was fully authorized to do that.

[00:23:45] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:47] Speaker 05:
Did it specifically say that there was a quorum?

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
It just said broadly that any procedural issue has been waived.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
And I think there's something else that counsel sort of dug himself a deeper hole in with respect to the power of the IEC.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
And that's in Article 5.2, which defines the powers of the executive counsel, the IEC.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
If I can just read the sentence here, it says, it shall have the power to pass on any subject, proposition, or grievance.

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
Pretty good.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
And then it goes on to say, and hear and determine all cases of appeal and decisions.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
So it has two powers.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
One is to pass on any subject proposition or grievance, or secondly, to hear an appeal.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
So when it acted,

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
to issue its decision nearly, Jim, it was authorized to do so by the language of 5.2.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
And I think there's a point that I can make in having represented unions for a long time that I think is evident in this Constitution.

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
That some Constitutions give a lot more power to the executive.

[00:25:04] Speaker 01:
Maybe this reflects on national politics, too.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
Others give more power to the executive board or executive committee.

[00:25:11] Speaker 01:
And others split it.

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
And I think, Judge Kelly, when you pointed out that Article 1.5 says, when the international brotherhood is not in convention, because ultimately the convention is the union and controls what goes on, its executive and judicial powers are vested in the International Executive Council, not in the president.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
It was not in the president.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
But this union says, we're going to give to the six members of the IEC

[00:25:43] Speaker 01:
And keep in mind, structurally, the IEC has five vice presidents who are elected and the international president.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
So the international president has some power as part of the IEC, but ultimately, this union is controlled during the five years between conventions, because international unions usually hold conventions every five years, by the IEC.

[00:26:07] Speaker 01:
And it has both judicial and executive power.

[00:26:10] Speaker 01:
It does not have legislative power, which means to amend or change the Constitution.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
And that's the way this union functions.

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
If counsel is corrected, you look at the whole Constitution, and there are many provisions in the Constitution which say things can happen subject to appeal or approval by the IEC, which reaffirms my view, and we are going to make them to your honors, that this union is based in this kind of system where the IEC, the six members, control the union

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
And in this case, 17.3 got involved because of recharges against the international president.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
And so he was automatically disqualified.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
So the rest of the process was left to the remainder of the IEC, the five other members, the vice presidents, because he was automatically disqualified from taking any action, including setting up this self-dubbed Article 17 committee.

[00:27:13] Speaker 01:
And I was standing here before you, sort of sad about this case because of what happened here.

[00:27:19] Speaker 01:
Not because of the process we use, but what is reflected and what was going on in this union.

[00:27:26] Speaker 01:
And I think the Executive Council thanked John Foltz for bringing these charges.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
And what you saw on the record was when they started bringing these charges, Morton Jones retaliated against them.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
He took away certain responsibilities that these international vice presidents had, brought his own Article 17 charges, and then when a hearing was held where he could have shown up to explain why he was traveling to the Ukraine on the Union Dime, why he was having all these meals around his home,

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
of why he gave his wife a substantial salary increase while she was living in the Ukraine, he chose not to do so.

[00:28:05] Speaker 01:
And although the record doesn't reflect a reason, I think it was quite clear why he chose not to show up, because as revealed in February, when this whole thing came to just a concern.

[00:28:19] Speaker 01:
So I'll just conclude by saying that this union acted promptly, responsibly,

[00:28:25] Speaker 01:
Judge Melgren saw that.

[00:28:27] Speaker 01:
I just want to point out that Judge Melgren handled this thing in an expedited manner.

[00:28:31] Speaker 01:
The first day we showed up, he says to the lawyers representing the IBB, you can't represent the IBB.

[00:28:38] Speaker 01:
He then set another hearing date, denied our preliminary injunction request, but said, I've got to get this resolved, and then granted the declaratory leave.

[00:28:47] Speaker 01:
But by that time, Newton-Jones had left the union, and so part of this is moot because he voluntarily left.

[00:28:55] Speaker 01:
It hasn't ended this dispute, but that's the status.

[00:28:59] Speaker 01:
So unless there are questions, I'll rest.

[00:29:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:29:04] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:29:09] Speaker 05:
Cases submitted and counsel are excused.