Content area
Full Text
The theory that unions are fair game for tighter-than-ever government regulations is heading for an unusual test before the courts here.
The Reagan Administration and the courts have demonstrated lately that they are not hesitant about regulating the affairs of unions even though the Administration strongly advocates less government "interference" in the operations of private business.
For example, the Supreme Court decided recently to curb the right of unions to discipline members who resign from the union during a strike.
On the other hand, unions have complained bitterly that employers are being subjected to fewer curbs on their conduct. There is, they charge, a lack of enforcement of laws and regulations involving health and safety; meanwhile, government deregulation of such industries as trucking and airlines has meant substantial job losses.
The new court test involves dissident Spanish-speaking members of the 16,000-member AFL-CIO Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union Local 11, which represents workers in hotels, restaurants and bars in the Los Angeles area.
The case began last year when a few members who speak only Spanish demanded that union leaders have all the local's meetings conducted in both English and Spanish.
The union's top officers agreed to the request. The union's longtime executive secretary, Andrew (Scotty) Allan, even noted that the union's newspaper, meeting notices, contracts, constitution, bylaws and all other documents have, for many years, been printed in both languages. Individual members routinely ask for translations of discussions at local meetings.
Despite general agreement, the dissidents and officers couldn't agree on procedures. One proposal by the dissidents was to give each member a headphone so that he or she could hear simultaneous translations. Union leaders countered that the idea would be too costly.
Another proposal was that all members who speak only Spanish be put on one side of the union hall while those who understand English would be on the other. Interpreters would then use microphones to simultaneously translate discussions to the separate groups. Union leaders said this plan would split the membership and create chaos.
When no agreement was forthcoming, three dissidents asked Arturo Morales, an attorney with the Los Angeles Legal Aid Society, to file suit against the officers on Feb. 1, 1984. The suit asked the court to order the...