DCI’s Non Disparagement Warning
We told you that the Hollywood Membership Meeting two days ago included a statement from SAG General Counsel Duncan Crabtree-Ireland regarding the Non Disparagement Agreement between SAG and AFTRA. Variety quotes him as going a lot farther than just a warning, including in his message a threat that:
“Anyone covered by this agreement may be subject to removal from office, disciplinary and/or legal action for violating these obligations.”
That would seem to be a direct slap at SAG 1st VP and Hollywood Division leader Anne-Marie Johnson, whose anti-AFTRA antics have been the subject of several posts here. A complaint is currently pending before the AFL-CIO on the disparagement question - we still haven’t heard results.
But if the quote above is accurate, and reflects SAG’s legal interpretation of the agreement, it’s interesting – because removing an officer from a position would seem to be beyond the power of the umpire. Those powers are set in Paragraph 6 (d) of the agreement:
“If the umpire finds that any other violation has occurred {aside from withdrawal from joint negotiations} the umpire shall have the authority to order an appropriate remedy, which may include, if the violation is serious, payment of a monetary fine to the otehr party in an amount that the Umpire determines is commensurate to the offense. Appropriate non-monetary remedies would include the issuance of an apology, the private or public disavowal of a statement, the publication of a response to a statement, the reimbursement of actual expenses or incurred, the right to reply to an improper assertion, or other similar remedies.”
So, the question would be, is removal of an officer an “other similar remedy.” Duncan Crabtree-Ireland seems to be saying, yes, it is. And in particular, according to Variety, he noted that it was in potential violation of the agreement for the Hollywood board to have established a task force to explore “acquisition” of AFTRA actors by SAG.
Could all this be a signal to the umpire? Very interesting.
And let’s remember that each national board voted overwhelmingly to approve this agreement.
V.
Clarify please..
yes the person who costs SAG a fine can be ousted from office. But does a member have to bring that person (who may or may not be female) up on charges? Will SAG’s attorneys do it? what’s the deal?
I’ve asked some people think that the members have to bring charges which is fine..but what about recovering damages? Can’t SAG do that as an organization? Don’t board members sign anything that agrees they will not knowingly incur damages to SAG by violating a signed agreement?
I see no particular reason from the report given to think that SAG’s General Counsel was referring to umpire powers rather than SAG’s own internal discipline of officers for breech of the guild’s responsibilities.
Unfortunately, the current composition of the board would seem likely to make that a toothless threat. But perhaps not entirely. Penalties less than expulsion can be handed down by a simple majority, I believe, of either the board or the committee they designate for such proceedings.
I have to agree with geo. I do not believe SAG’s GC was in any way suggesting that the umpire could remove an officer (in fact I doubt SAG could give them the authority to do so even if it wanted to). My guess is that SAG’s own internal disciplinary procedures would allow for the removal of an officer who willfully violated the agreement and caused financial harm to the union.
When will the umpire rule on this already??? I am anxious to see if there will be any real backlash for the actions of those who willfully violated the agreement for their own political purposes.
I’ll tell you what will happen. Nothing. No decision will be made.
Otoh, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the fact that warning was given, and by who, was something proposed and agreed to at the meeting the NEDs and the umpire had.
I agree with Kathy, unless there is an outcry at a SAG meeting for AMJ’s removal this will be a toothless threat. It’s to appease US not to actually take an action against HER. I am so sick and tired of this show…. The Hollywood leadership is an embarrassment and listening to them pontificate about each other’s sacrifice for the “true union actors” turns my stomach.
Sorry to ask this again, but by “SAG’s internal disciplinary” process you mean that a member has to bring them up on charges right?
There is no punishment for willfully violating a signed agreement without a member bringing the person up on charges, going through a trial board (that can be stacked with like minded offenders!!) and a punishment carried out.
Or
The members can sue the offenders privately? Why doesn’t SAG sue the offenders for damages?
Can someone tell me yes or no….SAG as a union has no consequence for violating a contract that they (the offenders of the NDisp.) signed (by allowing Rosenberg and Allen to sign on their behalf).
Every member of the national board is a member of SAG. Any of them could bring her up on charges by writing a memo to David White. It doesn’t take a non-elected SAG member from Poughkeepsie to do.
And the board appoints committees. If the current committee makeups do not reflect the will of the board, they should do something about that.
Being in the majority, however slim, places a responsibility to govern. Yes, there are some things that they’d probably find impossible to do with their current majority. But not being able to do everything is not an excuse to do nothing.
I believe any SAG member who tried to sue AMJ privately for any action she took as a SAG officer would in fact get themselves in trouble for not having tried to work guild processes first (that’s “conduct unbecoming”), and would also obligate the guild to defend her.
So if you want to bring her up on charges, send David White a registered letter laying out your case. In fact, the U4S members on the board might appreciate it if such a letter came in from someone other than their own board members as it would obligate them to act on it one way or another.
As explained to us on the AFTRA Board, the Non-Disparagement Agreement is between the Institutions, and ALL filings, claims and penalties are on an institutional level. Therefore, when one union files a claim against the other for violation, it is presented by the respective union’s attorney(s), and whatever defense that is offered is presented by the accused institution’s attorneys. The available penalties offered the umpire are strictly financial and limited in scope by the financial ante each union made once the agreement was signed off on by both Boards. The decision is just like that of an arbitration. Once in the umpire’s hands, the ruling and penalty imposed is final and non-negotiable. Because of the good will each institution has brought to the process on a staff level, the agreement to extend the deadline for the umpire to make a decision was arrived at quickly and without rancor. The umpire will make a decision on the pending issue, and, once made, the decision is final. The claim is either valid or invalid and the fine is at the umpire’s discretion.
And who knows, there may be multiple of those letters already out there in draft form just waiting to add “and an AFL-CIO umpire found. . . ” to them before sending.
Btw, only “expulsion from the guild” requires a 2/3rds vote. Suspension of membership is a majority vote. Imposition of a fine is a majority vote. What happens if a fine levied is not paid? Dunno, it’s not clear. Might require a separate action to suspend or expell for not paying the fine.
Would suspension of membership make the member unqualified to serve in an office they were already holding during the length of the suspension? Also not real clear. On the one hand, officers are supposed to be members in good standing and that argues yes. On the other hand, the constitution provides specific procedures (2/3rd vote of the board) for “removing” officers and directors, and that would argue trying to do it by the suspension of membership route would be an inappropriate end-round of the provisions specfically provided for officers and directors, particularly if the length of the suspension was for the rest of the elected term (or longer). I’d probably hold that position myself from a value-neutral precedent setting point of view.
But a majority of the board or their designated committee can certainly suspend the membership and/or fine a director, even if that director doesn’t pay the fine and continues to serve in their office.
I think a suspension would also prevent that member from standing for re-election, as the requirement for nomination is that the member have been “active” for two years prior to the close of the nominating period.
That last might actually be the most promising. If a majority can suspend membership and that stops nomination for election. Another provision explictly says “membership in the guild. . . is suspended on suspension from the guild”. So any suspension should start the two year clock ticking again for eligibilty to run for office.
Having said ALL of that. . . it is always a dangerous road to travel to set these precedents without very good and clear cause that can be pointed at later if/when someone wants to dredge them up again for different circumstances that perhaps are not as good and clear, but rather just politically expedient.
But this might be where the Umpire’s decision comes in –in having clear-cut justification to act from a neutral third party.
Thanks Geo..makes no sense to do so until the fat lady sings on this.
Like I said, the fat lady ain’t gonna sing. There will be no decision or, at best, a slap on the hand reprimand
Do you think anyone out side this site cares?
–
Admin. Response: Yes.
But then most of the people in the business aren’t producers who hire actors and then don’t pay them.
Does this agrement apply to
ALL SAG elected officials?
Staff?
Just the SAG National Board?
Just the ones a certain group wants attacked?
Because I’ve seen some recent posts on other BB’s (bulliten boards) by SAG Board members which in my opinion are disparaging to SAG and to other elected officials.
OR–is it that you can’t disparage the OTHER union?
Since many are dual-card holders—–hmmmmm.
Does the SAG email communication ok’d by Mr. White which (falsely) claimed that some SAG memebrs are trying to “bring the union down” count as disparaging?
BTW..WHO wrote that gem of an email? Mr. White told me he didn’t.
So WHO did? Why the secret? Can’t the writer step up and be proud of what (s)he wrote?
And one more question…isn’t it a bit anti-freedom of speech?
BELOW IS A PORTION OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS:
TITLE I — BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Bill of Rights
(29 U.S.C. 411)
(2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.– Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization’s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.
–
Admin. Response – The agreement applies to all SAG and AFTRA staff, electeds of any description (national and division boards, officers, whatever), committee members and outside contractors.
E-AN–
Maybe ask Doug Allen and Allan Rosenberg why they negotated/signed such a document. It’s not hard to find the image of the signature page with their John Hancocks on it.
David White’s insistence on protecting staff is admirable in my book, even when they screw up. And I believe he has said in public that it was staff that wrote it (rather than, say, another board member). No doubt he also realizes that whether he wrote it or not, it happened on his watch and is his responsibility since he let it go out that way. I believe he has said that publicly as well. If you hang staff out to dry publicly as you are demanding, for work you yourself approved, you soon find you don’t have any staff that has much use for you.
I for one agree with what the email said no matter who wrote it. No names were given. Some in the union, in my opinion ARE trying to damage this union…that’s my opinion and I can shout it anywhere I please.
Anderson should get a clue. This agreement (non-disparagement) is not new, it’s been out there in print over and over. it applies to disparaging the other union…SAG against AFTRA and vice versa.
AFTRA board member have said NOTHING about SAG they even avoid the word in public, in writing, in convesations on blogs…
but OUR WONDERFUL HOLLYWOOD BOARD MEMBERS feel it’s ok to test the waters, push the envelope.
They played with fire and now they got burned. Problem is that the entire union has to deal with the pain of their irresponsible comments.
Well, marisa, when you’re president of SAG, maybe you can write a song about the internal traitors of the guild and sing it on youtube!
when i’m president of SAG we will be merged…and i’m smart enough not to sing….since i can’t!
So Erik…go ask Rosenberg who was very proud of signing this agreement why he did it?
It is so embarrassing that we have to have a babysitter and a written agreement to act like a union and not disparage our sister union…how pathetic.
Deal with it Erik. Would you want a producer to change his mind after months and months after signing a contract or agreement that you signed as well? Now because those idiots in Hollywood is gonna cost us big bucks, you want to change the deal?
Typical childish antics from a child.
Erik,
What part of
“Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations,”
don’t you understand?
Yes Fred….I was just typing this
ERIK
“refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance OF ITS LEGAL OR C O N T R A C T U A L O B L I G A T I O N S”
contractual obligations as in a signed agreement NOT TO DISPARAGE AFTRA.