Flash: SAG FINED $5000 FOR DISPARAGING AFTRA, TOLD NOT TO PURSUE “ACQUIRING AFTRA ACTORS,” To ISSUE “DISCLAIMER STATEMENT,” WARNING ISSUED – updated
In a complicated decision, the AFL-CIO umpire has ruled on AFTRA’s complaint that SAG had disparaged AFTRA. SAG interim NED David White and AFTRA NED Kim Hedgpeth have sent out a memo, including the umpire’s summary of the decision:
With respect to the May 11 resolution adopted by the SAG Hollywood Division Board, establishing a task force with no authority to act did not in and of itself violate Article XX or the Agreement. However, in light of AFTRA’s statements that it is not interested in any such acquisition, any further discussions or consideration by the task force or SAG of the acquisition of AFTRA’s members would constitute an extremely serious violation of both Article XX and the Agreement, and would result in severe fines and other appropriate relief.
Because the resolution arose in the context of a governing body deliberation, it did not have to be submitted to the facilitators for review prior to issuance under paragraph 4.b of the Agreement.
Because the resolution implied that representation by AFTRA was less desirable than representation by SAG, it inherently disparaged AFTRA in violation of paragraph 4.a of the Agreement. To remedy this disparagement, I have ordered SAG to issue a corrective statement, which the parties are directed to discuss.
Because disparaging statements made by one of the SAG board members were made in her capacity as a candidate for AFTRA’s National Board, those statements did not violate the Agreement, and neither a penalty nor a disclaimer is required. Had these statements been made by her as a candidate in a SAG election, voters could have been confused about whether she spoke as a SAG candidate or a SAG officer. In such circumstances, SAG may have been required to issue a disclaimer making it clear that she spoke as a candidate and did not express official SAG policy regarding AFTRA.
Additionally, because the board member’s remarks were made in her capacity as a candidate, not an officer, they fell within an exception to the requirement that statements referring to the other union must be submitted to the facilitators for review prior to issuance.
The statements mentioning AFTRA by the other SAG board member were disseminated in an email from a private account to members, and not to the public or press. They were not required to be submitted to the facilitators for review prior to issuance because of the current impracticality of implementing such prior review for member-to-member email from private accounts. The statements disparaged AFTRA in violation of paragraph 4.a of the Agreement and did not fall within the private conversation exception of paragraph 4.a(i) because they were in writing.
To remedy this disparagement, I imposed a $5,000 fine on SAG that is payable, pursuant to AFTRA’s request, to the Actors Fund.
The memo also contains a reminder to all SAG and AFTRA members covered under the agreement:
• No Covered Person, and neither union, is to take any action whatsoever which would involve consideration of an acquisition of the other Union’s members or similar unilateral action. Such action will be considered a violation of the Agreement and result in substantial penalties.
• The “candidate” exception to the non-disparagement provisions does not necessarily apply to candidates who are running for office in the union for which they are a “Covered Person” under the Agreement. For example, a SAG Covered Person who is running for office in SAG and disparages AFTRA may trigger a required disclaimer by SAG, or an AFTRA Covered Person who is running for office in AFTRA and disparages SAG may trigger a required disclaimer by AFTRA.
• No officers or representatives of SAG or AFTRA should disparage their sister union in violation of the Agreement, even in personal emails to other members.
Update: Variety, bizarrely burying the part about the fine.
The AFL-CIO said:
“Because disparaging statements made by one of the SAG board members were made in her capacity as a candidate for AFTRA’s National Board, those statements did not violate the Agreement, and neither a penalty nor a disclaimer is required.”
What is interesting, is that the AFTRA candidate that made the disparaging statement, also garnered more votes than almost any other candidate, in that AFTRA election
SAG seems to get off cheap and I can hear AMJ already claiming that it was no big deal.
But, of course, it was a big deal. How do you build trust with other unions in the industry if you are bad mouthing them.
We need ALL the unions to stand together and trust and respect each other or the AMPTP will win every time.
A union house divided can not stand. A union house united grows bigger and stronger each day, each week, each month, each year and EACH CONTRACT.
So, as I understand this ruling, if AMJ and M1st continue campaigning on the issue of acuiring AFTRA actors,etc, she is going to cost us a lot more than the $5,000 wrist slap we just got.
And this is someone who wants to lead our union? How much more money will her anger cost us?
As others have observed, it’s a shame that it takes a written agreement to remind union brothers and sisters not to disparage each other’s unions.
So where is the SAG disclaimer?
VG
on the one hand, this is a high risk moment. To have gotten off with a $5000 fine is one thing, but the behavior that led to that fine continues, so SAG has basically a ticking time bomb — who knows what is going to be said next and what the fine might be for that? And the damage beyond the fine is even more costly — as Leslie said: “How do you build trust with other unions in the industry if you are bad mouthing them.”
on the other hand, it gives SAG members a good look at the consequences for this kind of behavior, right at the moment when they get to choose whether they want this kind of behavior in their elected officials, in their potential President. SAG members get to vote right now on the kind of leadership they want.
I think of all SAGWatch regular posters I’ve been sticking needles in the Umpire the most in recent weeks for not getting this done by now. So let me take this opportunity to thank the AFL-CIO Umpire for stepping up and getting this done in a timeframe that allows SAG voters to make their own informed determination about what to think of this matter. I quite literally didn’t care what the decision was –I just wanted it made when it was actually useful for getting made, rather than creating new fodder for yet another conspiracy theory if it kept dragging out.
Les said:
“How do you build trust with other unions in the industry if you are bad mouthing them.”
A union IS its members. It’s AFTRA members that are bad mouthing their own union. Most would rather work under SAG jurisdiction. The AFL-CIO, in reality, fined AFTRA members as well as SAG members, because working actors are members of both unions, their (almost) all duel card members, so the fine is a joke.
–
Ed. Comment: The above is posted in accordance with our policy of allowing commenters to state opinions even if they containing misleading information or errors listed as facts. The “members” who are “bad mouthing” AFTRA tend to be Membership First dual card holders.
For the grammar police, I meant to write they’re …
Btw, as I read the Umpire’s decision, it was NOT AMJ who garnered the $5k fine. It was the personal email sent by “the other SAG board member”. To what is that a reference? Is that a Justine going away present?
Also, I think this decision makes it important to brace M1st candidates on their non-merger desire to unite actors in one union. This decision makes it crystal clear that in order to pursue that desire even one step further will require them to have SAG withdraw from the non-disparagement agreement (which either party can do upon written notice to the other), and thus withdraw from all joint negotiations with AFTRA in the future.
Will they own up to that in a straight-forward way?
It’s called bullet voting, Mike.
It is only “interesting” if you don’t understand how it works to skew election results.
Ed. Said: The “members” who are “bad mouthing” AFTRA tend to be Membership First dual card holders.
And in the case of AMJ and David Jolliffe, AFTRA elected National and Hollywood Local Board members. AMJ was one of the highest vote getters on the AFTRA National Board.
To suggest that it’s only M1 “members” that tend toward bad mouthing AFTRA, is inaccurate. I’ve heard and read some very disparaging remarks from “members” whom ran on the UFS slate. I’ve also heard disparaging remarks from members unaffiliated with any slate of candidates.
“A union IS its members.”
As the filibuster meeting so clearly proved, this is hogwash when the elected leadership of a union abandons its obligations to the members. Membership held hostage by elected leadership isn’t a union, it’s a rogue state.
While it is individual members who make the comments, the union mechanism itself bears responsibility for enforcing a voluntary agreement on members of its own hierarchy.
SAG couldn’t. That’s hardly AFTRA’s fault.
The fine could probably been avoided, if, when the “acquiring” motion was made, the dais had immediately ruled that it violated the agreement, demonstrating to the world that the bad idea was from one individual, not from an organization. That didn’t happen.
And you’re going to suggest that it was AFTRA’s fault that AMJ didn’t stop the foolishness because she’s a dual card member?
Wow. Talk about spin.
I believe it has been clearly stated by AMJ that, if elected SAG president, she intends to end the disparagement agreement…but while she continues to campaign stating she wants to acquire AFTRA actors, according to the Umpire, she continues to violate the agreement (as do all MF board members making the same claim), and that could lead to severe financial penalties.
As I read the Umpire’s decision, and the actual non-disparagement agreement, one blanket disclaimer by SAG for political statements of candidates can be made to cover a 15-30 day window of multiple such statements. SAG has not made such a disclaimer however, as of yet.
The other shoe waiting to drop on this is … now that AMJ is a board member of AFTRA she has a fiduciary responsibilty to AFTRA. Her hope of acquiring actors from AFTRA violates the fidicuiary responsibility….could she soon be facing the same fate as Angelthompkins…and get the boot from AFTRA.
And do we want AMJ, someone so reckless with her responsibilities to AFTRA – and to SAG (suing us, wasting our money) to be our national president?
Vote for Ken Howard.
She also sits on the AFTRA national board. How long before they – AFTRA – make her do the AngelTompkins perp walk outta there? She is CLEARLY not acting appropriately regarding her feduicary duties to the members of that union.
And it seems she never intended to.
V.
That depends on how you define fiduciary duty.
Perhaps AMJ thinks that the current AFTRA policy of aggressively organizing shows, by offering what AFTRA describes as “flexible terms”, has lead to negative feeling towards AFTRA, by AFTRA members. That this trend, by AFTRA, is reckless and if continued, could lead to a universal decertification movement, by actors, who are less likely to qualify for SAG benefits, as a result and the eventual demise of AFTRA as a labor union.
AMJ has stated it is her intent to strengthen AFTRA as a union, by increasing the organizing of areas outside of the areas in which SAG and AFTRA share jurisdiction.
Also remember only ONE person (Jason Priestly, received more votes than AMJ, in the last AFTRA elections. The N.L.R.B. or Dept. of Labor might look with disapproval at the expulsion such a popular elected AFTRA member.
–
Ed. Comment – The Tompkins issue was only a little different from the AMJ situation. Tompkins proposed decertification. AMJ has supported “acquisition.”
Perhaps a question for her at her session tomorrow should be whether she still supports “acquisition” of AFTRA actors by SAG, and what she’s doing to implement her Task Force.
“Also remember only ONE person (Jason Priestly, received more votes than AMJ, in the last AFTRA elections. The N.L.R.B. or Dept. of Labor might look with disapproval at the expulsion such a popular elected AFTRA member.”
This looks like it is going to come as a shock to you, but the election returns are irrelevant to whether or not a member faces expulsion, or what that member’s rights to appeal will be, or whatever you think the NLRB would look at. If the union follows its written policies and procedures and, as a result, deems AMJ to have violated her obligations and expulsion is the appropriate remedy, not even a unanimous election is going to save her.
Do you spend ANY time thinking about what you post before you hit the “submit comment” button, or do you simply come up with these things to see if anyone notices how stupid you sound when you say them? If that’s the case, consider yourself noticed.
Your not “in it” Fred.
From Mike:
[Perhaps AMJ thinks that the current AFTRA policy of aggressively organizing shows, by offering what AFTRA describes as “flexible terms”, has lead to negative feeling towards AFTRA, by AFTRA members.]
First of all, Mike, because you put it in quotes (“flexible terms”) doesn’t make it fact. I’d like you to cite where that quote is from. Just like SAG, every type of work covered has a specific contract which applies. You infer someone at AFTRA sits there and makes decisions willy-nilly. Bullcrap.
Both as a manager and a producer, that’s hooey, and just another myth being put out there by The MisInformers.
Second, just because AMJ *personally* “thinks” AFTRA is “aggressively organizing” shows (also, Total BS…they had nowhere else to go for a year) she DOES NOT have the right to act on her “thoughts” or “feelings” without the consent, and impetus, of the members she was elected to represent. Nor does she have the right to implement any actions towards “rectifying” that situation without express consent of the board.
But you keep trying, Mr. Beck…er, Mike.
Does that mean you sound smarter to someone who’s “in it?” I’m asking, because you sound like an idiot from here “outside.”
You see, Mike, when it comes to acting, you may be “in it,” but when it comes to working with the D.O.L. and the NLRB, you’re definitely not “in it.” You’re not even close to “it.”
But you’re right, I’m not an actor. If I were an actor, I would probably be trained to keep a straight face when you say something so ludicrously wrong as “The N.L.R.B. or Dept. of Labor might look with disapproval at the expulsion such a popular elected AFTRA member.”
Maybe if I was “in it,” I would be able to stifle my reaction to such an idiotic statement.
But I’m not an actor, I’m just someone who knows pure stupidity when I see it.
You see, Mike, there really is a difference between being smart and acting like someone smart. In your case, you really need someone writing you better material, because you’ve clearly been cast against type in this conversation.
So let’s pretend you know what you’re talking about. Tell me how the DOL or the NLRB would consider the election results as a factor if AMJ was expelled from AFTRA. Pretend I’m in the audience and you have to convince me you’re intelligent.
I know you can do it. After all, you’re “in it.”