The question is why didn't the union officials make this clear in the beginning so we could have avoided all this?
I asked that question and Yvette (treasurer) said that we don't investigate this until we are "pushed" into it.
Personally I find that a rather odd way to conduct business, but I am not in her (or others) shoes.
As you can see from the above "libel" is protected under the labor rules.
So Ellen, or anybody for that matter, is free to liable anybody else in the union.
The union cannot penalize a member for liable.
The union it appears agrees that Ellen has indeed been engaging in libelous activities, but there is not a damn thing they can do about it.
However, these cases can be settled in civil courts.
Chris Day comments:
You continue to use the word liable when you talk about this. I feel by just saying liable is creating the illusion that there are forms of speech that is protected. Within our Union all and any speech is protected. Unions are not permitted in any manner to discipline any member for almost any type of speech. The only type of speech that our Union can address is if the speech harms the welfare of the organization. This means if a member attempts to promote a different Union to fellow members our Union can discipline that member. Any other form of speech is protected from Union intervention.
What this means is any member including officer can say anything they want (as long as it is not trying to break the union). Our members and officers do not have to be honest with each other and can give false information as they please. Our union cannot protect us from any type of speech. Any violation of civil freedom of speech laws can only be handled by local, state and federal courts.
So say whatever you want to say about whoever you want, our Union is not able to do anything about that and it can only be handled in court.