Question

Paul Sanchez, a member of Local 1 of the Bartender Union, speaks Spanish and is not sufficiently bilingual to understand the English language in either written or spoken form. Local 1 has 16,500 members, 48 percent of whom understand Spanish only. For several years Local 1 has had its collective bar-gaining agreements, monthly newsletters, and various notices printed in Spanish to accommodate its Spanish- speaking members. At meetings held to nominate union officers and contract ratification meetings, which occur
once every three years, English and Spanish translations are provided for the discussion that takes place. Monthly union meetings are conducted primarily in English and are attended by 5075 members (less than 1 percent of the unions total membership). Subjects debated during local union meetings include such topics as union expen- ditures, salaries of officers, general complaints with particular employers, and various other operational matters. Such debate is commonly referred to as shop talk. Spanish translation at monthly meetings is provided whenever union officer nominations take place or whenever Spanish-speaking members request their comments or those of others be translated for the benefit of other members attending the meeting. Such translation duties are typically performed by a bilingual local union officer, rather than hiring an outside, professional translator to be present at each monthly meeting. Paul Sanchez, along with several other employees, petitioned Local 1s officers to provide a qualified translator who was not a member of the union at all monthly membership meetings. This person would simultaneously translate all meetings proceedings and discussion into Spanish and English. The union officers brought the petition request before the members at the next monthly meeting. With the union members in attendance acting as a legislative body in accordance with the unions constitution and by-laws, Sanchezs proposal to hire a full-time outside translator for the monthly meetings was debated and defeated by a majority vote of those members in attendance. The majority of the members in attendance felt that the cost of hiring an outside translator for every monthly meeting was not justified based on the number of members who typically attended and the availability of bilingual union members who could perform the necessary translation duties upon request. Union member Sanchez then filed a civil suit in federal court. Sanchez alleged the unions failure to provide simultaneous translation at the regular monthly union meetings by an independent professional translator was a violation of his equal participation and freedom of speech rights under Title I of the Landrum-Griffin Act.
Relevant Statutory Language Title I, Sec. 101(a), Landrum-Griffin Act
(1)Equal Rights Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organizations constitution and by-laws.
(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 organizations his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organizations 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.
Title IV, Section 401(e), Landrum-Griffin Act states in relevant part, In any election a reasonable opportunity shall be given for the nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office subject to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed.

Questions:

1- Did the union violate Title I, Section 101(a) of the Landrum-Griffin Act in this case? If so, what should be the appropiate remedy?

2- Would it be legal Title IV of the Landrum-Griffin Act for the union in this case to adopt a rule that required all candidates for union office to be proficient in both Spanish and English? Why or why not?

PLEASE!