Representing two different unions is no different than representing two different retailers or two different insurance companies or two different computer companies. In the abstract, and without any relevant facts whatsoever, what you have described may or may not be a conflict of interest and, if it is, it's probably a conflict that could be waived by mutual consent of the two clients.
Chances are good that they are not going after the same piece of the pie. Rather, they are each seeking something from the city/county and if both prevail the city will have come up with the resources to meet what each requires. Again the details of what each union is seeking from the city/county are important.
Even if there was a conflict, that generally can be handled by having each union consent to the arrangement. And if one of the unions has a problem with the conflict, that union would be the one to address it. Individual union members would have no say in that.
What is your interest in the matter; why does the representation concern you?
Thank you for all the responses. I'm Sorry I didn't explain the the fact that is concerning. I'm trying to defuse a situation of unrest amongst members. There are several members thInking this is. The scenarios go like this:
When you're dealing with the municipality the public safety almost never get hit as hard as the non Public Safety units. So it appears that the lawyer fights harder for them and the non Public Safety unit takes the brunt of concessions/layoffs.
I guess I'm looking for the actual definitive answer is this a conflict of interest as a matter of law so this could be explained to our members..
To my knowledge the units have not formally mutually waived anything.
I got you but I'm dealing with black and white mentalities and need to assure them that it in fact is not a conflict of interest.
Looking for simple explanation for simple people.
Thanks
I got you but I'm dealing with black and white mentalities and need to assure them that it in fact is not a conflict of interest.
Looking for simple explanation for simple people.
Thanks
I think everyone assumed as much from your original post, but you still haven't provided any relevant facts. "When you're dealing with the municipality the public safety almost never get hit as hard as the non Public Safety units" is a vague and general statement that doesn't allow for anyone to address any potential conflict issue.
By the way, what is your role such that you think you need to "try[] to defuse a situation of unrest amongst [union] members" and "explain[] [things] to [the] members"?
When you're dealing with the municipality the public safety almost never get hit as hard as the non Public Safety units. So it appears that the lawyer fights harder for them and the non Public Safety unit takes the brunt of concessions/layoffs.
I'm going to guess that the members of the non public safety union don't really know what the lawyer does for each union and only knows the outcome of the negotiations with the city. The reality is likely that lawyer works just as hard for both but that the city or county's attitude regarding the two units is different because voters likely see the two units differently. If that's the case switching lawyers isn't going to help out the union much. The city will still take the harder stand for the non public safety unit regardless of who the lawyer is.
If union management who does see what the lawyer does is dissatisfied with his/her efforts then the union may fire the lawyer and hire someone else. They have to hope the new one would be as good as the one they just fired though.
