Did the Writers Guild of America West board of directors go too far in disciplining members that allegedly broke the rules of its 2023 strike? Or did it appropriately respond to actions that threatened the union and its members?

Union members answered that question with a mixed response on Thursday in a vote that upheld three out of four punishments. Discipline was upheld after very tight results in the case of Julie Bush (745 to 686), Edward Drake (769 to 652) and Roma Roth (778 to 639). Doyles punishment was overturned and an alternative action taken after members voted 915 to 557. Out of seven writers disciplined for allegedly breaking the WGAs strike rules, Bush, Drake, Doyle and Roth had all chosen to appeal their punishments. The punishments handed down to the three other disciplined writers remains unknown.

The board of the labor organization had previously expelled two of the writers Drake and Roth while suspending Bush until 2026 and banning her from occupying non-elected office in the guild. Doyle was publicly censured for posting an image on social media considered racist.

The vote concludes a highly charged period for the famously hard-charging guild. In their appeals materials, the accused writers called into question the methods practiced by the union to police its own and raised charges that the guild had violated its own constitution, even federal labor law.

But the unions member leaders have maintained that they meted out appropriate punishments. In the last few days, board members Nicole Yorkin and Rob Forman have encouraged union members to uphold the bodys rulings, with Forman saying the board acted fairly.

In his message, Forman called for writers to reject the disciplined members excuses for hurting theGuild by turning their backs on their fellow writers during the strike.

WGA team captain Tyler Ruggeri in a separate email to the WGA members for whom he is a resource also encouraged them to uphold the boards initial disciplinary action. These measures might seem difficult or uncomfortable to vote on, but the bottomline is that the members were found in violation and are exercising their right to an appeal, he said, in between reporting on other WGA business.

Unions can determine the specifics of how they want conduct internal disciplinary procedures, within limit. The Landrum Griffin Act, also known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, requires unions in disciplinary proceedings to provide members with written, specific charges, an appropriate amount of time to assemble their defense and a full and fair hearing.

Meanwhile, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has demonstrated that, under the National Labor Relations Act, an individual union has the power to protect against the erosion of its status through reasonable discipline of members who violate rules and regulations governing membership, says Fordham School of Law professor James Brudney, who specializes in labor and employment law. That remains true for discipline of a member who violated a rule against working during a strike.

In these sorts of situations, unions often walk a fine line between attempting not to alienate their own members with punishments that could be perceived as overly harsh while also protecting their interests. If enough members break strike rules or cross picket lines, the unions leverage with employers to negotiate and enforce contracts would be severely eroded.

Generally, unions shouldnt, and they typically dont, go wild, but they do have a lot of latitude, says University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign School of Labor and Employment Relations professor Robert Bruno. Keep in mind, the unions a private organization. Its not a government entity.

Over the course of the appeals process, arguments that the union had taken liberties with this process came to the fore. A letter written by the chair of an internal trial committee in Roths case emerged, alleging that a guild attorney had inappropriately tipped the scales of that groups decision on a suitable punishment. That chair, former public defender Jill Goldsmith, removed herself from the committee.

A minority opinion in Doyles case, written by an unnamed member of his trial committee, also became public. Its writer claimed that the WGA West board and a union lawyer had chosen to intentionally misrepresent and weaponize provisions of our Constitution in an attempt to send a message and punish a member of the guild.

And Bush raised the issue of the WGA West board recently changing its process for disciplinary appeals. In a letter to the WGA West board posted April 30, Bush called for a general membership meeting, which the unions constitution designated as a forum for appeals. In February, the unions board adopted new rules for appeals allowing for an online vote. I reserve the right to escalate these issues to the Department of Labor if not resolved in a timely manner, Bush wrote.

In a response, Writers Guild West general counsel Sean Graham denied her request and said the board had adopted the new procedures as a practical matter. The Board concluded that it would be ineffective to hold an annual membership meeting to resolve the appeals due to the inability to achieve a quorum, which is defined as 10% of the Current Active membership of the Guild (approximately 1,100 members). At the last membership meeting, in 2019, he said, fewer than 30 members attended, so the online vote allowed for more members to be able to participate.

Documents were released to members about the proceedings before the appeals vote commenced on May 6, shining a light on an often private process previously undergone by major figures like Jay Leno and Joan Rivers.

The timing of the vote is significant, considering that the Writers Guild of America is about a year away from returning to the bargaining table with major studios and streamers. The union will be looking to keep members activated, engaged and united in order to present a strong front to employers in 2026.