Ousted AFSCME DC 33 union president Ernest Garrett is suing to get his position back

Ernest Garrett, who was recently ousted as president of the largest union for Philadelphia’s city workers, is appealing the decision that led to his removal and suing for the right to run in upcoming union elections.

Garrett became president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ District Council 33, which represents about 9,000 blue-collar city workers, after winning an upset election in 2000 against longtime president Herman “Pete” Matthews.

He was removed from office last month by an AFSCME judicial board after other DC 33 executive board members charged him with violating the union’s rules by making personnel and financial decisions without the consent of the union’s board. Those decisions included cutting the salaries of some union staff members, which the judicial decision noted “may have saved money” but “does not excuse the violations.”

They also accused Garrett of nepotistic hiring for contracts that went to two of his family members. The judicial panel found that those decisions were “not technically a violation” but gave “the appearance of nepotism.”

» READ MORE: Union president representing 10,000 city workers is removed from office

Now, Garrett is fighting back. He filed an internal appeal to AFSCME’s full judicial board this week, along with a separate lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Absent reinstatement, Garrett is asking the court to give him the right to run in the union’s elections in May, which he was barred from doing for four years by the judicial board’s ruling.

He also wants to clear his name.

“As the decision itself admits, nothing I did resulted in any personal benefit to me, yet I’m now prohibited from running for office or even being nominated,” Garrett said in a statement. “My appeal shows why this decision is absolutely unfair, illegal, and violates the International Constitution.”

The dispute comes at a high-stakes moment for DC 33, which will soon negotiate a new contract with Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s administration. The current contract, which began under former Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration, will expire at the end of June.

It’s also steeped in a decades-long history of conflict within DC 33. Garrett is seen by some as connected to a faction once led by James Sutton. As the union’s president in the early 1990s, when the city was in the midst of a financial crisis, Sutton agreed to significant concessions in a contract with then-Mayor Ed Rendell’s administration that union members criticize to this day. (Garrett called it “the worst contract of our union’s history,” but he hired Sutton’s wife, Evon Sutton, to be the union’s political director.)

Some of Garrett’s accusers, meanwhile, are viewed as allies of Matthews, who ousted Sutton.

Garrett’s appeal argues that the AFSCME investigation and ruling were flawed for a variety of reasons, including that the hearing officer for the case “relied on inaccuracies” and that the judicial panel ignored the fact that Garrett’s predecessor, Matthews, also made unilateral financial decisions. It also argues that the penalties imposed on Garrett were excessive.

“The decision is inconsistent: The hearing officer states that there is no evidence of any personal or direct financial benefit to Mr. Garrett but imposes the most severe penalty possible without additional procedures,” Garrett’s appeal reads.

Garrett said his goal was to cut costs at the union and avoid wasting members’ dues.

“Nowhere in that constitution does it say you have to take it to the board when you’re lowering salaries,” he said. “Most of these salaries — they were bad. They weren’t in line with the people we represent. We have hundreds of secretaries, clerks. None of them making $85,000 a year. Why would we pay a secretary $85,000?”

He said he was in the process of auditing each local’s finances, and suggested that turned the executive board members against him.

“There are a lot of things I learned in this process that I could have done better, I should have done better,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “But one of the things I never did was took money for myself.”

Omar Salaam, who was vice president under Garrett and who was one of the union officials that accused Garrett of wrongdoing, is now the union’s acting president.

Salaam declined to comment Wednesday. But he recently told The Inquirer that he intends to run the union “by the book.”

“We want to make sure that we never fall into a situation like this again,” he said.