Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ARNOLD v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 9

December 11, 1976.

Frank F. Arnold, Plaintiff
v.
District Council 9, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants and Paperhangers Local 490, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Petitioner to Intervene.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MOTLEY

MOTLEY, D.J.: The plaintiff, Frank F. Arnold ("Arnold") seeks an injunction permanently enjoining Local Union 490 from electing its business representative so long as an "unqualified" candidate remains on the ticket. A show cause order was signed on June 25, 1976 which temporarily enjoined the election scheduled for the next day. Argument was heard on the injunction on July 1st and 2d. We hold that the court has no jurisdiction over this claim, and we therefore vacate the temporary restraining order and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Arnold and Mr. Daniel French ("French") are both members of Paperhangers' Local Union 490 ("Local 490") and were duly nominated to run for the position of business representative for that local. District Council No. 9 ("District Council") is the regional union body which, among its other functions, oversees the local elections for business representative in accordance with its own bylaws. International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO ("International") is the parent body.

After both Arnold and French were nominated, they appeared before the Supervisor of Elections of the District Council, pursuant to its bylaws, so that their qualifications for office could be verified. The result of this examination was that French was disqualified because he had allegedly failed to pay his dues timely and because he had refused to present his dues book - violations of the Union Constitution and the District Council bylaws respectively. French appealed this decision to the President of International, and the President ordered the District Council to reinstate French's name on the ballot or face the possibility of serious sanctions. The District Council did reinstate French on June 23, and the show cause order was signed on June 25.

 The complaint claims that jurisdiction is grounded on Sections 101 and 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. *fn1" Section 101(a)(1) reads:

 "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,... subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and by-laws.

 Section 102 is the jurisdictional section which provides that the district courts have the power to remed violations of § 101. Both of these sections are contained in Title I of the LMRDA and will be collectively referred to as "Title I."

 Arnold claims that § 101 is violated when an unqualified candidate is presented to the electorate because he

 "would certainly be discriminated against and deprived of equal rights and privileges to nominate and vote. This would appear self-evident since his right to nominate and vote and the similar rights of his supporters would be clearly prejudiced and compromised since Mr. French and his supporters would be given the right to nominate and vote for an unqualified candidate, something denied other members under the Union Constitution. Consequently, each vote for Mr. French, an unqualified candidate, would result in a separate act of discrimination against Mr. Arnold and a dilution of his right to an equal vote and to nominate a qualified candidate. (Plaintiff's memorandum of Law at 6.)

 Even if we grant that French was not qualified, it is certainly not clear that the voters of Local 490 have been denied equal rights or privileges. Any voter can vote for whomever he wishes, and Arnold (the relevant party since this is not a class action) is in this same position. What the plaintiff's argument boils down to is that he is cheated out of a vote every time one is cast for French - who is, Arnold claims, not properly on the ballot. But to say that he is being cheated of his vote is simply not the same as saying that the voting rights of Arnold and his supporters are "not equal" in the statutory sense. The Supreme Court has made this point clear in Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 13 L. Ed. 2d 190, 85 S. Ct. 292 (1964), reh. den. 379 U.S. 984, 85 S. Ct. 639, 13 L. Ed. 2d 577. (See also Mamula v. United Steel Workers of America, 304 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 823, 83 S. Ct. 42, 9 L. Ed. 2d 63.

 The plaintiffs in Calhoon contended that certain provisions of the bylaws and the national constitution infringed "the right of members of defendant District No. 1 NMEBA, to nominate candidates in elections of defendant." Specifically, they claimed that these provisions severely restricted the number of persons who could be nominated for union office. The problem in Calhoon was, essentially, the reverse of that in the instant case since in Calhoon persons were prevented from being on the ballot, while Arnold claims that French is improperly on the ballot.

 The Court interpreted the purpose of Title I:

 "Plainly, [section 101] is no more than a command that members and classes of members shall not be discriminated against in their right to nominate and vote.... The complaining union members here have not been discriminated against in any way and have been denied no privilege or right to vote or nominate which the union has granted to others.... It is true that they were denied their request to be candidates, but that denial was not a discrimination against their right to nominate since the same qualifications were required equally of all members. Whether the eligibility requirements set by the unions' constitution and bylaws were reasonable and valid is a question separate and distinct from whether the right to nominate on an equal basis given by § 101(a)(1) was violated." Calhoon at 139.

 The Court also carefully distinguished Title I of the Act from Title IV. "Title IV, not Title I, sets standards for eligibility and qualifications of candidates and officials and provides its own separate and different administrative and judicial procedure for challenging those standards." *fn2" Calhoon at 138.

 In brief, Title IV sets the standards which govern the election of officers in national or international labor organizations. It covers the distribution of campaign literature, inspection of membership lists, and sets certain guidelines for conducting union elections. Most importantly for our purposes, § 402 provides that a member of a labor organization may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor after the election has been conducted if he feels that any provision of § 401 has been violated. The Secretary is then given the power to investigate the offense and file a civil complaint if warranted. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.