OPINION & ORDER
EDELSTEIN, District Judge :
This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an action commenced by the United States of America against, inter alia, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT") and the IBT's General Executive Board. The settlement is embodied in the voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 ("Consent Decree"). The goal of the Consent Decree is to rid the IBT of the hideous influence of organized crime through a two-phased implementation of the Consent Decree's various remedial provisions. In the first phase of the Consent Decree, these provisions provided for three court-appointed officers: the Independent Administrator to oversee the Consent Decree's provisions; the Investigations Officer to bring charges against corrupt IBT members; and the Election Officer to supervise the electoral process that led up to and including the 1991 election for IBT International Union Office. In the second phase of the Consent Decree, the IA was replaced by a three-member Independent Review Board ("IRB").
The Consent Decree, during its more than eight-year history, has generated an enormous amount of litigation that has required this Court to issue numerous opinions. In one such opinion, this Court, pursuant to its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), enjoined "all local unions, joint councils, area conferences, and other entities subordinate to or affiliated with the IBT, and any members, officers, representatives, agents and employees of the IBT or any such IBT affiliated entity, from filing or taking any legal action that challenges, impedes, seeks review of or relief from, or seeks to prevent or delay any act of any of the court officers appointed by this Court pursuant to the Consent Order in this action, in any court or forum in any jurisdiction except this Court[.]" December 15, 1989, Order at 3; see also United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters [All Writs Decision], 728 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y.), modification denied, 735 F. Supp. 502 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 907 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1990).
On August 28, 1997, plaintiffs, Local Union 1034 of the IBT ("Local 1034"), located in New York, New York, and its officers and Executive Board ("plaintiffs"), filed an action against defendants, IBT, Ron Carey ("Carey"), in his capacity as General President of IBT, and Eugene Maney ("Maney"), in his capacity as temporary trustee of Local 1034, challenging an emergency trusteeship imposed over Local 1034 by Carey in response to a recommendation by the IRB. See IRB Trusteeship Recommendation Concerning Local 1034 (Aug. 4, 1997)("IRB Report"). Plaintiffs' moved this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 ("Rule 65"), to issue an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from continuing the imposed emergency trusteeship and reinstating the individual plaintiffs to their positions as officers and Executive Board members of Local 1034. The request for an order to show cause was denied but a preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for September 9, 1997. As a result, this Court heard oral argument relating to plaintiffs Rule 65 motion and reserved opinion. After reviewing the arguments advanced by each party in its respective statements to this Court and submissions, this Court finds that plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction is denied.
This is an action to enjoin the continuation of the emergency trusteeship imposed by the IBT over Local 1034 upon the recommendation of the IRB. Pursuant to its authority under the Consent Decree and the IBT Constitution, the IRB conducted an investigation of Local 1034, its officers and Executive Board. (Amended Complaint at 9.) On August 4, 1997, upon completion of its investigation, the IRB issued the IRB Report to the IBT.
The IRB Report charged that Local 1034 had engaged in a "pattern of entering into apparently sham collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") in which owners and employers were allowed to be Local 1034 members with full rights of IBT membership." IRB Report, at 1. The IRB found that Local 1034 had 105 CBAs with only one member in the bargaining unit, 46 CBAs with two members in the bargaining unit, and 28 CBAs with three members in the bargaining unit. Id. The IRB also found that Local 1034 entered into CBAs with owners of companies to provide health insurance for owners who were friends and relatives of Local 1034's officers. Id. at 1, 10, 15-16, 17. In addition, the Report contended that the terms of these "sham" CBAs were not negotiated with any employer, and that Local 1034 created a "form contract" whose "terms were not honored and not intended to be enforced." Id. at 1. Furthermore, the IRB determined that Local 1034 engaged in collective bargaining agreements outside of its jurisdiction. Id. at 2. In conclusion, the IRB recommended the imposition of a Trusteeship over Local 1034 because Local 1034 was "not being conducted in accordance with the IBT Constitution or for the benefit of the members," Id. at 1, and required General President Carey ("Carey") to report to the IRB any actions taken or planned within two weeks, (Letter from John J. Cronin, Jr. to Ron Carey of 8/4/97.)
Following receipt of the IRB Report, by letter dated August 18, 1997, Carey issued a Notice to the officers and members of Local 1034 imposing an emergency trusteeship over Local 1034 effective August 20, 1997. (Amended Complaint at 11.) Pursuant to the powers vested in the General President by Article VI, Section 5 of the IBT Constitution, Carey appointed Maney to serve as temporary trustee over the affairs of Local 1034. (Amended Complaint at 12.)
In response plaintiffs brought an action claiming a violation of (1) Article VI, Section 5 of the IBT Constitution, (2) Sections 302 and 304 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 462 and 464, and (3) Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Plaintiffs argue that this Court should issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65 restraining and enjoining the continuation of the emergency trusteeship and reinstating the individual plaintiffs to their positions as officers and Executive Board members of Local 1034.
In deciding plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65, this Court considered two issues: (1) the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction lifting an emergency trusteeship under relevant Second Circuit case law, the LMRA, and the LMRDA; and (2) the propriety of the General President's decision to impose an emergency trusteeship on Local 1034. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that (1) the applicable standard for preliminary injunctive relief lifting an international union's imposition of a trusteeship is the same as in those cases in which a trusteeship was sought to be enforced by injunction; and (2) Carey's decision to impose an emergency trusteeship over Local 1034 was proper according to the Second Circuit's standard for issuing a preliminary injunction enforcing an emergency trusteeship on a local union.
I. Issuance of Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from continuing the emergency trusteeship imposed on Local 1034. Because the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction to lift the imposition of a labor union trusteeship differs from the preliminary injunction standard applicable in most other cases, this Court will first review this standard before addressing its application in the instant case.
A. Standard for Issuing a Preliminary Injunction in Disputes Regarding Labor Union Trusteeships
"Ordinarily, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet the burden established by [the] now familiar test: 1) irreparable harm should injunctive relief not be granted and 2) either likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious factual questions making a fair ground for litigation with a balance of hardships tipping in the movant's favor." International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Local 810, 19 F.3d 786, 789 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). However, the Second Circuit has held that the "scope of the examination by the district court is limited" in the labor trusteeship context by the statutory scheme governing labor trusteeships. Id.
Section 304 of the LMRDA empowers a district court to enjoin a local union's resistance to its parent organization's imposition of a trusteeship over the local's affairs. 29 U.S.C. § 464(c). Section 304(c) provides:
In any proceeding to this section a trusteeship established by a labor organization in conformity with the procedural requirements of its constitution and bylaws and authorized or ratified after a fair hearing either before the executive board or before such other body as may be provided in accordance with its constitution or by laws shall be presumed valid for a period of eighteen months from the date of its establishment and shall not be subject to attack during such period except upon clear and convincing proof that the trusteeship was not established or maintained in good faith for a purpose allowable under section 302 [ 29 U.S.C. § 462].
The Second Circuit has held that "the scope of the examination by the district court is limited [under § 464] to whether the parent union showed a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim of right to impose the trusteeship and whether it would suffer irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction permitting a trusteeship not be granted." Local 810, 19 F.3d 786, 790-91; see National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Sombrotto, 449 F.2d 915, 923 (2d Cir. 1971). Furthermore,
once the parent organization demonstrates the likelihood of success on the merits of its claim of right to impose the trusteeship, the burden shifts to the local to show either that the trusteeship was not imposed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the union constitution or that the parent organization acted without good faith or for a statutorily unauthorized purpose.