Local 918 in accordance with the procedural requirements of the IBT Constitution; (2) that his determination that an emergency existed at Local 918 was made in bad faith; or (3) that the purpose for which Carey placed the trusteeship over Local 918 was not authorized by Section 302 of the LMRDA. Id.
Defendants argue that because of the IRB's prior determination, as communicated to Carey, that the evidence warrants the imposition of a trusteeship, Carey "could not have acted independently and impartially in reaching his own decision to place the Local in trusteeship." Memorandum of Law in Opposition to a Temporary Restraining Order ("Def. mem."), at 20. Their argument suggests that Carey acted contrary to the procedural requirements of the IBT Constitution, because he acted in bad faith in his determination that an emergency existed at Local 918. Defendants argue that Carey rubber-stamped the IRB's determinations and thus "the outcome of the internal union process on referral from the IRB is pre-ordained." Id. However, Defendants fail to provide any evidence that Carey acted in such a manner. Instead Defendants rely on their assertion that "no nefarious or sinister scheme but simple human nature dictates that impartiality cannot be achieved where the charges and sanction are both recommended by the IRB." Id. at 22. These allegations are "conclusory accusations and suppositions," and thus do not satisfy the clear and convincing burden Defendants must meet in order to show bad faith on the part of Carey. Local 810, 19 F.3d at 794. Therefore, Defendants' arguments with respect to the first two prongs of the Local 810 standard are without merit.
Additionally, Defendants failed to argue the third prong of the Local 810 standard, i.e., that the purpose for which Carey placed the emergency trusteeship over Local 918 was not authorized by the LMRDA. Instead, Defendants assert that the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in one body, the IRB, "fails as a matter of practice and common sense to provide an impartial forum . . . to resolve charges." Def. Mem. at 20. This argument ignores well established law that such functions may be combined without violating notions of fairness and due process. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 43 L. Ed. 2d 712, 95 S. Ct. 1456 (1975) (holding that bias in administrative proceeding is not established merely by conferring investigative and adjudicative powers in the same individuals); American Telephone and Telegraph Co. V. FCC, 449 F.2d 439, 455 (2d Cir. 1971) (noting that "case law generally rejects the proposition that the combination of judicial and adversary functions in one agency is a denial of due process.").
Moreover, Local 918 apparently seeks to rewrite the IRB Rules to require the IRB to hold hearings prior to the issuance of a recommendation or limit the IRB's referral to the union to recommending charges without proposed sanctions. Def. Mem. at 21. These proposals are entirely irrelevant to the matters at issue in this proceeding. More importantly, Local 918 has no standing to raise any objections to the IRB Rules or to seek any modification of them.
The Rules for the IRB were approved by this Court and by the Second Circuit in proceedings in which the parties to the Consent Decree, the IBT and the United States, fully litigated the issues. United States v. IBT ("IRB Rules Opinion"), 803 F. Supp. 761 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 998 F.2d 1101 (2d Cir. 1993). Local 918 is not a Party to the Consent Decree and thus has no standing to challenge or seek modifications of the IRB Rules. It is well established that the IBT adequately represents its members and its local unions in connection with Consent Decree litigation, and Defendants have offered no evidence that its interests were not adequately represented. United States v. IBT et al. (All Writs Order"), 728 F. Supp. 1032, 1050 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 907 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The International IBT represented what interests the subordinate may have had in the subject matter of the underlying litigation, and the embodiment of the settlement of that litigation -- the Consent Decree -- reflects such representation."); United States v. IBT et al. ("Friedman & Hughes"), 725 F. Supp. 162, 168, (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ("The International IBT, as the elective and administrative leadership of the IBT membership, litigated the suit and entered into the Consent Decree as the representative of its membership and considered the Consent Decree consonant with its members' interests."), aff'd, 905 F.2d 610, 622-23 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. IBT ("Convention Opinion"), 764 F. Supp. 787, 791 (S.D.N.Y.) (denying motion to intervene by two groups of IBT members because they could not establish that their interests were not adequately represented by the IBT), aff'd, 940 F.2d 648 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 76 (1991).
As previously discussed, this Court finds that Carey acted in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth in the IBT Constitution for placing an IBT local in trusteeship, and this Court finds that Carey had a basis for believing in good faith that an emergency existed at Local 918 justifying the imposition of a trusteeship prior to a union hearing. Accordingly this Court finds no procedural impropriety that would support Local 918's resistance to IBT's imposition of the temporary trusteeship.
Furthermore, Defendants failed to show that "Carey acted contrary to the union's best interests, acted in his own self-interest, or that his actions were so outrageous or unconscionable that even if they were in the best interests of the union, they would constitute bad faith." Local 810, 19 F.3d at 794. Thus this Court finds that Local 918 has failed to rebut the presumption of validity of the IBT's imposition of an emergency trusteeship over Local 918 by clear and convincing evidence.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff IBT's motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Local Union 918 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its officers, employees, agents, attorneys, or other representatives are enjoined from:
1. Refusing to deliver and return immediately all Local 918 property, moneys, funds, books, records and assets of any kind in their possession, custody or control, wherever situated, to Eugene P. Maney as Trustee of Local 918, or his designee;
2. Representing themselves as the authorized officers and/or representatives of Local 918, unless so authorized by the Trustee or his designee;
3. Interfering in any manner with the conduct of the emergency trusteeship by Eugene P. Maney or his designee;
4. Refusing to provide a complete accounting of the financial condition of Local 918 and its funds to Eugene P. Maney or his designee, and refusing to provide any and all financial records and explanations for all receipts, disbursements, and financial transactions of any kind by Local 918 or related to Local 918;
5. Destroying, removing, secreting, or altering any property, moneys or records, including but not limited to, the financial records of Local 918 or any financial records relating to Local 918; and
6. Litigating the action Local 918, et al. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, et al., 97 Civ. 5708 (CPS) (E.D.N.Y.) or any other action or proceeding challenging or relating to the Trusteeship of Local 918 in any court or forum other than this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), the IBT post security in the amount of $ 50,000.
DATED: New York, New York
October 14, 1997.
David N. Edelstein
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.