Maineculf v. Robinson

Decision Date30 January 1958
Citation19 Misc.2d 230,189 N.Y.S.2d 712
PartiesWilliam MAINECULF and Charles Woodly, Plaintiffs, v. Clifford ROBINSON, as President, Frank Clark, as Secretary-Treasurer and Thomas Fauntleroy, as Business Agent of Local 968 International Longshoremen's Association and William V. Bradley, as President of International Longshoremen's Association and Fred Fields, Jr., as President of District Council of the Port of New York and Vicinity, Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Schulman & Goldberg, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Fisch & Shepard, New York City, for defendants, Robinson, Clark and Fauntleroy.

William B. Mischo, New York City, for defendants, Bradley and Fields.

JAMES S. BROWN, Justice.

Plaintiffs move to enjoin the defendants, officers of Local 968, International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, from interfering with, modifying or preventing the holding of an election of officers for said Local pursuant to nominations made and approved by the membership of said Local at a membership meeting held on January 6, 1958, which election is scheduled to be held on the 1st day of February, 1958, and particularly from removing or striking from the election ballot, as candidates, the names of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege that on or about December 2, 1957, at a duly constituted membership meeting of said Local, the officers advised that pursuant to communications received from the International Union under which the Local had been placed in trusteeship, nominations for election of officers of said Local would be held on January 6, 1957; that the eligibility and qualifications of all candidates were to be passed upon by a Screening Committee to be appointed after said nominations and that the actual election was to take place within six weeks from the date of the January 6th meeting. It is further alleged that at the said meeting, among other nominations, plaintiff Maineculf was nominated as Business Agent and plaintiff Woodly was nominated as President; that at that meeting, upon motion duly made and passed, fifteen members were appointed to the Screening Committee which thereafter met on January 15, 1958 and approved all the candidates and found them eligible and qualified except one who is not a party to the action. It is then asserted that on January 20, 1958, plaintiffs were advised by the defendant officers that plaintiffs were ineligible to seek office in the Local and that their names would not be placed on the ballot as candidates for office; that on January 21, 1958, notices were sent to the members of the Local advising them that the election was to be conducted on February 1, 1958 and along with the notices were letters from William V. Bradley, President of the International Longshoremen's Association, and from defendant Robinson as President of Local 968. The letter of Mr. Bradley, as far as material herein, reads as follows:

'January 13th, 1958

* * *

* * *

'It has been brought to my attention that your Local held a meeting for nomination of officers on Monday, January 6th, 1958 * * *.

'I wish to draw to your attention the fact that for President the name of Clifford Robinson, proposed by Julius Hogan was made, seconded and carried and the name of Charles Woodly by Mack Walker was proposed. I reference to Charles Woodly, I am notifying you that under the ruling of our New York District Council Mr. Woodly is ineligible to run for President, due to the fact that when he was President of Local 968, I.L.A., Ind. in 1953 he was successful in taking some of the members from the I.L.A. and delivering them to the A.F.L. Furthermore when Mr. Woodly was called upon as President of Local 968, I.L.A. for the books, records and papers of the Local and was held accountable for the monies and Charter, he ignored the requests completely and hired out and worked as an Organizer for the A.F.L. to the detriment of the I.L.A. This is strictly against the policy of our organization and we insist that his name be removed as a candidate for the Presidency.

'The other nomination where Delegate (Business Agent) Thomas Fauntleroy made by David Hogan and carried seems to be in order; however the name of William Maineculf was made by George Futrell. We draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Maineculf was a paid organizer for the A.F.L. and testified against the I.L.A. Brothers in several proceedings and proved to be one of the main witnesses in causing three of our officials to be unjustifiably sentenced to jail and the organization fined $50,000 on his testimony. The Waterfront Commission revoked several passes because of testimony which he participated in. Later the United States Supreme Court repudiated the sentence and the fine by upholding the ruling of a District Judge, it is noted.

'I see no point in permitting such men, who obviously never had the interests of the Union at heart, to be candidates for positions of trust in the Union and accordingly I direct that their names be stricken as ineligible candidates.'

The letter of defendant Robinson, as President of the Local, which is dated January 14, 1958, states in part:

'That in view of the attached letter from Hon. William V. Bradley * * *

'It is hereby ordered

'First: That the name of Charles Woodly be stricken from the ballot in running for election for the post of presidency of Local 968 I.L.A. Ind. and that the nomination of said Charles Woodly be declared null and void.

* * *

* * *

'Second: That the name of William Maineculf be stricken from the ballot in running for election for the post of Delegate (Business Agent) of Local 968 I.L.A. Ind. and that the nomination of said William Maineculf be declared null and void. * * *'

Plaintiffs assert that they have been members in good standing of the Local for several years and are accordingly eligible to be candidates for office under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Gordon v. Francois
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 2, 2021
    ...courts have held that the need to exhaust internal union remedies is not absolutely applicable in all circumstances. In Maineculf v Robinson (19 Misc 2d 230 [Sup Ct Kings County 1958], the court addressed just such an issue - also involving a pre-election context, as in this case - in the f......
  • Libutti v. Di Brizzi
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 1, 1965
    ...stand for election to union office. E. g., Beiso v. Robilotto, 26 Misc.2d 137, 212 N.Y.S.2d 504 (S.Ct.1960); Maineculf v. Robinson, 19 Misc.2d 230, 189 N.Y.S.2d 712 (S.Ct.1958). The appellants have not disputed this proposition or suggested any reason why a New York court would not deem the......
  • Di Bucci v. Uhrich, 178
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1959
    ...has had an opportunity to be heard, the order that he is ineligible to run for office is illegal and void. Maineculf v. Robinson, Brown, J., Sup. Kings County, 189 N.Y.S.2d 712. This court will not speculate as to whether grounds exist to support a charge against plaintiff for violation of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT