Addison v. GRAND LODGE OF INTERNAT'L ASS'N OF MACHINISTS

• Decision Date: 24 March 1962
• Docket Number: No. 17571.,17571.
• Citation: 300 F.2d 863
• Parties: Joe ADDISON, Appellant, v. The GRAND LODGE OF the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, an unincorporated international labor organization; Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727, a California unincorporated local labor organization, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

300 F.2d 863 (1962)

Joe ADDISON, Appellant, v. The GRAND LODGE OF the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, an unincorporated international labor organization; Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727, a California unincorporated local labor organization, et al., Appellees.

No. 17571.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

March 24, 1962.

Daniel A. Schiffer, North Hollywood, Cal., for appellant.

No appearances for appellee.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and PENCE, District Judge.

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge.

Before us is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The action was dismissed by the District Judge sua sponte before service of process upon any of the appellees.

Appellant asserted jurisdiction of the action in the United States District Court under Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Public Law 86-257, hereinafter referred to as the "LMRDA," 29 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq., and also upon 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.

The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 1292.

The verified complaint contains five counts embracing 34 pages, and many exhibits are annexed thereto.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Court.

The order dismissing appellant's action may be summarized as follows:

1. The record does not disclose complete diversity of citizenship between the parties;

2. There appears no claim or cause of action asserted in the complaint which arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States;

3. The complaint, although containing a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which it is claimed the District Court\'s jurisdiction depends, does not comply with Rule 8(a) (2) of Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., and it does not appear, from what is alleged, that any actionable claims or causes of action which appellant may have, are Federal in character, but rather that they arise under State law and may properly be prosecuted in the State Courts; and

4. Appellant attempts to assert claims arising under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 but fails to plead facts necessary to bring his claim within that statute.

The provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq., pertinent to our review, are:

1. Section 2 of the Act contains the declaration of findings, purposes and policy in the enactment of the legislation;

2. Section 3 contains definitions of words and phrases appearing in the Act. Section 3(i) defines the term "labor organization" to mean a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce which exists for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, etc. Under Section 3 (j) (2), a labor organization is deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce if it is a national or international labor organization or a local labor organization recognized or acting as the representative of employees of an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce; or (3) has chartered a local labor organization which is representing employees of employers. Section 3 (o) defines "member" or "member in good standing" to include any person who has fulfilled the requirements for membership in a labor organization, and who neither has voluntarily withdrawn from membership nor has been expelled or suspended from membership after appropriate proceedings consistent with lawful provisions of the constitution and bylaws of such organization.

3. Title I is designated "Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations." Section 101 of the Act, in pertinent parts, provides:

"Sec. 101. Bill of rights

"(a) (1) Equal rights. — 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, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization\'s constitution and bylaws.

"(2) Freedom of speech and assembly. — Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization\'s established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings; Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

* * * * * *

"(4) Protection of the right to sue. — No labor organization shall limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any court, or in a proceeding before any administrative agency, irrespective of whether or not the labor organization or its officers are named as defendants or respondents in such action or proceeding, or the right of any member of a labor organization to appear as a witness in any judicial, administrative, or legislative proceeding, or to petition any legislature or to communicate with any legislator: Provided, That any such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a four-month lapse of time) within such organization, before instituting legal or administrative proceedings against such organizations or any officer thereof: And provided further, That no interested employer or employer association shall directly or indirectly finance, encourage, or participate in, except as a party, any such action, proceeding, appearance, or petition.

"(5) Safeguards against improper disciplinary action. — No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.

"(b) Any provision of the constitution and bylaws of any labor organization which is inconsistent with the provisions of this section shall be of no force or effect."

4. Sec. 102 is entitled "Civil enforcement" and provides, as follows:

"Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate. Any such action against a labor organization shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the district where the alleged violation occurred, or where the principal office of such labor organization is located."

5. Sec. 103 is entitled "Retention of existing rights" and reads, as follows:

"Nothing contained in this title shall limit the rights and remedies of any member of a labor organization under any State or Federal law or before any court or other tribunal, or under the constitution and bylaws of any labor organization."

We have concluded that the jurisdiction of the District Court was properly invoked by the allegations contained in Count 1 and, therefore, deem it unnecessary to review the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the remaining counts.

The following appears from the allegations set forth in Count 1 of the complaint and the exhibits thereunto attached:

The defendant The Grand Lodge of the International Association of Machinists, hereinafter referred to as "I.A.M.", is an unincorporated labor organization as defined in Section 3(i) of LMRDA, having approximately 900,000 members, organized in some 2,200 local lodges throughout the United States and Canada, with its headquarters in Washington, D. C., and is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Between quadrennial conventions, as provided in the I.A.M. constitution, said organization is governed by an Executive Council, composed of individual defendants who are sued in their individual and official capacities. The Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727, hereinafter referred as "I.D.L.", is an unincorporated labor association organized pursuant to the laws of the State of California, with its principal office in Los Angeles, California, and is a constituent body of I.A.M. and is composed of more than 10 local lodges of which one is Local Lodge 727-M, all situate within Los Angeles County.

Other individual defendants are identified as officers, trustees, members, committee members, attorneys, or business agents of I.A.M., I.D.L. or local lodges...