Acosta v. Local Union 26
| Decision Date | 03 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-10396–GAO |
| Citation | 260 F.Supp.3d 94 |
| Parties | Alexander ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL UNION 26, UNITE HERE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Jessica P. Driscoll, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Paul More, Richard G. McCracken, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
The Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (the "Department") brought suit against Unite Here Local 26, alleging that the union violated § 104 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. § 414, when it permitted a member of Local 26 to inspect the union's collective bargaining agreements ("agreements" or "CBAs") with employers other than the complainant's employer but refused to permit her to take notes while reviewing those agreements. The union disagrees with the Secretary's interpretation of the statute, contending that § 104 does not require a local union to allow a member or employee to inspect CBAs other than one that affects her own rights and, to the extent that the union does permit such inspection, the statute does not give a member the right to take unlimited notes on the contents of those CBAs. The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding the proper statutory interpretation of § 104.
The complaining member, Dimie Poweigha, is employed as a server by Levy Restaurants. Local 26 has negotiated CBAs with more than forty employers, including Levy Restaurants. In 2014, Poweigha requested an opportunity to review thirty-seven CBAs negotiated by the union with employers other than her own. Although the union maintained that it was not required to allow her to inspect agreements other than her own, the union eventually agreed to permit inspection. However, the union refused to permit Poweigha to take notes during the inspection.
Approximately twenty years after the National Labor Relations Act was passed, Doty v. Sewall, 784 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). "In enacting the LMRDA, Congress found that ‘it is essential that labor organizations ... and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations,’ and declared that the LMRDA was designed ‘to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations.’ " McCafferty v. Local 254, Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 186 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir. 1999) (quoting 29 U.S.C. §§ 401(a), (c) ).
Title I of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411 – 415, provides a "Bill of Rights" for union members. Id. (quoting Molina v. Union De Trabajadores De Muelles, 762 F.2d 166, 167 (1st Cir. 1985) ). It was "specifically designed to promote the ‘full and active participation by the rank and file in the affairs of the union.’ " Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 7–8, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973) (quoting Am. Fed. of Musicians v. Wittstein, 379 U.S. 171, 182–83, 85 S.Ct. 300, 13 L.Ed.2d 214 (1964) ). The "rights enumerated in Title I were deemed ‘vital to the independence of the membership and the effective and fair operation of the union as the representative of its membership.’ " Id. at 8, 93 S.Ct. 1943 (footnote omitted) (quoting Cole v. Hall, 462 F.2d 777, 780 (2d Cir. 1972) ); see also Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Emps. Union, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 497, 88 S.Ct. 1743, 20 L.Ed.2d 763 (1968) ().
The present controversy arises from a provision of the so-called "Bill of Rights" concerning the right of workers under defined circumstances to be able to review CBAs entered into by a labor organization, including local unions. Section 104, entitled "Right to copies of collective bargaining agreements," provides:
It shall be the duty of the secretary or corresponding principal officer of each labor organization, in the case of a local labor organization, to forward a copy of each collective bargaining agreement made by such labor organization with any employer to any employee who requests such a copy and whose rights as such employee are directly affected by such agreement, and in the case of a labor organization other than a local labor organization, to forward a copy of any such agreement to each constituent unit which has members directly affected by such agreement; and such officer shall maintain at the principal office of the labor organization of which he is an officer copies of any such agreement made or received by such labor organization, which copies shall be available for inspection by any member or by any employee whose rights are affected by such agreement. The provisions of section 440 of this title shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.
29 U.S.C. § 414 (emphasis added).
At particular issue is the proper construction to be given the italicized clause. The parties dispute whether the italicized clause requires a copy of any CBA the union is required to maintain for inspection at its principal office be made available to any member of the union on request, regardless of whether the requester's rights are affected by that CBA. They also dispute whether, to the extent inspection is permitted, the "member" or "employee" may take notes during that inspection.
Recovery Grp., Inc. v. Comm'r, 652 F.3d 122, 125 (1st Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
The statute involved here may be divided into four subparts:
[1] It shall be the duty of the secretary or corresponding principal officer of each labor organization, [2] in the case of a local labor organization, to forward a copy of each collective bargaining agreement made by such labor organization with any employer to any employee who requests such a copy and whose rights as such employee are directly affected by such agreement, [3] and in the case of a labor organization other than a local labor organization, to forward a copy of any such agreement to each constituent unit which has members directly affected by such agreement; [4] and such officer shall maintain at the principal office of the labor organization of which he is an officer copies of any such agreement made or received by such labor organization, which copies shall be available for inspection by any member or by any employee whose rights are affected by such agreement.
29 U.S.C. § 414 (numerals added).
The statute is dense, but it is not ambiguous. A careful reading discloses its scope and commands.
The use of a semicolon between the third clause and the fourth clause is a guide to understanding the provision. It suggests that Congress intended the first three clauses to be read together, and the fourth clause to be read in light of the derived understanding of the first three. The first clause simply assigns responsibility for compliance with the statute to a particular union officer. The second clause describes the duty imposed on such officer "in the case of a local labor organization," and the third clause describes the duty imposed on such officer "in the case of a labor organization other than a local labor organization." The statute thus distinguishes between local unions and umbrella organizations such as area-wide, national, or international unions, and the duties imposed are different.
As provided in the second clause, a local union must, on request, forward a copy of any CBA ("such agreement") it has made with an employer to any employee whose rights are directly affected by that CBA, regardless of whether the requesting employee is a union member. As provided in the third clause, any labor organization that is not a local union, such as a national or international union, must send a copy of any CBA ("such agreement") to any "constituent unit," such as a local union, having members who are directly affected by it.
The second part of the statute, comprised of the fourth clause, requires "such officer" to maintain a copy of any agreement to which either the second or third clause applies and to make the copy "available for inspection by any member or by any employee whose rights are affected by such agreement." This case raises a question of how to understand the duties imposed on a local union, such as the defendant here. A local union must maintain and make available for inspection both (a) agreements it has made with employers (second clause) and (b) agreements an umbrella union has made that the local union has received from the umbrella union (third clause).
The local union, through the designated officer, is required to provide a copy of any agreement falling within category (a) "to any employee who requests...
To continue reading
Request your trial