Anderson v. Painters Local Union No. 318

• Decision Date: 13 July 1960
• Docket Number: No. A-7686,A-7686
• Citation: 161 Tex. 129,338 S.W.2d 148
• Parties: Marvin ANDERSON et al., Petitioners, v. PAINTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 318 et al., Respondents.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 148

338 S.W.2d 148

161 Tex. 129

Marvin ANDERSON et al., Petitioners, v. PAINTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 318 et al., Respondents.

No. A-7686.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 13, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1960.

Ernest May, Fort Worth, for petitioners.

Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., Austin, Willis & Busch, Fort Worth, Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

HICKMAN, Chief Justice.

Marvin Anderson and five other members of Painters Local Union No. 318 filed this suit against the Local Union, its Business Agent, W. E. Tatum, and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of America. They alleged that they had been wrongfully suspended from membership in Local No. 318, and that fines were assessed against them because they opposed the re-election of Tatum to the position of Business Agent. They further alleged that officers of the Local Union conspired with Tatum to punish them. The relief sought was a judgment against the Local Union reinstating them and remitting fines and accumulated dues, and against the Local Union, Tatum, and the Brotherhood for damages growing out of their alleged wrongful suspension. The defendants filed pleas in abatement, the grounds of which material here are:

'2. In so far as it (plaintiffs' petition) seeks relief based upon alleged loss of standing as a member of Painters Local 318, since the same if true, is subject to further remedies within the Painters organization * * * and there is no showing that Plaintiffs have exhausted this applicable and available contractual remedy * * *.

'3. In so far as it (plaintiffs' petition) seeks money damages * * *, and also a declaration voiding their conviction, remitting their fines and accumulated dues and reinstating them as members, since if the latter relief be granted they are in effect suing themselves for an alleged dereliction of themselves and their fellow members.'

The trial court sustained the pleas on both of the above grounds, and entered judgment dismissing the suit. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the plea in abatement was properly sustained as to petitioners' first cause of action, but that the trial court erred in sustaining the plea in abatement to petitioners' cause of action for damages. 330 S.W.2d 541.

Both parties filed applications for writ of error. Anderson et al. will be referred to in this opinion as petitioners, and the other parties will be referred to as respondents. The application of petitioners presents the single point that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that they were required to exhaust their remedies within the Brotherhood before pursuing in court their cause of action for reinstatement and remission of fines and accumulated dues. Their position is that when the redress provided by an organization is inadequate, an injured member is excused from the duty of exhausting internal remedies before seeking relief in court. Petitioners' pleadings in the trial court state that they 'had no further recourse within the Brotherhood; their only effective remedy is in this civil court.' Their pleadings state no facts upon which this allegation is based, but they argue in their brief in this court that exhaustion of the remedies provided by the Brotherhood would have involved an unreasonable delay.

The pleadings of the parties taken together show that petitioners appealed the decision of the trial board of the Local Union to the General Executive Board of the Brotherhood, but that no appeal was taken from the unfavorable decision of the General Executive Board to the General Convention of the Brotherhood, as required by Section 269 of its Constitution. The only evidence regarding the time involved in an appeal from the General Executive Board to the General Convention is that to be found in Section 25(a) of the Constitution, which provides that the General Convention shall meet every five years. Neither the pleadings which were before the trial court when ruled on respondents' plea in abatement, nor the evidence presented at the hearing thereon, indicate the date of the meeting of the General Convention immediately preceding the accrual of this cause of action, or the date of the next succeeding meeting.

The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court properly sustained respondents' plea in abatement to petitioners' first cause of action because petitioners did not plead or prove an excuse for their failure to exhaust their remedies within the Brotherhood. However, as stated above, petitioners did allege that they 'had no further recourse within the Brotherhood; their only effective remedy is in this civil court.' In the absence of a special exception, that allegation was sufficient to raise an issue as to the effectiveness of the remedies provided by the Brotherhood. The trial court did not pass upon this point, but dismissed petitioners' first cause of action solely because petitioners had not taken an appeal to the General Convention, as required by the Constitution of the Brotherhood. We have before us, then, the broad proposition of whether an injured member of a union is required to pursue his remedies within the union before seeking relief in the courts even though such remedies may be ineffective.

The general rule governing the question here presented is stated in an Annotation in 168 A.L.R., pages 1472-1473, as follows:

'While in some of the cases deprivation of membership rights and privileges pending appeal to the higher tribunals of the union has been held not to alter the rule necessitating exhaustion of internal remedies within the union (Harris v. Detroit Typographical Union, 144 Mich. 422, 108 N.W. 362), it is pretty generally held that where exhaustion of remedies within the union would amount to a practical denial of justice to the expelled or suspended member, or would be illusory or vain, it will not be insisted upon, particularly where property rights of the member are involved, as a condition to the right to invoke the aid of a court of equity for reinstatement to and restoration of membership.' Citing cases from Alabama, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

The cases cited in the Annotation reveal several reasons why the procedure prescribed by an organization has been held to be ineffective, one of which is unreasonable delay.

Two cases later than those cited in the Annotation are Naylor v. Harkins, 11 N.J. 435, 94 A.2d 825; and Madden v. Atkins, 4 N.Y.2d 283, 174 N.Y.S.2d 633, 638, 151 N.E.2d 73. From the opinion in Madden v. Atkins we quote:

'It is, of course, true that, where timely and adequate relief is provided, an aggrieved member must first exhaust that organization's remedies before...