Bradley v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Before WOLLMAN and BEAM; WOLLMAN
• Citation: Bradley v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 962 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1992)
• Decision Date: 09 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-2260,AFL-CIO,91-2260
• Parties: 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2318, 121 Lab.Cas. P 10,137 Robert C. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,; Robert D. Kessler, individually, and in his official capacity as National Business Agent, American Postal Workers Union,; Moe Biller, individually and in his official capacity as President of the American Postal Workers Union,; Daniel E. Petty, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Greater Kansas City Metro Area Local 67, American Postal Workers Union,; Rosemary Gilio, individually; Appellees, Lynn Martin, Honorable, in her official capacity as Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Defendants.

Page 800

962 F.2d 800

140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2318, 121 Lab.Cas. P 10,137

Robert C. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO; Robert D. Kessler individually, and in his official capacity as National Business Agent, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO; Moe Biller, individually and in his official capacity as President of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO Daniel E. Petty, individually and in his official capacity as President of the Greater Kansas City Metro Area Local 67 American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO; Rosemary Gilio individually; Appellees, Lynn Martin, Honorable, in her official capacity as Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Defendants.

No. 91-2260.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 1992.

Decided April 23, 1992.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied June 9, 1992.

Larry Delano Coleman, Kansas City, Mo., argued, for appellant.

Susan L. Carter, Washington, D.C., argued (Susan L. Carter, Washington, D.C., on brief for appellees American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Robert D. Kessler and Moe Biller; James G. Walsh, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., on brief for appellees Daniel E. Petty and Rosemary Gilio), for appellees.

Before WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE, ^* Senior District Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Robert C. Bradley appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Labor. We remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

Local 67 of the American Postal Workers Union is located in Kansas City, Missouri. After alleging election improprieties in Local 67's 1985 election, Bradley succeeded in obtaining a supervised election, which was held in 1986. He was elected president in that election. In 1988, Bradley ran for reelection in an unsupervised election. He lost to Daniel Petty by a narrow margin.

After his loss to Petty, Bradley demanded and received a recount, which did not alter the election result. Bradley then requested that the local Election Committee re-run the election. The chairperson of the committee denied his request without consulting the committee. Bradley wrote to the National Election Appeals Committee, again demanding a re-run of the election. After he wrote this letter, but before he had received a reply, the local Election Committee overturned the chairperson's denial, declared that certain provisions of the union's constitution had been either violated or overlooked, and called for a new election. Bradley then withdrew the appeal he had lodged with the National Committee.

The next day, Daniel Petty filed an appeal with the National Committee, protesting the action of the local Election Committee. He filed the appeal without complying with local union rules, which require first filing an appeal with the local committee. Petty, along with the national union's Business Agent, wrote several letters to the National Election Appeals Committee opposing Bradley's appeal. A member of the National Committee set aside the local committee's decision to hold a re-run election. After investigation of Bradley's charges, the National Committee instructed the local committee to tabulate thirty-two additional ballots, add them to the previous results, and certify the election.

After the National Committee overturned the local committee's decision to re-run the election, but before it issued the instructions about the additional ballots, Bradley filed a timely challenge to the election with the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary's Area Director determined that thirty-four additional ballots ¹ should have been tabulated. The Secretary overruled this determination, dismissed Bradley's complaint, and refused to order a new election. Bradley then filed a complaint in federal district court against Petty, the chairperson of the local election committee, the national union, the national union's Business Agent, and the member of the National Committee who had denied his appeal. ² Bradley alleged violation of his rights as guaranteed by Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

II.

Congress passed the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA or Act) in response to "concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership." Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 536, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 2563, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984). Title I of the Act is the union worker's "Bill of Rights" and guarantees each union member the right to vote and participate in union decisions, the right to freely meet with and express views to others, and protection from improper disciplinary action. 29 U.S.C. § 411. These guarantees may be enforced by bringing a private civil action in federal court. 29 U.S.C. § 412. Title IV regulates elections for union offices. 29 U.S.C. § 481. The exclusive remedy for a violation of Title IV is a civil action brought by the Secretary of Labor to enforce or set aside an election. 29 U.S.C. §§ 482, 483. It is this exclusivity provision that we examine in this appeal.

The Supreme Court has stated that "there is nothing in the legislative history [of the LMRDA] suggesting that Congress intended to foreclose all access to federal courts under Title I during an election." Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. at 543, 104 S.Ct. at 2567. The Court recognized, however, that while a court may have jurisdiction over a Title I action brought during the time that an election is pending, "the exclusivity provision included in ... Title IV plainly bars Title I relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed." Id. at 541, 104 S.Ct. at 2566. The Court noted that "[t]he exclusivity provision of Title IV may not bar postelection relief for Title I claims or other actions that do not directly challenge the validity of an election already conducted." Id. at 541 n. 16, 104 S.Ct. at 2566 n. 16 (citing Ross v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 513 F.2d 840 (9th Cir.1975) (court had jurisdiction over post-election claim for tortious interference with business opportunity which would not interfere with operation of the local union pursuant to the election); Amalgamated Clothing Workers Rank & File Comm. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., 473 F.2d 1303 (3d Cir.1973) (court had jurisdiction over post-election suit alleging that nomination procedures violated Title I, but suit was dismissed for failure to exhaust internal union remedies)).

If a lawsuit alleges Title I violations, but is, in effect, a Title IV suit, the suit has been improperly brought, and the court has no jurisdiction over the action. ³ See Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964); O'Doherty v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 618 F.2d 484, 486 (8th Cir.1980) (no claim for relief under Title I if complaint raises an issue governed "predominantly" by Title IV); McNail v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 549 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1977) (no jurisdiction under Title I by the mere assertion of such rights if Title IV rights are "essentially" involved); Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 687 (7th Cir.1973) (existence of jurisdiction depends on a close analysis of the basic thrust of the complaint, not merely acceptance of allegations of Title I violations), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974).

Here, as in Calhoon v. Harvey, "[j]urisdiction of the District Court under ... Title I depends entirely upon whether [Bradley's] complaint showed a violation of [Title I], for ... jurisdiction [cannot] be upheld by reliance in whole or in part on allegations which in substance charge a breach of Title IV rights." 379 U.S. at 138. Congress intended "to allow unions great latitude in resolving their own internal controversies, and, where that fails, to utilize the agencies of Government most familiar with union problems to aid in bringing about a settlement through discussion before resort to the courts." Id. 379...