Brooks v. LOCAL NO. 30, UNITED SLATE, TILE, ETC.

• Decision Date: 20 September 1960
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 28487.
• Citation: 187 F. Supp. 365
• Parties: Morris BROOKS, Frederick W. Hofer, Stanley Kent, William E. Callahan, John P. Cahill, v. LOCAL NO. 30, UNITED SLATE, TILE AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS, CAMP AND WATERPROOF WORKERS' ASSOCIATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

187 F. Supp. 365

Morris BROOKS, Frederick W. Hofer, Stanley Kent, William E. Callahan, John P. Cahill, v. LOCAL NO. 30, UNITED SLATE, TILE AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS, CAMP AND WATERPROOF WORKERS' ASSOCIATION.

Civ. A. No. 28487.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

September 20, 1960.

John Rogers Carroll, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Richard H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

VAN DUSEN, District Judge.

The above Motion was made at the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case during the final hearing¹ of the matter, pursuant to the second sentence of F.R.Civ. P. 41(b), 28 U.S.C. which provides:

"After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief."

Since the hearing judge has concluded that the Motion must be granted on this record, this Memorandum Opinion contains the findings provided for in F.R. Civ.P. 52(a).

The Complaint seeks an injunction restraining the respondent from assessing or collecting a dues increase effective as of May 1960 and from suspending, expelling or taking any other disciplinary action against the plaintiffs on the ground that such increase was not pursuant to a majority vote by secret ballot as required by § 101(a) (3) (A) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (3) (A).² The plaintiffs are members in good standing of the respondent, which is a local labor organization within the provisions of the above Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 402(j)). On September 14, 1959, the effective date of the above Act, the dues of the members of respondent were $7 per month and the dues continued at this rate until May 1960.

The minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23, 1960, contain the following approved action concerning dues (pages 136 & 137 of P-1):

"Motion to change system of collection of dues. Election to be held on method, change from $7.00 per month to $5.00 per month with a 10¢ per hr. being deducted and sent into Union by employers.

Motion by Bro. J. Kelly. 2nd. C. Stroman Approv. & Accept."

The minutes of that meeting also contained this sentence immediately after the above quotation (page 137 of P-1):

"A special meeting will be held and a secret ballot provided for dues change.

* * * * *

"Motion by Bro. Tackack to have meeting April 15⁴ 1960 for secret ballot on check-off system."

Timely notices were sent out to all members of respondent, including plaintiffs, on three-cent postals of the type marked as Exhibit P-3,³ stating that a special meeting would be held March 15, 1960,⁴ at which time there would be a secret ballot vote "To reduce dues to $5.00 per month plus 10 cents per each hour of employment. 10¢ per hour to be deducted by employer." The vote was held on March 15, 1960, on secret ballots (Exhibit P-2) containing the following printing:

"Vote For One Yes No

To reduce dues to $5.00 per month plus 10¢ per each hour of employment. 10¢ per hour to be deducted by Employer."

The plaintiffs did not vote at the March 15, 1960, meeting. A majority of those voting voted "yes." The respondent was engaged in collective bargaining contract negotiations from approximately March 15 to June 16, during which period there was a strike from May 1 until approximately June 16. Early in July, the respondent adopted a dues rate, effective from May 1, 1960, of $5 per month plus 5¢ per each hour of employment, which 5¢ was to be deducted by the employer. The five plaintiffs have refused to sign the cards (Exhibit P-5) submitted to them by respondent authorizing their employers to deduct the 5¢ per hour dues, but some of them have tendered varying amount of dues, which tenders have been rejected by respondent (see Exhibits P-5 to P-9). There is no evidence of any plan to expel plaintiffs from the union if they pay the $5 per month plus 5¢ per hour from May 1, 1960, and sign the 5¢ per hour check-off card (P-5).

The most difficult problem presented by these facts is whether the ballot used is a "ballot" to increase dues within 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (3) (A), since it uses the word "reduce," although the clear effect of the proposal was to increase the dues since the average number of weekly hours worked by the members was 30.

The purpose of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 401ff.) is to assure that "labor organizations, employers, and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations, particularly as they affect labor-management relations." 29 U.S. C.A. § 402(a). It can well be argued that the phraseology on this ballot does not reflect "the highest standards of responsibility" because of the lack of clarity involved. It would have been far clearer to substitute for the first sentence at the bottom of the ballot language such as "To increase dues by a reduction of the monthly charge from $7.00 to $5.00 and add the payment of...