Brown v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 89 Civ. 0567 (PKL).

• Decision Date: 11 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. 89 Civ. 0567 (PKL).,89 Civ. 0567 (PKL).
• Citation: 717 F. Supp. 195
• Parties: Timothy A. BROWN, James Hopkins, Paul Nielsen, Arthur Holdeman, David Edwards and John Hayes, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION and International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

717 F. Supp. 195

Timothy A. BROWN, James Hopkins, Paul Nielsen, Arthur Holdeman, David Edwards and John Hayes, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION and International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO, Defendants.

No. 89 Civ. 0567 (PKL).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

July 11, 1989.

Ernest Allen Cohen, Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiffs.

Edwin A. Steinberg, P.C. and American Arbitration Ass'n, New York City, for defendants; Rosemary S. Page, of counsel.

ORDER AND OPINION

LEISURE, District Judge:

Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Supreme Court, New York County, on or about January 5, 1989, against the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). Simultaneously, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction barring the AAA from counting the ballots in the 1988 quadrennial election of the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots ("IOMM & P") (the "1988 Election"), and requesting appointment of an election arbitrator to determine all challenges to the balloting procedure. The temporary restraining order was denied but the order to show cause for a preliminary injunction was granted.

On or about January 18, 1989, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the state court naming IOMM & P as an additional defendant. A supplemental order to show cause was issued returnable on January 26, 1989. On January 25, 1989, the action was removed to this Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

IOMM & P is a labor organization whose members consist primarily of licensed deck officers serving aboard United States flag merchant vessels. IOMM & P's headquarters office is located in Linthicum Heights, Maryland. The internal affairs of the organization are governed by its International Constitution. See IOMM & P Memorandum in Support, Exhibit 1 (the "Union Constitution").

Plaintiffs are members of the IOMM & P and were candidates for office in the 1988 Election. The Constitution provides for a ninety day mail ballot, which for the election at issue was between October 1, 1988 and December 30, 1988. See AAA Notice of Motion, Exhibit B; Union Constitution, Article V, § 9(f). Section 3(f) of Article V of the Union Constitution provides that the election shall be conducted by an Impartial Balloting Agency selected by a majority pro rata vote of the International Convention. The Impartial Balloting Agency prepares and mails the official ballots under the supervision of the International Ballot Committee ("IBC"). See Union Constitution, Article V, § 9(d). Election challenges may be made, pursuant to Article V, § 9(i), in the following manner:

Challenges to the election may be made to the International Ballot Committee at the time of the counting of the ballot by the candidate or his representative observer who shall possess certification of same from the candidate he represents. Appeals from rulings of the Ballot Committee shall be taken to the General Executive Board and then to the Convention. Challenges to the election may also be made to the General Executive Board, in writing, within 30 days from the date of completion of the counting of the ballot. An appeal from the ruling of the General Executive Board may be taken to the Convention.

The Convention was held from August 22, 1988 to August 25, 1988, and the AAA was selected by the delegates to act as the Impartial Balloting Agency. The Convention also elected the members of the IBC.

An agreement was entered into between the AAA and IOMM & P which authorized the AAA "to conduct said election in conformity with the International Constitution of the IOMM & P pursuant to the AAA Election Rules...." Affidavit of Ernest Allen Cohen, Esq., sworn to on April 14, 1989 ("Cohen Affidavit"), Exhibit B at 1. AAA Election Rule 8 provides that an "election arbitrator shall rule on all challenged ballots and on any other objection to the election...." Cohen Affidavit, Exhibit C.

Subsequent to the close of the Convention, the IBC was convened and during the course of the balloting election challenges were received from members and candidates, including plaintiffs Timothy A. Brown ("Brown"), James Hopkins and John Hayes. The IBC notified the members that the ballots were to be counted on January 5, 1989, in Washington D.C., and that on January 4, 1989, it would meet to act on all challenges to the election process.

During the balloting period, plaintiff Timothy A. Brown ("Brown") sought appointment of an election arbitrator by the AAA to decide election challenges. The AAA declined plaintiff's request. At the IBC meeting on January 4, 1989, Brown directed his request for appointment of an election arbitrator to the IBC. The IBC denied this request and thereupon ruled on all election challenges.

On January 5, 1989, the ballots were counted by the AAA in the presence of the IBC, candidates and other observers and at that time the unofficial results were announced. On January 7, 1989, the AAA issued its preliminary certification of the election results which included the outcome for all elective offices, except the Offshore Membership Group convention delegates and alternate delegates. The final certification was issued by the AAA on January 11, 1989.

On February 3, 1989, plaintiffs submitted challenges from the IBC's decision to the IOMM & P's General Executive Board. On February 22, 1989, the General Executive Board notified each of the plaintiffs that their challenges were denied.

This action is currently before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.

DISCUSSION

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This action was removed from Supreme Court, New York County, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendants, however, now contend that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that as a result this action should be dismissed. Plaintiffs, in response, have asserted numerous grounds supporting the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. Alternatively, plaintiffs contend that if this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction the appropriate action would be a remand to the state court. Despite the parties confused presentation of the issues, the Court is under the obligation to ensure that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding with this action.

Under the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, the existence of federal question jurisdiction must be determined solely on the basis of plaintiffs' complaint, without regard to the anticipated defenses that a defendant may thereafter interpose. See, e.g., Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76, 34 S.Ct. 724, 725, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914); West 14th Street Commercial Corp. v. 5 West 14th Street Owners, Corp., 815 F.2d 188, 192 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 871, 108 S.Ct. 200, 98 L.Ed.2d 151 (1987).

The parties have cited various federal statutes, none of which appear on the face of the complaint, in an effort to support this Court's jurisdiction. However, the parties misconstrue the nature of federal question jurisdiction. It is not sufficient to merely point to some federal statute which by its terms might apply to the instant litigation. Rather, the existence of federal question jurisdiction must be determined on the basis of plaintiffs' complaint.

It is clear that no federal question appears on the face of plaintiffs' complaint, which solely alleges violations of the Union Constitution. See, e.g., Deats v. Joseph Swantak, Inc., 619 F.Supp. 973 (N.D.N.Y. 1985) (since plaintiff is master of his complaint he is entitled to decide upon what law he will rely; if he decides not to invoke federal right his claim belongs in state court); cf. Finley v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2010, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989) (where there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the party against whom only a state claim is asserted at the inception of the action, there is no pendent jurisdiction, even where the state claim is closely related to the federal claim). Neither defendants' contention that removal is proper under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, nor plaintiffs' assertion that the Federal Arbitration Act provides jurisdiction is meritorious. As shown below, not only is there no reference to these statutes and rights on the face of the complaint, but by their own terms the statutes are inapplicable.

A. The Labor Management Relations Act

Defendants based the removal of this action on Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), Title 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Section 301 of the LMRA provides for federal court jurisdiction of "suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce...."

A breach of a union constitution is cognizable under § 301 of the LMRA, see United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Local 334, 452 U.S. 615, 101 S.Ct. 2546, 69 L.Ed.2d 280 (1981), and such action may encompass suits by a union member against a labor organization. See National Ass'n of Basketball Referees v. Middleton, 688 F.Supp. 131 (S.D.N.Y.1988). However, not all provisions of a union's constitution may be enforced by suit under § 301(a). Jurisdiction under § 301 to enforce a union constitution does not extend to merely intra-union disputes; the dispute must relate to a collective bargaining agreement. Cahill v. Metallic Lathers Union Local No. 46, 473 F.Supp. 1326 (S.D.N.Y.1979); see also United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Albany, 553 F.Supp. 55, 59 (N.D.N. Y.1982); Sanceverino v. Union Local 445, 510 F.Supp. 590 (S.D.N.Y.1981) ("Section 301 jurisdiction does not extend to intra-union disputes simply because those disputes are governed by (and perhaps resolved under) the international's constitution.");...