Burns v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2370. |
| Parties | John F. BURNS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 626, an unincorporated Association, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Joseph T. Walsh, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Joseph Donald Craven, Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
This case arises from a contention of the defendant that the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The contention is made both in the answer and by a separate motion under Rule 12 (b) (6), F.R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C.
By amendment to the complaint it is sufficiently pleaded that the plaintiff has no effective administrative remedy available to him within the Union.
The defendant has denied the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter and contends that the controversy constitutes an unfair labor practice with exclusive jurisdiction in the National Labor Relations Board. The defendant also contends by the answer and separate motion that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The two questions impinge closely one to the other for the reason that both are based upon the contention that the facts of the case constitute an unfair labor practice.
The jurisdiction of the Court should be first considered but since the answer to that question is the same as that directly presented by the answer and separate motion, the jurisdiction of the Court, for the reasons hereinafter stated, will be assumed and we will pass to the question as to whether the complaint sets forth a claim upon which relief can be granted.
No effective extraneous matter being presented, the sole question is as to the sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of which must be taken to be true.
The complaint sets out these facts: that the plaintiff had been a member of the defendant association since 1951; that on or about October 19, 1960 he was notified to appear for trial on October 27, 1960 for certain alleged violations of the constitution and by-laws of the defendant association; that he did so appear and that on November 2, 1960 the trial committee returned a verdict of guilty on both charges, at which time the president of the defendant association decreed that the plaintiff was removed from membership.
The complaint states that the plaintiff was on January 17, 1961 ordered reinstated to membership in Local 626 (the defendant) by the Office of General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
The action is brought under 29 U.S. C.A. § 412, which provides:
"Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this subchapter have been infringed by any violation of this subchapter may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate. * * *"
The subchapter heading of the pertinent statute is entitled "Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations."
The present action is based upon the alleged violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (5), which provides:
"No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing."
The particular violations of Section 411(a) (5), as relied upon by the plaintiff, are set out in the complaint as follows:
The plaintiff contends that by reason of his expulsion from membership in the Union he could not obtain work and seeks to recover the amount of his wages for the period of his expulsion.
The defendant then contends that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and cites and relies upon two cases to be now considered. The first is the case of Rinker v. Local 24 Lithographers, 1962, 201 F. Supp. 204, by Chief Judge Gourley in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The cited case consisted of two counts. The gravamen of Count 1 was the prayer for reinstatement in the Union from which he had been expelled. We are not concerned with that matter.
Count 2 alleged conspiracy between the Union and the employer of the plaintiff to have him discharged. The employer moved to dismiss Count 2 as to such employer on the ground that the statute under which the action was brought (29 U.S.C.A. § 412) known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (commonly known as the Landrum-Griffin Act) had nothing to do with an action by a member of a Union against an employer. Of such opinion was the Court.
It is abundantly clear that the cited Act only concerns controversies between a member and the Union to which he belongs. In Tomko v. Hilbert, the Court of Appeals of this Third Circuit said:
"A recapitulation of other pertinent provisions of the LMRDA clearly shows that its operation is narrowly focused on protecting the union-member relationship."1
I am in entire accord with the case cited by the defendant as to the matter there involved, but in the present case no party is involved except the Union and a member thereof. In the cited case the other defendant, the Union, moved for summary judgment as to Count 2 on the ground that the action claimed a conspiracy between the Union and the employer and as such constituted an unfair labor practice cognizable under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq. with jurisdiction in the National Labor Relations Board. Judge Gourley held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction under the circumstances.
In San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen's Union etc. v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hester v. Intern. Union of Operating Engineers
...between a worker and his union, not on the relationship between a union member and his employer. See Burns v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, Local No. 626, 204 F.Supp. 599, 601 (D.Del.1962) ("It is abundantly clear that the ... Act only concerns controversies between a member and the Union to w......
-
INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF BOILERMAKERS, ETC. v. Braswell
...335 F.2d 340, 346-347; cert. denied, 379 U.S. 920, 85 S.Ct. 274, 13 L.Ed.2d 334; Burns v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 626, D.Del.1962, 204 F.Supp. 599, 601-602.6 The appellant's attempt to argue that the conduct of which appellee complains constitutes ......
-
Carroll v. Associated Musicians of Greater NY, Local 802
...OF LAW 1. This court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the first cause of action. 29 U.S.C. § 412; Burns v. United Bhd. of Carpenters etc., 204 F.Supp. 599 (D. Del.1962). 2. The single engagement field is an industry affecting interstate 3. Defendants did not violate Sections 101(a) (2......
-
Wachter v. Grogan, 600
...Workers v. Hinz, 6 Cir., 218 F.2d 664; Bussey v. Plumbers Local 3, 286 F.2d 165 (C.A. 10, 1961); Burns v. United Broth. of Carpenters, etc., Local 626, 204 F.Supp. 599 (U.S.D.C.Del., 1962). Wachter also relies on Sipes v. Vaca, Mo. (banc), 397 S.W.2d 658, cert. granted, 384 U.S. 969, 86 S.C......