Cloke v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.
| Decision Date | 15 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:11-cv-677 |
| Parties | ALFRED K. CLOKE, III, Plaintiff, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Black, J. Litkovitz, M.J.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the original complaint in this action against defendants United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC), Bobby Yeggy and Douglas McCarron on October 14, 2011. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint on May 9, 2012, naming these defendants and adding as defendants Donald Crane1 , Todd Ruswinkle, Todd Weinbrecht, Keith Kistler, Bob Elliott, Jason Clark, E.J. Scheiderer, Jack Lamb, Buck Rector, Jerry Thornsberry, Millwrights and Pile Drivers Local Union 1090 (Local 1090), David Tharp, and the Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters (IKORCC). (Doc. 32). The lawsuit arises out of the merger of several local unions, which plaintiff claims violated his rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 411 and 481, and § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185.
This matter is before the Court on the following motions filed by plaintiff: (1) plaintiff's motion for additional time to file a response to defendants' answers to the amended complaint (Doc. 40); (2) plaintiff's motions to proceed to trial (Docs. 42, 49, 51), defendants UBC, Yeggy, and McCarron's motion to strike in part motion to proceed to trial (Doc. 55), plaintiff's motion towithdraw motion to proceed to trial (Doc. 57), and defendants' response in opposition to plaintiff's motion to withdraw motion to proceed to trial (Doc. 61); and (3) plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 58), defendants' memoranda in opposition to the motion (Docs. 60, 61), and plaintiff's reply in support of his motion (Doc. 62).
The matter is also before the Court on (1) the motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by defendants UBC, Yeggy and McCarron (Doc. 37), plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (Doc. 41), and defendants' reply (Doc. 47); and (2) the motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by defendants UBC, Yeggy, and McCarron and newly-added defendants Crane, Ruswinkle, Weinbrecht, Kistler, Elliott, Clark, Scheiderer, Lamb, Rector, Thornsberry, Local 1090, Tharp, and the IKORCC (Doc. 46), plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (Doc. 52), and defendants' reply in support of their motion (Doc. 56).
I. Plaintiff's amended complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in support of his claims: On August 8, 2011, pursuant to § 6(A) of the UBC General Constitution2 , UBC General President McCarron dissolved the Ohio and Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters (OVRCC) and merged it with the Indiana/Kentucky Regional Council of Carpenters (IKRCC), thereby forming the new Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters (IKORCC). (Doc. 32, § 1, p. 6). This merger was accomplished by a "military style assault" on the OVRCC's offices in Cleveland,Ohio, in which all of the elected officers of the OVRCC were fired, and the IKRCC's officers were placed in control of the new IKORCC and of delegates appointed from the affected locals to the new IKORCC. (Id., pp. 6-7). Defendants sent a notice to the membership dated August 10, 2011, following the merger. (Id.; Exh. I)3 . Section 6(A) of the UBC General Constitution does not specifically state that the reasons for this type of action by the General President are to be sent to the membership, but settled law required that plaintiff, as a member of Local 1066, be notified of the underlying reasons for the merger sufficiently in advance of its implementation so as to allow him to appeal the decision to the UBC General Executive Board. (Id. at 7-9).
On September 11, 2011, at the monthly meeting of Local 1066, it was verbally announced that Local 1066 was being merged with the other millwright locals in the area covered by the old OVRCC. (Id., § 2, p. 11). Plaintiff subsequently learned that defendant Yeggy, Midwest Vice-President of the UBC, had informed union officers that the locals were to be merged as of November 1, 2011. (Id., pp. 11-12). Plaintiff filed for an injunction in this court on September 28, 2011. (Id., p. 12). The merger took place before defendants were served with notice of the request for the injunction. (Id.). Plaintiff requested a copy of the reports that led to the merger from McCarron on November 28, 2011, but received no response. (Id.; Exh. 7). McCarron has acted in a "patently unreasonable" manner by failing to allow for an appeal to the General Executive Board of his decision to allow the merger before proceeding with the action. (Id., § 11, pp. 22-25).
Defendant Yeggy, under McCarron's direction, seized the funds of Local 1066 as part ofthe merger. (Id., § 12, p. 25). The funds included a death benefit fund, which was an insurance plan that each participating member paid into on a monthly basis with the guarantee of a benefit being paid to the member's family upon the member's death, and which was backed by the full general fund. (Id.). When the death benefit fund was low, funds from the general fund were transferred into it, such that the entire general fund of Local 1066 was a death benefit fund, if needed. (Id., p. 26).
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the membership of Local 1066 on October 3, 2011, the membership reauthorized a number of expenditures, including a Christmas party, the retirees' club quarterly luncheon, and the purchase of two apprentice rings for longtime instructors. (Id., § 3, p. 13). The membership also authorized the sealed bid sale of a pool table and furniture. (Id.; Exh. 8). The funds of Local 1066 were seized without regard to the votes of the membership, following which only the sale of the pool table and furniture were allowed and the other expenditures were cancelled. (Id., p. 14). Also, after the merger of Local 1066 into Local 1090, the dues of the members of Local 1066 were increased without a vote by the members or notification to them and the dues of the retiree members were also increased without a vote. (Id., § 4, p. 15; Exh. 10). Plaintiff used his internal remedies under § 53(G) of the UBC Constitution4 to challenge the increase, but he did not receive a reply. (Id., Exh. 18).
The merger has resulted in an assessment on plaintiff as a member because he must travel long distances in order to attend Local meetings, including 8 hour round-trips between Cincinnatiand Cleveland, with only two of 12 meetings per year scheduled to be held in the Cincinnati area. (Id., § 5, p. 15; Exh. 9).
Defendants have levied a fee on the membership for the sending out of three-month notices without a required vote of the membership. (Id., § 7, p. 17; Exh. 11). Further, an assessment of 30 cents per hour was levied on all members of the new Local 1090 without a vote by the membership. (Id., § 8, p. 17; Exh. 19).
The merger of Local 1066 into Local 1090 is in effect a trusteeship. (Id., § 6, p. 16). Six of the ten appointed members of the executive board of Local 1090 are full-time employees of the IKORCC. (Id.). They have been placed on the board by order of defendants to control the affairs of Local 1090 given that it would be unreasonable for any official whose full-time employment is governed by an at-will contract with defendants to oppose his employer's will and risk discipline or termination. (Id.).
Although the IKORCC is composed of 32,000 members, the officers of the IKORCC are the same officers who were selected by the 12,000 members of the old IKRCC the month before the merger and who represented only that organization. (Id., § 9, p. 18). McCarron has chosen not to hold new elections that would allow for the possibility that all members of the new IKORCC would be truly represented because he does not want to take the chance that the officers he "hand-picked" before the merger would not be re-elected if all members of the IKORCC were permitted to vote as required under the applicable law. (Id.).
Defendants committed acts of bad faith in connection with the merger. (Doc. 32, § 10, pp. 19-20; Exh. 6). Plaintiff contends there is contradictory evidence as to when McCarron made the decision to implement the merger. Plaintiff further disputes that a copy of McCarron's letter directing the merger was provided to Local Union 1066, as stated in an affidavit Yeggy filedwith this Court. (Id., p. 20; Exhs. 6, 14). Plaintiff further alleges that defendants acted in bad faith by making statements at the Local 1066 monthly meeting in October that were meant to intimidate members and deny them their rights. (Id., p. 21; Exh. 5). Specifically, at the meeting, Yeggy "cited past instances where out of the normal spending was done and those who signed checks were held responsible." (Id., Exh. 5, Declaration of Ivan D. Madden).
As relief, plaintiff seeks actual damages of $5,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $9,000,000 to discourage the continued disregard of his rights as a union member. (Id., § 14, p. 28).
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 7, 2012. (Doc. 32). He subsequently filed a motion for extension of time on May 22, 2012, seeking an extension of 21 days after all of the defendants answered the amended complaint, or after their time to answer had expired, to respond to their answer. The defendants named in the original complaint filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 18, 2012. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 8, 2012. (Doc. 41). The individuals added as new defendants to the amended complaint filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 22, 2012. (Doc. 46). Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to that motion to dismiss on July 3, 2012. (Doc. 50). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for additional time to...
To continue reading
Request your trial