Coleman v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, ETC.

• Citation: 228 F. Supp. 276
• Parties: Walter T. COLEMAN, Walter L. Cox, David F. Lynch, and Carolyn L. Klucz, Plaintiffs, v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES and George M. Harrison, individually and as Chairman of said Brotherhood's Grand Executive Council, Defendants.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1964
• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

228 F. Supp. 276

Walter T. COLEMAN, Walter L. Cox, David F. Lynch, and Carolyn L. Klucz, Plaintiffs, v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES and George M. Harrison, individually and as Chairman of said Brotherhood's Grand Executive Council, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 31, 1964.

Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Paul G. Reilly, New York City, James L. Highsaw, Jr., Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendants.

BONSAL, District Judge.

On November 18, 1963, plaintiffs, alleging that they are members in good standing of the defendant Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees (Brotherhood), filed a complaint against the Brotherhood and George M. Harrison (Harrison) individually and as chairman of the Brotherhood's Grand Executive Council. The complaint asserts jurisdiction of the Court under Section 102, Title I, and Sections 501(a) and (b), Title V, of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 412 and 501(a) and (b).

Plaintiffs, alleging that they are bringing the action for themselves and for all members of the Brotherhood, seek:

(a) a declaratory judgment declaring that the procedure which resulted in the enactment of Resolution No. 611 at the Brotherhood's Twenty-Second Regular and Eighth Quadrennial Convention in Los Angeles, "was illegal and therefore null and void under the Act of 1959 LMRDA and under the defendant Brotherhood's Constitution; and that said Resolution No. 611 is equally illegal".

(b) a preliminary and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from carrying Resolution No. 611 into effect; and

(c) such other and further relief as to the Court seems just, including payment to plaintiffs' counsel of reasonable attorneys' fees.

Defendants have moved, pursuant to Rules 12 and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment and to permit the intervention of George E. Cook as a party plaintiff.

Finally, plaintiffs have moved by an order to show cause for an injunction pendente lite enjoining the defendants from conducting a trial of charges pending against plaintiff Coleman, from expelling plaintiffs from the defendant Brotherhood and from taking other specified actions against plaintiffs.

It appears that defendant Harrison had been Grand President of the Brotherhood for many years. Defendant Harrison states that some months prior to the 1963 Convention at Los Angeles he indicated to other officers and representatives of the Brotherhood that due to his advancing years he wished to be relieved of the arduous duties of Grand President; that at the suggestion of these officers and representatives he agreed to serve the Brotherhood in a less exacting capacity, and that Resolution No. 611 was then prepared following discussions among Brotherhood officials. According to defendants, Resolution No. 611 was presented to the Convention by members of the Grand Executive Council and Grand Lodge Board of Trustees on May 13, 1963, and was then referred to the Committee on the Grand Lodge Constitution and Laws, which Committee reported back to the Convention through its chairman, on May 15, 1963. The Proceedings of the Convention show that Resolution No. 611 was adopted by the Convention on May 15, 1963, by a show of hands, with a few dissents being recorded. As adopted, it read as follows:

"WHEREAS, George M. Harrison has expressed a desire to retire from the office of Grand President of our Brotherhood after having served in our Organization for approximately forty-five years, thirty-five of these years as Grand President, and during all of these years he has been held in high esteem and great respect, his integrity has never been questioned.

"He has rendered outstanding service and given exemplary leadership to our Organization. We enjoy a position of pre-eminence with great prestige — both national and international — and we are known for the integrity and responsibility and ethical standards, practiced and observed by our Brotherhood, throughout the American Labor Movement. Our progress is improving the economic and social conditions of our members and the gains achieved generally in their behalf places us in a position of leadership in our segment of international Labor.

"The participation of George M. Harrison in the many private and governmental agencies and organizations concerned with economic, social and educational matters and international affairs has redounded to the interest and benefit of our Brotherhood, its members and Labor in general, and

"WHEREAS, the retirement of George M. Harrison from the office of Grand President at this time would deprive the Brotherhood and its members of his vast knowledge, experience, leadership and prestige gained from a background of forty-five years in the Labor Movement and national and international affairs, this would be a tremendous loss to the Brotherhood and would be contrary to the best interest of our members; and

"WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent to assure to the Brotherhood the continuing services of George M. Harrison, therefore be it

"RESOLVED, That the office of `Chief Executive' is hereby created for that purpose, effective as of July 1, 1963, and subject to the election procedures of the Constitution, and be it further

"RESOLVED, that the `Chief Executive' is empowered and authorized to exercise at any time he deems necessary any or all of the duties and prerogatives set forth in the Constitution, Statutes for the Government of Local Lodges and the Protective Laws vested in the Grand President and his decisions shall be for all purposes contained in the Constitution, Statutes and Protective Laws as though they were the decisions of the Grand President.

"Salary to be paid to George M. Harrison as `Chief Executive' shall be the same as he now receives as Grand President."

Later during the Convention, on May 16, when the new officers were nominated and elected, defendant Harrison was nominated as Chief Executive Officer under Resolution No. 611 by plaintiff Coleman. No other nominations were made for this office although an opportunity was given for such nominations, and a vote having been taken by ballot, the chairman of the Tellers Committee reported on May 17 that defendant Harrison had been elected to the office of Chief Executive Officer, having received 1704 votes out of a total "voting strength" of 1803. The Convention then adopted and approved the Tellers Committee report. The minutes of the Convention disclose that defendant Harrison yielded the chair to one of the Vice Grand Presidents of the Brotherhood, both on the occasion of the adoption of Resolution No. 611 and on the occasion of the nominations for the office of Chief Executive Officer thereunder. It also appears that on both occasions plaintiff Coleman took the floor and made laudatory remarks with respect to defendant Harrison. Some time after the Convention, plaintiff Coleman was temporarily suspended from his office as General Chairman of Pan American World Airways System Board of Adjustment by defendant Harrison, pending disposition of charges of misappropriation and misuse of Brotherhood funds.

Plaintiffs maintain that Resolution No. 611 is null and void whether viewed as an amendment to the Brotherhood's Constitution or as a resolution. The complaint alleges that the adoption of Resolution No. 611 violated Section 27 of Article 13 of the Brotherhood's Constitution in that by providing for a new officer, the Chief Executive Officer, with the power at any time to assume the duties and prerogatives of the Grand President, the Resolution in effect sought to amend the Constitution which theretofore had provided for no such office; and that under Section 27 of Article 13 proposed amendments to the Constitution were required to be filed with the Grand President on or before April 1 next preceding the Convention and copies mailed to all delegates on or before April 20, and copies to be supplied to the Committee on Grand Lodge Constitution and Laws immediately on the convening of the Convention. The complaint states that this procedure was not followed with respect to Resolution No. 611 (par. 19). The complaint further charges that the Brotherhood's "time-honored custom" of requiring three readings of proposed amendments to the Constitution was not followed at the Los Angeles Convention with respect to Resolution No. 611 (par. 20), and that the Committee on Grand Lodge Constitution and Laws reported to the Convention at its beginning on all proposed amendments but failed to mention Resolution No. 611 (par. 26). The complaint alleges that Resolution No. 611 violated Section 9 of Article 8 of the Brotherhood's Constitution in that the Resolution was not confined to one subject and was not filed with the Grand President on or before April 10, 1963, as is required by Section 9 (par. 28). The complaint asserts that as a "mere `resolution'", Resolution No. 611 is null and void under Sections 47 and 67 of Robert's Rules of Order and under the Brotherhood's Constitution (par. 29). Plaintiffs further charge that the election of defendant Harrison did not comply with the Constitution in that he was not elected by secret ballot and, indeed, that he was not nominated, "but legislated", to his office. (Par. 31.)

The complaint goes on to allege that defendants violated their duty as fiduciaries under Title V, Section 501(a), LMRDA,¹ in suppressing needed information and knowledge respecting Resolution No. 611 before it was voted upon, and in rushing the Resolution through in disregard of the Constitution and custom, and that defendant Harrison "notably lacked that candor and honesty and that respect...