Copeland v. Jefferson County

• Decision Date: 28 August 1969
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 521
• Citation: 284 Ala. 558,226 So.2d 385
• Parties: , 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2266 Paul R. COPELAND v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Alabama and Vicinity Carpenters District Council, etc., et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 385

226 So.2d 385

284 Ala. 558, 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2266

Paul R. COPELAND v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Alabama and Vicinity Carpenters District Council, etc., et al.

6 Div. 521.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 28, 1969.

Dempsey F. Pennington, Birmingham, for appellant.

Weir & Shannon, Birmingham, for appellees.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree sustaining demurrers and dismissing a bill for declaratory judgment filed by the appellant below. The only issue before us is the propriety of that decree.

The bill of complaint filed in the case reads, in material part, as follows:

'2. On to-wit: February 25, 1960, the complainant was a member in good standing of Local #103 of the said Brotherhood. On said date the respondents, Noah M. Pennington and W. C. Sammons, preferred charges against the complainant before the said Council without consulting complainant or any member of his family, falsely and maliciously accusing him of hiring nonunion labor to build a garage at his residence. The said charge was based upon Section 55, Paragraph L, of the Constitution and Laws of said Brotherhood which provides: 'Any member who acts in violation of the Obligation, or violates any Section of the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood shall be fined, suspended or expelled, at the discretion of the Local Union or District Council, except where the penalty is specified in the Laws.' The 'obligation' referred to reads in pertinent part as follows: 'I agree that I will * * * employ only union labor--when same can be had. * * *'

'3. Your complainant further shows that Section 56, Paragraphs E and F read as follows: 'E The Local Union or District Council shall nominate the names of eleven members most competent of giving a fair and impartial hearing of the case. The Recording Secretary shall place the names in the ballot box and the Vice-President shall draw the same from the box and call the names aloud until five have been drawn, when the case will be given to them for investigation.' 'F All charges shall be referred to a Trial Committee, consisting of five, the accused and accuser having the alternative of each challenging any three members of said committee. Any member so challenged shall not serve on the committee.' Complainant avers that he was duly notified to appear at the regular meeting of said Council on to-wit: March 16, 1960, to answer the said charges made against him and did so. On said occasion, the Trial Committee was selected in accordance with said Paragraph E above but when the complainant attempted to question the prospective members of said Trial Committee in order that he might exercise his right of challenge as specified in Paragraph F above he was summarily overruled by the respondent, Vernon Stevens, who was then the President of said Council and was arbitrarily denied his said right of challenging the prospective members of said Trial Committee in violation of his Constitutional right so to do.

'4. Complainant further avers that Paragraph G of Section 56 of said Constitution reads in pertinent part as follows: 'The accused shall have a fair and impartial trial, and shall be allowed until the next regular meeting to appear and reply, either in person or by counsel; * * *.' Complainant avers that he was not given until the next regular meeting to appear and reply but was summoned by the Chairman of the Trial Committee, on to-wit: March 25, 1960, to appear for the trial on to-wit: March 30, 1960, as the accused in violation of the above quoted Paragraph G of Section 56 of said Constitution.

'5. At said trial on to-wit: March 30, 1960, there was no evidence introduced against complainant except hearsay testimony yet, nevertheless, the trial committee thereafter on to-wit: April 27, 1960, found the complainant guilty as charged. Paragraph I of Section 56 of said Constitution provides as follows: 'When the committee has come to a decision in the case the chairman of said committee shall, at the next regular meeting thereafter, submit a full report of the case with their verdict and the evidence in writing to the Local Union or the District Council.' Complainant avers that said Trial Committee did not wait until the next regular meeting after they had come to their decision to make a report thereof but submitted said report on the same day the decision was made; * * *.'

The complaint goes on to allege that the complainant was fined $25.00 but contends that the fine was fixed by the respondent, Vernon Stevens, in violation of the Constitution of the Brotherhood, which requires a majority of the members present at the meeting to affix such fine as the majority deems proper.

It is further alleged that successive appeals to the General President of the Brotherhood, its General Executive Board, and its General Convention were all denied and dismissed culminating in a ruling of the General Convention on September 28, 1962, 'more than two years and five months after the complainant was convicted by the said abortive and illegal trial committee and complainant has exhausted all his administrative remedies.'

The bill also alleges:

'8. Complainant avers that by reason of the foregoing there is a justiciable controversy between him and the respondents; that he has been made the...