Corner v. Acosta
| Decision Date | 19 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 C 8134,17 C 8134 |
| Parties | MARY CORNER, Plaintiff, v. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of the Department of Labor, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Mary Corner is a member of the American Postal Workers Union Local 7140 - Northwest Illinois Area Local (the "Union"). She filed complaints with the United States Department of Labor claiming violations of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 481, during the course of the campaign for the Union's election held on April 24, 2017. The Department investigated and denied Corner's claim in a written decision. See R. 24 at 8-11. Corner filed this action against the Secretary of Labor seeking review of that decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Secretary has moved for judgment in his favor. R. 28. For the following reasons, the Secretary's motion is granted.
Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA") was enacted "to insure 'free and democratic elections' for union officers." Chao v. Local 743, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 467 F.3d 1014, 1016 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n, 389 U.S. 463, 469 (1968)). Title IV sets minimum standards for conducting union elections and provides the necessary steps for a union member to challenge election procedures. 29 U.S.C. § 482. To initiate such a challenge, a union member must first seek relief through the union, and if not satisfied with that process may file a complaint with the Department of Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 482(a); Chao, 467 F.3d at 1017. But the Department may not challenge the election unless investigation confirms that a statutory violation probably affected the outcome of the election and has not been already remedied. See 29 U.S.C. § 482(b); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 570 (1975). When the Department receives a complaint but declines to challenge the election, the Department must issue a statement of reasons outlining the essential facts and explaining the reasons for the decision. See Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 573-74. The statement of reasons "should inform the court and the complaining union member of both the grounds of decision and the essential facts upon which the Secretary's inferences are based." Id. However, "detailed finding of facts are not required." Id.
When the Department decides not to sue, its decision is subject to limited judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 572-7; Harrington v. Chao, 280 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2002); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Typically, cases arising under the APA are resolved by summary judgment based solely on the administrative record. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744-45 (1985). However, when reviewing a LMRDA decision, a court mustfurther limit its review to the statement of reasons provided by the Department. Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 572-73. Courts must defer to the Department's factual findings, and may not review a union member's challenges to the factual basis of the Department's decision. Id. A court may extend its review beyond the Department's statement of reasons only under exceptional circumstances; for instance, if the Department declared it will not enforce the LMRDA; if the Department completely abrogated its enforcement responsibility; or if the Department assesses complaints in a discriminatory manner. Id.
In reviewing a LMRDA decision and determining whether it is necessary to extend review beyond the Department's statement of reasons, the Court must determine "whether the statement, without more, evinces that the Secretary's decision is so irrational as to constitute the decision arbitrary and capricious." Id. The arbitrary and capricious standard "embod[ies] the highest level of deference." Exbom v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund, 900 F.2d 1138, 1142 (7th Cir. 1990). The LMDRA relies on the Department's "special knowledge and discretion" to determine if a union election was in violation of the LMRDA and if the violation affected the outcome of the election. Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 571. District courts may not may not substitute their judgment for that of the Department, and must affirm the Department's determination if the statement of reasons provides a "rational and defensible" reason for the decision not to sue. Id.
As an initial matter, Corner asks this Court to extend its review beyond the Department's statement of reasons to include the Department's investigatory files. However, there is no indication that the Department abrogated its enforcement responsibility or acted in a discriminatory manner so as to justify such an extended review. Therefore, the Court's review is limited to analyzing the sufficiency of the Department's statement of reasons. See Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 573; see also Corner v. Solis, 380 Fed. App'x 532, 535 (7th Cir. 2010).
Corner's complaints primarily concern the Union's decision to provide notice of the election to its members using the Union's newspaper. Corner makes the following arguments that the statement of reasons is insufficient: (1) it was improper for the Union to use its newspaper to provide notice to members about the nominations because the Union had not distributed the newspaper by mail in several years; (2) use of the newspaper favored incumbent candidates; and (3) use of the newspaper was an unlawful expenditure of Union funds. In addition to issues with use of the newspaper, Corner also claims that the Union improperly permitted two candidates to run even though they were ineligible for failure to pay dues. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
Corner argues that the Union newspaper was an improper method of providing notice under the LMRDA because the newspaper had not been distributed by mail in several years. R. 24 ¶¶ 11-15; R. 31 at 9. In response, the Secretary cites regulation29 C.F.R. § 452.100, which provides that the notice requirement may be satisfied by publishing notice of an election in the organization's newspaper and mailing it to all member's last known address at least fifteen days prior to the election. See R. 29 at 9. The statement of reasons also found that the Union had provided notice by mailing the newspaper to its members for the last three election cycles.
Corner argues that the Department's decision was irrational because the newspaper was obsolete and not authorized by the union's members. See R. 24 ¶¶ 11-12; R. 31 at 9. Corner also argues that the Department's decision was irrational because it overlooked the incumbent President's statement in the Union's newspaper that "we stopped putting out newspapers several years ago because it was not worth the cost." R. 24 ¶ 15; R. 31 at 9. However, the relevant regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 452.99, merely requires that election notice be "mailed to each member at his last known home address," and permits this notice to be sent on the "front page" of a union's newspaper, 29 C.F.R. § 452.100. Corner has cited no requirement that the newspaper have a regular distribution to satisfy the notice requirement. What is key is that the union members get a notice mailed to them. Whether the Union's newspaper was regularly distributed is irrelevant. The Department's finding that the Union's use of its newspaper to provide election notice was permissible under the regulations was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The Department found that the Union's newspaper was not used as a tool to campaign by the incumbent officers. See R. 24 at 9-10. Courts evaluate acommunication's timing, tone and content to determine if a publication promotes a person's candidacy. See Hudson v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, 318 F. Supp. 3d 7, 13 (D.D.C. 2018) ; Herman v. United Auto., Aerospace, Agric. Implement Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, Local 148, 2001 WL 34047301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2001) . Applying these factors, the Department found that the newspaper: (1) did not promote the incumbent officers; (2) was not critical of any opposing nominees; and (3) did not encourage the reelection of the incumbent officers. R. 24 at 9-10.
Corner disagrees with the Department's findings. She argues that the incumbent officers used the Union's newspaper as a tactic to get their "faces and names" to the union members before the election, and that the incumbents' campaigning in the Union newspaper was subtle. See R. 31 at 9-10. She also argues that the timing of the communication shows it was used by the incumbent officers as a tool to campaign. Id. at 10.
These arguments amount to mere disagreement with the Department's findings. Such arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that the Department's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Corner also argues that the Union favored the incumbents by preventing her from contributing an article to the newspaper in violation of 29 U.S.C. 481(c). R. 31 at 10. It is true that the incumbents contributed to the published article used to provide notice on their current union activities, while Corner contributed nothing. And Corner contends that she requested permission to submit an article for the newspaper, citing a reference to her request in a letter a Union official. See R. 24 at 15 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial