Corns v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am.
| Decision Date | 29 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 09–CV–4403 YGR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Alex Corns, Plaintiff, v. Laborers International Union of North America; Northern California District Council of Laborers ; and Hod Carriers Local Union No. 166, affiliated with the Laborers International Union of North America, Defendants. |
Christopher W. Katzenbach, Katzenbach Law Offices, San Rafael, CA, for Plaintiff.
Barry E. Hinkle, Concepcion E. Lozano-Batista, David Albert Rosenfeld, Roberta D. Perkins, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Defendants.
Order Establishing Plaintiff's Entitlement To Relief On Remand;' Granting In Part Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees
Presently before the Court are the issues on remand of this action from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, following a reversal in part of the Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants Laborers International Union of North America (“the International”); Northern California District Council of Laborers (“District Council”); and Hod Carriers Local Union No. 166 (“Local 166”) (collectively, “Defendants”) against Plaintiff Alex Corns (“Corns”). Corns v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am., 709 F.3d 901 (9th Cir.2013).
Corns filed the instant action against Defendants on September 18, 2009. His complaint challenged two different fees imposed on Local 166 members: (1) organizing fees imposed by the International as a result of the International's 2006 general convention; and (2) dues increases included in the 2008–2010 Local 166 collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The district court, in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, found that the fees and dues increases were lawfully implemented consistent with the union democracy requirements of the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 412 (“LMRDA”). The Ninth Circuit, on review, affirmed the denial of Corns' challenge to the organizing fees, but held that the vote by the District Council approving the dues increases in the 2008–2010 Local 166 CBAs was improper because the members of Local 166 were not “members” of the District Council. The remand from the Ninth Circuit directed this Court to conduct “further proceedings consistent with” its opinion.
The parties have, at the direction of the Court, submitted briefing and evidence on the issues remaining, namely the appropriate remedy for the one violation of section 101(a)(3) of the LMRDA, found by the Ninth Circuit.
Having thoroughly reviewed the parties' submissions and evidence in support of the remedy and the related issues identified by the Court's March 31, 2014 Order (Dkt. No. 88), measures taken by Defendants after remand, as well as the arguments and evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' fees, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court ORDERS that: (1) Plaintiff shall be awarded $126,562.50 in attorneys' fees and costs; and (2) no additional form of relief, such as restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or penalties is warranted.
The Ninth Circuit's opinion set forth the facts of the case in detail. This Court now summarizes those facts salient to this order. Local 166 members' dues and fees are dictated by multiple collective bargaining agreements, some of which are negotiated by the District Council. Depending upon where the members are called to work, their pay, dues, and fees, may be set by a CBA negotiated by Local 166, negotiated by the District Council on their behalf, or negotiated by the District Council on behalf of multiple local unions in various Northern California counties.
The District Council's membership consists of delegates from its affiliated local unions. It possesses the constitutional authority “[t]o negotiate, bargain for and enter into understandings and agreements with employers, for and [on] behalf of its affiliated Local Unions and to enforce and police the observance thereof by employees and employers, Local Unions and their members....” (Unif. Dist. Council Const. art. II, § 2 (d).) The Uniform District Council Constitution also empowers the District Council to establish and regulate the amount of dues and fees paid by members of the affiliated local unions, including Local 166. (Id. art. II, § 2(e).) The District Council must convene a special convention at which delegates vote on whether an increase in dues or fees is necessary for one or more of the fifteen local unions. (Id. art. VIII, § 2.)
The dues increases challenged by Corns were included in the 2008–2010 Local 166 collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the District Council. Imposition of these dues and fees increases resulted from a vote of the District Council at a general meeting held June 20, 2008, and went into effect on July 1, 2008.
Corns wrote the International's general president to express his concern about the imposition of a dues increase absent a secret ballot vote of the local membership. The District Council's executive board proposed, and the District Council approved, a special convention to be held September 19, 2008, to consider the dues increase.
Although the 2008–2010 Local 166 collective bargaining agreements had already been ratified by the District Council's vote on June 20, 2008, they were presented to Local 166 members at a general board meeting on June 26, 2008. Corns requested that a standing vote of the Local 166 membership be taken to approve the new agreements. A standing vote of the members present was taken, and resulted in a narrow majority (30–29) in favor of the agreements. Corns then challenged the vote on the grounds that the person conducting the vote was the son of the Local 166 business manager. A new vote of the Local 166 members then present, resulting in approval by 36 votes in favor, and 30 votes opposed.
Nearly three months later, on September 19, 2008, the District Council held the scheduled special convention to consider the dues increase. At the special convention, the District Council's delegates, including two Local 166 representatives, voted unanimously to approve the dues increase included in the 2008–2010 Local 166 Agreements.
Corns then wrote a letter to the International objecting to the increases approved at the District Council special convention. The International's general president responded to Corns on March 13, 2009, explaining that the International took the position that the dues were increased properly, in accordance with the Uniform District Council and Uniform Local Union constitutions.
Corns' complaint alleged that (1) organizing fees imposed by the International as a result of the International's 2006 general convention; and (2) dues increases included in the 2008–2010 Local 166 collective bargaining agreements were imposed in violation of the LMRDA. As to the dues increases, Corns alleged they were not lawful since they were imposed without a secret ballot of the members of Local 166, and instead were adopted by the District Council in an increase that affected only Local 166. Corns alleged that the provisions of Defendants' constitutions permitting the District Council to adopt dues increases for individual, affiliated local unions were invalid under the LMRDA.1 The complaint sought reimbursement of the dues and fees collected from Corns under the 2008–2010 Local 166 Agreements, declaratory relief to prevent the District Council from imposing dues increases, and injunctive relief.
On December 13, 2010, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the district court concluded that the LMRDA provides alternative methods for levying assessments and increasing dues, and requires a secret ballot vote of the local membership only when a local labor organization imposes an assessment or dues increase. Because the District Council was not a local labor organization, the district court concluded that the District Council validly approved the dues increase by a vote of delegates at a special convention of the District Council in accordance with section 101(a)(3)(B)(i).
On review, the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Council's vote to increase the dues was not proper under the LMRDA. Corns, 709 F.3d at 915–16. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the District Council was not required to act by a secret ballot, since it is not a “local labor organization.” However, the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Council could only impose a dues increase on its own members. Id., citing 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(3). Not all members of Local 166 were members of the District Council, only a handful of delegates.
Thus, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on this issue, though for different reasons than Corns argued.
Upon remand, Corns sought to amend the complaint to expand his theories for relief and to add class action allegations. Defendants sought an order directing that the Court order relief in the form of a retroactive election on the propriety of the 2008–2010 Agreements. The Court denied both requests. (See Orders at Dkt. No. 87 and 88.) In the Order denying a retroactive election without prejudice, the Court set an evidentiary hearing, and ordered briefing and submission of evidence to allow the Court to reach a determination on the appropriate relief. (Dkt. No. 88, “March 31 Order”.)
In advance of that evidentiary hearing, on April 28, 2014, the Court held a pre-hearing conference with the parties. Based upon the list of witnesses and documents submitted by Plaintiff, the Court determined that Plaintiff's proffered evidence would expand the issues for the evidentiary hearing beyond those appropriately before the Court. The focus of the evidence Corns sought to present concerned new allegations of an improper ratification vote after remand, and evidence that Local 166's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gianni Versace, S. P.A. v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL, Case No. 16-cv-03617-HSG
...if the information is disclosed. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; Corns v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1105, 1111 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ("The Court finds that there are compelling reasons to seal this private, personal information which bears only......