Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers, No. 82

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES; BOWNES; LEVIN H. CAMPBELL
Citation679 F.2d 978
Decision Date21 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-1545,No. 82
Parties110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2445, 94 Lab.Cas. P 13,562 Jerome CROWLEY, Anthony Coyne, Joseph Fahey, Robert Lunnin, James Hayes, Gerald Owens, John Lynch, Joseph Trask, Joseph Montagna, and Dennis Bates, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LOCAL NO. 82, FURNITURE AND PIANO MOVING, FURNITURE STORE DRIVERS, HELPERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND PACKERS; Bart Griffiths, Secretary-Treasurer, Local; George Harris, President, Local; Phillip Piemontese, Chairman of the Election Committee of Local 82; and John Doe, James Doe and Jerome Doe, Members of the Election Committee of Local 82, Defendants-Appellants. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Intervenor.

Page 978

679 F.2d 978
110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2445, 94 Lab.Cas. P 13,562
Jerome CROWLEY, Anthony Coyne, Joseph Fahey, Robert Lunnin,
James Hayes, Gerald Owens, John Lynch, Joseph
Trask, Joseph Montagna, and Dennis
Bates, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
LOCAL NO. 82, FURNITURE AND PIANO MOVING, FURNITURE STORE
DRIVERS, HELPERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND PACKERS; Bart Griffiths,
Secretary-Treasurer, Local No. 82; George Harris, President,
Local No. 82; Phillip Piemontese, Chairman of the Election
Committee of Local 82; and John Doe, James Doe and Jerome
Doe, Members of the Election Committee of Local 82,
Defendants-Appellants.
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor, Intervenor.
No. 81-1545.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
Argued Jan. 6, 1982.
Decided May 21, 1982.

Page 981

Gary S. Witlen, Washington, D. C., with whom Kathryn Noonan, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for defendants-appellants.

Kurt M. Pressman, Cambridge, Mass., with whom Mark D. Stern, Benjamin Hiller, and Goldstein, Pressman & Stern, Cambridge, Mass., were on brief, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Susan M. Webman, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., with whom T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., Sol. of Labor, John F. Depenbrock, Associate Sol., and Joseph M. Woodward, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for The Secretary of Labor, amicus curiae.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.

BOWNES, Circuit Judge.

Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Local) and certain of its individual officers 1 appeal the order of the district court issuing a preliminary injunction against them that principally requires the Local to conduct new elections for officer positions in the Local. The injunction was sought by several members of the Local, Jerome Crowley, Anthony Coyne, Joseph Fahey, Robert Lunnin, James Hayes, Gerald Owens, John Lynch, Joseph Trask, and Joseph Montagna, who raised a number of claims regarding the

Page 982

Local's conduct of nominations and elections in November and December, 1980. The claims all arose under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531. The primary question posed here is whether the district court had jurisdiction under Title I of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411-415, to grant the injunction, or whether, as appellants contend, the plaintiffs' only recourse was to the Secretary of Labor under Title IV of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 481-483. The Secretary of Labor has intervened on the side of appellants because of his concern over this issue. Additional questions in this appeal concern the propriety of the preliminary injunction under traditional equitable doctrines and the district court's refusal to require plaintiffs to post bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

This case concerns only one event, the meeting held by the Local on November 9, 1980, for the nomination of candidates for positions in the Local. The November 9 meeting attracted more interest than was usually shown in the Local's monthly meetings, which was due in part to the efforts of dissident members to gather support to turn the then-current Local officials out of office. Two aspects of the meeting provoked considerable controversy. First, admission to the meeting was restricted to those members who had with them a computerized receipt (the TITAN receipt) showing that their dues had been paid up to date. Several members were denied admission because they did not have TITAN receipts, and they became angry and vocal. At one point, four of the men outside the meeting, plaintiff Lunnin, Kenneth Sprague, and two others, entered the meeting to see Bart Griffiths, the secretary-treasurer of the Local, about easing the rule. Griffiths refused to alter the rule or to allow the shop stewards to check their own dues records and admit paid-up members, but he offered to hold up the meeting for an hour in order to allow members to return home to pick up their receipts. The four-man delegation refused this offer. Lunnin and Sprague, however, had their receipts and were admitted. At the hearing before the district court, both sides presented evidence concerning the regularity with which the TITAN receipt requirement was imposed at Local meetings.

The second controversy occurred when nominations were made. Before nominations began, Griffiths read aloud lists of members ineligible and eligible for candidacy, eleven on the ineligible list and sixteen on the eligible list. Four of the plaintiffs, Crowley, Coyne, Lunnin, and Hayes, were ineligible; one, John Lynch, was on the eligible list. Eligibility was based on timely payment of dues. 2 The remainder of the approximately 750 members of the Local, including plaintiffs Fahey, Owens, Trask, Montagna, and Bates, were on neither list. 3 At this point, proceedings began to break down-several members often spoke at once-and order was never fully restored. Questions were raised concerning eligibility requirements and the lists, and, at least in the minds of some, Griffiths did not answer them adequately. Nominations were then opened. Griffiths was nominated for secretary-treasurer, and according to the plaintiffs, Lynch was as well. At the close of nominations, however, Griffiths declared himself the sole nominee for secretary-treasurer and included Lynch among the candidates for president. Protests were unavailing. Nominations for other positions went on while similar turmoil prevailed, but plaintiffs' principal objection, and the important fact for this appeal, concerns Lynch's nomination.

Plaintiffs then filed suit in federal district court, alleging ten claims, five of them charging denials of equal rights in violation

Page 983

of 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1), 4 three for denials of free expression of views in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2), 5 one for unlawful discipline in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5), 6 and one for a violation of the right to nominate candidates protected under 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). 7 The complaint, seeking preliminary relief, was filed on December 1, 1980, after the nomination meeting but before the subsequent by-mail election had been completed.

On December 12, in order to preserve the status quo and to protect its own jurisdiction, the district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Local from counting the ballots, some of which had already been received. Several days of hearings on a preliminary injunction, and many more days of negotiations regarding the terms of an order followed. On July 13, 1981, the district court, 521 F.Supp. 614, issued a preliminary injunction and memorandum opinion. In its memorandum, the district court concluded that plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success in demonstrating that the imposition of the TITAN receipt requirement and the refusal to allow Lynch to run for secretary-treasurer both violated their equal right to nominate and their right to express views freely, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1), (2). In the meantime, the Local had dropped the charges against the member that had given rise to the unlawful discipline claim. The injunction that the district court issued set aside the earlier nomination and election and established procedures for a new nomination and election to be overseen by a third party, Lawrence Katz and the Honest Ballot Association of New England. The order also enjoined the defendants from interfering with equal rights of the Local members to participate in meetings of the Local regarding the election and to express their views freely about the election. The plaintiffs were not required to post security under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c). Defendants sought a stay of the order in the district court, which it denied, and in this court, which we denied, and this appeal followed.

Appellants challenge the order below on three grounds: the district court lacked remedial jurisdiction under Title I of the LMRDA to order a new election and the

Page 984

procedures therefor; 8 the preliminary injunction is improper under traditional equitable principles; and the district court improperly refused to require plaintiffs to post a bond. The Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) essentially joins appellants in their first argument and adds that the district court's TRO, issued in part to preserve the district court's jurisdiction, was error. In order to determine the propriety of the preliminary injunction (and the absence of posted security), we must decide whether the district court had jurisdiction to order a new election at all. This issue involves reconciliation of Titles I and IV, particularly of their respective jurisdictional provisions, 29 U.S.C. §§ 412, 483, which are in apparent conflict.

I. Remedial Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional argument posed by appellants and the Secretary rests on the proposition that the district court erroneously reconciled the conflict between Titles I and IV of the LMRDA. Summary of these Titles explains the conflict. Title IV sets out in some detail a number of requirements union elections must fulfill. 29 U.S.C. § 481. Included are such matters as frequency of elections, rights of candidates involving distribution of campaign material and opportunity to reach union members, reasonable opportunity for union members to nominate and elect candidates, use of union dues, and removal of union officers. Id. As to actual nomination and election procedures, Title IV seeks to give members in good standing an opportunity to participate but leaves procedural details largely up to union constitutions and bylaws. Id. To enforce his Title IV rights, a union member must first exhaust his internal union remedies and then may request the Secretary to investigate and enforce his rights. 29 U.S.C. § 482(a), (b). The Secretary may sue for a court-ordered new election, 29 U.S.C. § 482(c),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 practice notes
  • Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, No. C 96-4024 TEH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • December 23, 1996
    ...65(c). This Court agrees that in this case it is appropriate to waive the bond requirement. See generally Crowley v. Local No. 82, 679 F.2d 978, 1000 (1st Cir.1982); Canterbury Career School, Inc. v. Riley, 833 F.Supp. 1097, 1106...
  • Local No 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers Warehousemen and Packers v. Crowley, No. 82-432
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1984
    ...for supervising new elections and was inconsistent with the basic objectives of the LMRDA enforcement scheme. Pp. 550-551. 679 F.2d 978 (CA1 1982), reversed and remanded. Page 528 Gary S. Witlen, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. John H. Garvey, Lexington, Ky., for the federal respondent i......
  • Navajo Health Found.—Sage Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell, No. CIV 14–0958 JB/GBW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • April 9, 2015
    ...party together with the hardship that a bond requirement would impose on the applicant.” Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 526, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984). For instance, in Temple University v. White, 941 F.2......
  • Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, No. C 94-4117.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 27, 1995
    ...be considered," citing Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 526, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984)). 878 F. Supp. 1276 Nonetheless, some courts, suc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, No. C 96-4024 TEH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • December 23, 1996
    ...65(c). This Court agrees that in this case it is appropriate to waive the bond requirement. See generally Crowley v. Local No. 82, 679 F.2d 978, 1000 (1st Cir.1982); Canterbury Career School, Inc. v. Riley, 833 F.Supp. 1097, 1106...
  • Local No 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers Warehousemen and Packers v. Crowley, No. 82-432
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1984
    ...for supervising new elections and was inconsistent with the basic objectives of the LMRDA enforcement scheme. Pp. 550-551. 679 F.2d 978 (CA1 1982), reversed and remanded. Page 528 Gary S. Witlen, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. John H. Garvey, Lexington, Ky., for the federal respondent i......
  • Navajo Health Found.—Sage Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell, No. CIV 14–0958 JB/GBW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • April 9, 2015
    ...party together with the hardship that a bond requirement would impose on the applicant.” Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 526, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984). For instance, in Temple University v. White, 941 F.2......
  • Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, No. C 94-4117.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • January 27, 1995
    ...be considered," citing Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 526, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984)). 878 F. Supp. 1276 Nonetheless, some courts, suc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT