DeCampli v. Greeley

• Decision Date: 26 November 1968
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 354-65.
• Citation: 293 F. Supp. 746
• Parties: Dominick H. DeCAMPLI, Plaintiff, v. John P. GREELEY, Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

293 F. Supp. 746

Dominick H. DeCAMPLI, Plaintiff, v. John P. GREELEY, Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 354-65.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

November 26, 1968.

Martin A. Herman, Woodbury, N. J., for plaintiff.

Mary Ellen Talbott, Camden, N. J., and Seidman and Rome, Marshall J. Seidman, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for defendants.

OPINION

COHEN, District Judge:

A union business agent, summarily dismissed from office by the president of his union, sues for back wages and reinstatement. Initially required is a determination of whether jurisdiction under Sections 102¹ and 609² of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 412 and 529, is properly posited and whether a cause of action is stated thereunder. The dispute has been submitted upon stipulation, pleadings, depositions and briefs.

Plaintiff, Dominick H. DeCampli, alleges that on August 7, 1964, he was summarily discharged as business agent of the defendant-union, Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 676 (Union), by its President, defendant John P. Greeley (Greeley), in violation of those rights guaranteed to him by the "Bill of Rights"³ and "Free Speech Rights"⁴ sections of the Act. Specifically, he maintains that his discharge, as an officer of the Union resulted from his outspoken remarks at a union meeting on July 27, 1964, opposing Greeley's request for the support with union funds of two business agents of the union, Greeley's appointees, who were under Federal indictment charging them with illegal union activities, and for the further reason that thereafter Greeley expressed his belief that the plaintiff was secretly meeting with other members in advocating a candidate for president in opposition to Greeley. Plaintiff contends that, despite the protection of the Act prohibiting reprisal for expressing such opinions on business matters properly before the union meeting, he was dismissed; further, he was denied due process in that he was not served with written specific charges, nor given a reasonable time to prepare his defense, nor was he afforded a full and fair hearing, all, he submits, in violation of Title I, Section 101(a) (5) of the Act.⁵ Since the filing of the complaint, it was stipulated by all parties that:

"DiCampli (sic) was removed from the position of appointed Business Agent by the appointing authority, Greeley, President of Local No. 676, because he believed that DiCampli (sic) was engaging in activities, together with other appointed Business Agents, in secretly meeting in order to select and elect a candidate of their choice to oppose and defeat the incumbent President, Greeley, at the elections of officers of Local No. 676 to be held in November of 1965, and to establish and present union policy positions contra to those of Greeley.

"DiCampli (sic) received a salary as appointed Business Agent of $240.00 per week. Upon his termination by Local No. 676, DiCampli (sic) was afforded the opportunity to return to his former job as a truck driver with his former employer at a weekly wage of $120.00 per week. It is agreed that should the Court find in favor of the Plaintiff, that his damages will be in the sum of $120.00 per week for the period from August 7, 1964, the date of his termination, to December 31, 1965, the date of the expiration of the terms of all elected officers of Local No. 676."

We note that the above stipulation recites Greeley's belief of DeCampli's alleged disloyalty. This does not establish as a fact that his belief was correct. It merely assigns his reason for the plaintiff's dismissal.

Among the undisputed facts are these: Plaintiff DeCampli was appointed as business agent in January 1961 by the Union's President, Greeley, pursuant to Article IX, Section 7, of the Constitution of the Local Union, which provided at that time, as well as now, that:

"The President shall appoint all assistants necessary to carry on the work of the Local Union, who may be known as Business Agents, and set their rates of pay and expense allowance, subject to confirmation by the Executive Board."

Thereafter, Plaintiff (as well as Thomas B. Kelly, Jr., in a companion case, Civil No. 1205-65) was discharged by Greeley upon the authority of Article IX, Section 8 of the Constitution of the Local Union, which provides:

"The President shall have the power to remove such assistants from employment and there shall be no appeal from such dismissal, even though such assistants may also hold an office in the Local Union."

Upon his dismissal, plaintiff appealed to President Backhus of the Teamsters Joint Council No. 53 and to President Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America A. F. of L., both of whom denied any power or authority to review the action of Greeley.⁶

Thus, the issue presented is whether the "Bill of Rights" provisions and the "Free Speech" section of the LMRDA, supra, prohibit a labor union, or its chief executive officer, from discharging an officer, or employee of the Union for allegedly exercising membership rights and, if so, does the Act provide for a federal cause of action.

The answer is in the affirmative. The plaintiff is protected by the Act, and reprisal by dismissal for exercising such rights is prohibited, for which he may maintain an action here.

As to the jurisdictional issue, it must be observed that the assertion of a substantial claim under a federal statute, as here, gives a United States Court jurisdiction of that claim, even though it may determine ultimately that the claim fails, either because no cause of action on which relief could be granted was alleged, or for want of proof. Hughes v. Local 11, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge Workers, 287 F.2d 810, 814 (3 Cir. 1961), cert. den., 368 U.S. 829, 82 S.Ct. 51, 7 L.Ed.2d 32 (1961).

Turning to the second issue, wherein a dismissal of the complaint is sought on the basis that it fails to state a cause of action within the purview of the LMRDA, defendants rely upon a case in this Circuit, Sheridan v. United Brhd. of Carpenters, 306 F.2d 152 (3 Cir. 1962). They contend that the Act protects the rights only of a member; that upon his dismissal as a business agent, the plaintiff's membership in the Local Union remained unaffected; that at no time was he "fined, suspended, expelled or otherwise disciplined" as a member following his discharge as an officer or employee thereof; and that the Act does not protect plaintiff's status as an officer or employee of the Union. Plaintiff counters and places his reliance upon a case out of the Ninth Circuit, Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. King, 335 F.2d 340 (9 Cir. 1964), cert. den. 379 U. S. 920, 85 S.Ct. 274, 13 L.Ed. 2d 334 (1964), and urges us to accept the construction of the Act contained therein rather than that in Sheridan, supra. Other opinions,⁷ appellate and at trial level, involving the problem presented are relatively scant since those two decisions.

The plaintiff maintains that cases in other circuits subsequent to Sheridan, coupled with the Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari in Grand Lodge, should upon reanalysis point in a direction beyond Sheridan. In light of the seeming conflict between the decisions in these two important cases, a careful study of each is essential.

In Sheridan, an altercation arose between the plaintiff — business agent and a union member over alleged work-assignment-favoritism erupting into a physical assault upon the business agent and his subsequent filing of assault and battery charges against the union member resulting in the member's conviction. The matters giving rise to the altercation were made the bases of charges against the business agent for violation of sections 43L and 56A of their Union's Constitution and By-Laws.⁸ The Union Trial Committee found the business agent guilty of violating both sections and its report and recommendations were approved by the union membership. Thereafter, the union voted to remove the business agent from his office; whereupon, he instituted suit for reinstatement and damages, claiming that when he prosecuted the union member for striking him, he was exercising a right guaranteed to him by Section 101 (a) (4)⁹ of the Act. He maintained that he was possessed of a right to sue and that the Union's disciplinary action in dismissing him for doing so violated Section 609 of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 529), wherein it is unlawful for any labor organization to "discipline" any member for exercising a right to which he is entitled.¹⁰ The United States District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Upon appeal, the Union contended, as it did in the district court, that the Court lacked jurisdiction for two reasons: (1) the inapplicability of the Act to an officer or employee of the Union and (2) the failure of the plaintiff to exhaust intra-union remedies prior to his institution of suit. Judge Kalodner's opinion related to the first point; Judge Hastie's to the second. Judge Kalodner held that neither the right to sue provision (section 101(a) (4)), which is part of Title I, the so-called "Bill of Rights," nor the enforcement provisions of section 609 extended protection to a union member's status as an officer or employee. As he stated at page 157:

"Thus, neither under the `Bill of Rights' provisions of Title I, nor under Section 609, proscribing disciplinary sanctions against union members, is plaintiff's status as business agent protected by the Act. It is the union-member relationship, not the union-officer or union-employee relationship, that is protected."

It should be noted in Sheridan that the union trial committee found the business agent guilty of violating two sections of its constitution and bylaws: (1) the impairment of employment rights of a member...