English v. Cunningham

• Decision Date: 21 July 1960
• Docket Number: No. 15685.,15685.
• Parties: John F. ENGLISH et al., Appellants, v. John CUNNINGHAM et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

282 F.2d 848 (1960)

John F. ENGLISH et al., Appellants, v. John CUNNINGHAM et al., Appellees.

No. 15685.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1960.

Decided July 21, 1960.

Messrs. Edward Bennett Williams and Raymond W. Bergan, Washington, D. C., and David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., were on the pleadings for appellants.

Mr. Martin F. O'Donoghue, Washington, D. C., was on the pleadings for Board of Monitors.

No appearance was entered on behalf of appellees Cunningham and others.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court of March 22, 1960, construing one of the "Proposed Temporary Rules Governing the Conduct of Autonomous Local Union Nomination Meetings and Elections of Officers"¹ adopted by some of the local unions of the Teamsters² on recommendation of the Board of Monitors and of the Teamsters. Section 4(a) of the Rules provides,

"Every member whose dues are paid-up through the month in which the nomination or election is held shall have the right to nominate, vote for, or otherwise support the candidate of his choice. No member whose dues have been withheld by his employer for payment to the local union pursuant to his voluntary authorization provided for in a collective bargaining agreement shall be declared ineligible to nominate, vote for, or be a candidate for office in the local union, by reason of an alleged delay or default in the payment of dues by his employer to the local union."

Pertinent to the questions presented is Section 4(b) (2) of the same Rules, reading as follows:

"Any member who is ruled ineligible to run for office by the local union shall appeal within forty-eight (48) hours to the General President, who shall decide such an appeal within four (4) days. The General President shall notify the Board of Monitors of all appeals, and the Board shall make recommendations to the General President concerning them. The decision of the General President, under this paragraph, shall not be stayed pending appeal."

Questions were raised as to the application of Rule 4(a) with respect to the eligibility to run for office of Herman N. Giles of Local 515, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Hubert C. Williams of Local 549, Kingsport, Tennessee, and Ivan McFarland of Local 790, Marshalltown, Iowa. The questions came before the District Court on an Interim Report of the Board of Monitors filed January 9, 1960. The Report set forth the rulings of ineligibility made by General President Hoffa in each of the three cases, and the disagreement of the Board with these rulings. The Board requested the District Court to reverse the General President's rulings and this the court did in the order now on appeal.

In the cases of Giles and Williams the problem may be stated to be whether, in the absence of an actual withholding or "checkoff" of dues by an employer during a particular month because the employee has no earnings for that month, the employee himself, in order to retain eligibility status, must see that the dues are paid during that particular month, as the General President ruled, or whether, as the Board of Monitors contend, and the District Court held, eligibility is protected if "the dues are withheld by the employer and paid to and accepted by the local union during the effective life of the current wage assignment."

The problem takes on significance apart from this litigation in view of the fact that section 401(e) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 contains language which is similar to that contained in section 4(a) of the Rules here in question.³ An administrative interpretation of section 401 (e) by the Secretary of Labor, under the procedures of the Act of 1959, would be helpful in this area of possible conflict between the interest of a union member in his eligibility status and the interest of the labor organization in the regularity and promptness of dues payments. At the instance of Judges Edgerton and Fahy the Clerk of this Court requested counsel for appellants and...