English v. Cunningham, 14983.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 14983.,14983.
• Citation: 269 F.2d 517,106 US App. DC 70
• Parties: John F. ENGLISH et al., Appellants, v. John CUNNINGHAM et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

106 US App. DC 70, 269 F.2d 517 (1959)

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

No. 14983.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 15, 1959.

Decided June 10, 1959.

Supplemental Opinion July 9, 1959.

Motion for Reconsideration Denied July 15, 1959.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mr. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D. C., for appellants. Mr. Raymond W. Bergan, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for appellees.

Mr. Martin F. O'Donoghue, Washington, D. C., for Board of Monitors.

Mr. Raymond R. Dickey, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Anthony Distinti, Robert J. Coar and William E. McKernan, as amici curiae, urging reversal.

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

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein referred to usually as the Teamsters, and by certain of their officers, usually referred to, with the Teamsters, as defendants. The litigation was initiated by thirteen members of locals of the Teamsters, to whom we shall usually refer as plaintiffs.¹ They sued for themselves and on behalf of all other members.

The thrust of plaintiffs' original action, filed in September 1957, was that under the 1952 constitution of the Teamsters² plaintiffs had certain legal rights and defendants certain legal obligations, and the rights were being denied and the obligations were being repudiated by defendants. The complaint alleged, inter alia, a conspiracy to "rig" the election or selection of delegates to a forthcoming national convention of the Teamsters to be held in Miami in September-October 1957, numerous violations of the constitution, including the misuse of union funds, the domination and disfranchisement of members, and the imposition of officers and leaders to prevent free elections and to bring about the election of defendant James R. Hoffa as General President and of defendant Dave Beck as General President Emeritus. Other allegations include charges of raids on union treasuries, refusal of financial accounting, the keeping of inadequate financial records, and the engaging by officers in private business with union funds.

The complaint prayed the court to enjoin defendants from conducting the Miami convention or the election of any national officer unless those voting were properly elected or selected in accordance with the constitution, to enjoin violation by defendants of the constitution, and to appoint "a receiver or board of receivers, a master in equity or masters in equity," who would be authorized to establish pursuant to the constitution sound procedures for elections by the members of local unions, to do these and kindred things expeditiously, and then to return the management of the affairs of the Teamsters to their General Officers duly elected "at such National Convention convened pursuant to the Order of this Court," and for other relief which need not now be specified.

The District Court, Judge Letts sitting, entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the holding of the Miami convention. This court stayed the injunction,³ deeming it to go beyond the necessities of the situation and not required to prevent irreparable injury to plaintiffs. Our stay was without prejudice, however, to such relief as might properly be grantable after the election, and we provided that "all delegates recognized or seated by the credentials committee shall be selected in accordance with the requirements of the constitution. * *"

The convention was held, new officers were elected, and a new constitution adopted, amending the 1952 constitution. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to attack the proceedings at the convention, seeking to stay the effectuation of any of its acts. Another preliminary injunction was issued, this time, inter alia, enjoining James R. Hoffa, who had been elected at the convention as General President of the Teamsters, and others there elected to office in the Teamsters, from taking office, from applying any decision, practice, usage or policy and expending any monies of the Teamsters' funds in violation of the 1952 constitution. This court modified but did not stay this injunction.⁴

The case then went to trial before Judge Letts. After some three weeks of trial a consent decree was entered, January 31, 1958, and the preliminary injunction last referred to was dissolved. A copy of the body of the consent decree is set forth as Appendix A to this opinion.⁵

On February 9, 1959, the consent decree was construed and modified, but without the consent of the defendants. It is from this decree, a copy of which is set forth as Appendix B to this opinion, that the instant appeal is taken. We stayed this decree to enable its validity to be determined prior to the necessity of compliance.⁶ Judge Miller dissented from our stay order.

1. The Consent Decree. We consider first the validity of the consent decree, because it is the foundation of the decree of February 9. Except as we shall specify with respect to paragraph 14 we hold the consent decree to be valid. It responds to justiciable issues which were being tried, involving the rights of members and the duties of officers of a labor organization under its constitution. The plan consented to for the solution of the issues was within the competence of the court to approve, and neither defendants nor plaintiffs urge the contrary.⁷

In upholding the consent decree we refer particularly at this point to the creation of a Board of Monitors to assist the court and the parties in carrying out the decree.⁸ This was responsive to the nature of the case and to the prayers of the complaint. As previously noted plaintiffs asked for masters in equity, but both court and parties preferred the court appointees to be called Monitors. No untoward legal significance attaches to the designation; and the court could use a board of this character to assist in bringing the litigation to a solution consistently with the rights and duties of the parties. The court thus exercised its powers to cope with a complicated situation affecting 1,500,000 union members. The latitude available to a court of equity in adapting its relief to the exigencies of a case is broad. Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 552, 57 S.Ct. 592, 81 L.Ed. 789; and see Green v. Obergfell, 73 App.D.C. 298, 307, 121 F.2d 46, 55, 138 A.L.R. 258, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 637, 62 S.Ct. 72, 86 L.Ed. 511; Alexander v. Hillman, 296 U.S. 222, 239, 56 S.Ct. 204, 80 L.Ed. 192; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co., 163 U.S. 564, 600-601, 16 S.Ct. 1173, 41 L.Ed. 265; Ball v. Victor Adding Machine Co., 5 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 170, 174-175; Bowen v. Hockley, 4 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 781, 786, 94 A.L.R. 856; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, §§ 60, 109, 111 (5th Ed. 1941). The validity of specific authority conferred upon or exercised by the Monitors pursuant to the consent decree we consider later in this opinion.⁹

We refer now also to paragraph 14 of the consent decree, under which the defendants are required to pay the fees of counsel for plaintiffs and the expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action, both as determined by the District Court. There can be no question we think as to the validity of the provision with respect to expenses, including compensation to the Monitors. As to the provision with respect to fees of counsel, we deal with this in our decision of this day in the companion case of Cunningham v. English.

2. Events intervening between the consent decree of January 31, 1958, and the decree of February 9, 1959. The Monitors came into being as a Board on February 4, 1958, with Honorable Nathan Cayton as Chairman. Mr. Hoffa and other General Officers elected at the Miami convention took office provisionally, subject to the terms of the consent decree. In a letter to Judge Letts on May 13, 1958, Chairman Cayton stated that the Monitors had functioned well and successfully in furthering the objectives of the decree, with the "enlightened cooperation" of the International Union.¹⁰ Judge Cayton resigned and was succeeded by Martin F. O'Donoghue, Esquire, as Chairman of the Board of Monitors. Disagreements thereafter arose. One cause may be traced to a change by the Monitors in their methods of operation, including the issuance of written "Orders of Recommendation." While many of these were complied with, the defendants disputed others on various grounds. Ensuing controversies led the Monitors on September 17, 1958, to file with the District Court a petition for the construction, reformation and/or modification of the consent decree, and for other relief. They alleged that their "status and authority" had been questioned by the defendants "on the basis that the powers of the Monitors are merely advisory and recommendatory." They alleged failure of full compliance with several of their Orders of Recommendation and said the Teamsters' General Executive Board had violated the consent decree in several respects. They pointed out that the provisions of the decree regarding the holding of a new convention and election were basic objectives, to the end that de jure officers might be elected. They further alleged that notwithstanding conditions were not ripe for a new convention and election they were advised a convention was proposed for February 1959. They also alleged that Price Waterhouse & Company¹¹ had reported that it was essential to good auditing that better record keeping be established in the International office. The Monitors then stated that the proposed convention should be held only after modern auditing and reporting procedures had been established, to insure a truly democratic expression of the views of the membership. On September 30, 1958, Godfrey P. Schmidt, Esquire,¹²...