Friends Social Club v. Secretary of Labor
Decision Date | 13 May 1991 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 89-CV-72559-DT. |
Parties | The FRIENDS SOCIAL CLUB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
William M. Mazey, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Peter Caplan, U.S. Atty., James R. Streicker, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Presently before the Court is the May 31, 1990 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan wherein she recommends that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief and grant the Defendant Secretary's counterclaim to enforce the administrative subpoenas issued by the Secretary. The Court held a hearing on May 3, 1991, at which time the Court heard the arguments of counsel respecting the Plaintiffs' objections to the Report and Recommendation. After considering these arguments and the record in this case, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted and the subpoenas ordered enforced.
FACTS AND BACKGROUND:
The events pertinent to the instant case unfold against a background of internal conflict within the International Union of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America (International UAW). The conflict is between members of the union who are affiliated with the Administration Caucus, on the one hand, and those who are affiliated with the New Directions Caucus, on the other hand. These two factions are equivalent to political parties within the UAW. Brock v. International Union, U.A.W., 682 F.Supp. 1415, 1418 n. 2 (E.D.Mich.1988), aff'd, 889 F.2d 685 (6th Cir.1989), reh. den., en banc. The Administration Caucus has been in existence since at least 1958. (Affidavit of Carl Tillery, Par. 6, p. 2). In contrast, the New Directions Caucus was formed in 1985 by some UAW members who were "dissatisfied with their union's leadership." Tucker v. Bieber, 900 F.2d 973, 975 (6th Cir.1990), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 135, 112 L.Ed.2d 102 (1990).
Jerry Brock is a member of the New Directions Caucus and, in May, 1986, announced his candidacy for the office of Regional Director of the union's Region 5, which election was scheduled to take place in June, 1986. Jerry Brock lost the election to the then incumbent Regional Director of Region 5, Ken Worley. Brock then filed various complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging, among other things, that Worley's use of office stationery, typewriters and facilities to further his individual campaign violated Section 401(g) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 481(g).
As a result of Brock's complaint, the Secretary of Labor filed a civil action in this Court to compel the Union to rerun the election with Department of Labor supervision. Upon the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, this Court's predecessor, the Honorable Richard F. Suhrheinrich, granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and ordered the election to be rerun.
Judge Suhrheinrich's opinion provides further insight into the relationship between the two competing caucuses, their individual candidates for Regional Director, and union leadership:
Brock, 682 F.Supp., at 1417-1418 (emphasis added).
The election for Regional Director of Region 5 was rerun on September 2, 1988. This time, Tucker defeated Worley by a substantial margin, and he was certified as regional director. However, his term as Regional Director expired in 1989. On June 21, 1989, the next regular election was held, and Tucker lost the election to Roy Wyse, a member of the Administration Caucus. Brock, 889 F.2d, at 689. Roy Wyse has held the office since that time, and the next election will be held in 1992.
Subsequently, on November 3, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot the appeals relating to the District Court's order requiring the election to be rerun, as well as the Secretary's challenge to the union's determination that certain retired UAW members would be ineligible to vote in the rerun elections. Id. ( ) In a separate opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Suhrheinrich's dismissal of Tucker's civil action, in which he had claimed that his dismissal from his appointed position as Assistant Regional Director (for the stated reason that he violated the 90-day rule in announcing his candidacy only one month before the election) constituted breach of contract. See Tucker v. Bieber, 900 F.2d 973 (6th Cir.1990).
On July 10, 1989, Tucker filed a complaint with the Office of Labor-Management Standards Enforcement, U.S. Department of Labor, alleging various violations of Section 401 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 481, in relation to the June, 1989 election in which he was defeated by Roy Wyse. (Exhibit 1 to Secretary of Labor's Brief in Response to Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.) Tucker challenged the results of the June, 1989 election and requested a Department of Labor-supervised rerun election.
In the complaint, Tucker alleged that the local union elections to select the delegates to attend the June, 1989 convention/election were all tainted by the use of union members' coerced contributions to the Friends Social Club Fund (one of the Plaintiffs in this case) to fund the Administration Caucus' campaign in the Region 5 election, including expenses for campaign literature, living and travel expenses for Roy Wyse, the Administration Caucus' candidate for Region 5 Regional Director (who took an unpaid leave of absence six months prior to the election), living and travel expenses for others who campaigned on behalf of the Administration Caucus, and various campaign-related social functions for retired UAW members. He explicitly alleged that the coercive solicitations for contributions to the Friends Social Club Fund were made to union members outside of Region 5. (Exhibit 1 to Secretary's Brief, pp. 9-10).
Tucker further alleged that, at the June, 1989 convention, campaign literature supporting the Administration Caucus' candidates was distributed to delegates by union employees during union time, and also as part of their registration materials. (Exhibit 1, p. 13). He alleged these campaign materials were prepared by union...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lassa v. Rongstad
...the Alliance or other organizations like it based on general fears of reprisal. ¶ 69 We view the case of Friends Social Club v. Secretary of Labor, 763 F.Supp. 1386 (E.D.Mich.1991), as persuasive in light of the circumstances here. In Friends Social Club, organization members submitted affi......
-
Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 7/13/2006)
...the Alliance or other organizations like it based on general fears of reprisal. ¶ 69 We view the case of Friends Social Club v. Secretary of Labor, 763 F. Supp. 1386 (E.D. Mich. 1991), as persuasive in light of the circumstances here. In Friends Social Club, organization members submitted a......
-
Block Commc'ns, Inc. v. Pounds
...for a Strong Ohio, 10th Dist., 158 Ohio App.3d 557, 2004-Ohio-5253, 817 N.E.2d 447, ¶ 30, quoting Friends Social Club v. Secy. of Labor, 763 F.Supp. 1386, 1393 (E.D.Mich.1991). In that instance, the appellate court held that a mere “subjective belief” that intimidation or harassment might r......
-
Ohio Elections Comm. v. Ohio Chamber of Commerce & Citizens for a Strong Ohio, 2004 Ohio 5253 (OH 9/30/2004)
...fear of reprisal is insufficient to invoke First Amendment protection against a disclosure requirement. Friends Social Club v. Secy. of Labor (E.D.Mich.1991), 763 F.Supp. 1386, 1394, citing Buckley, supra, at {¶29} In Friends Social Club, the Department of Labor ("DOL") was investigating se......