Goldberg v. Amarillo General Drivers, etc., Local U. No. 577, Civ. A. No. 2951.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2951.
• Parties: Arthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. AMARILLO GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 577.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

214 F. Supp. 74

Arthur J. GOLDBERG, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. AMARILLO GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 577.

Civ. A. No. 2951.

United States District Court N.N. D. Texas, Amarillo Division.

January 12, 1963.

Joseph D. Guilfoyle, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., George Avery, Sol., Department of Labor, Silver Spring, Md., Barefoot Sanders, U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., by: Melvin M. Diggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.

Mullinax, Wells, Morris & Mauzy, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.

DOOLEY, District Judge.

This is an action brought by the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to the L.M.R.D. Act of 1959, to set aside an election of union officers held by Local Union No. 577, the herein defendant labor organization, on December 10 and 11, 1960. Jurisdiction is invoked under the pertinent provision of said Act codified as Title 29, § 482(b), U.S.C.A. Five members of said Local No. 577, which is subject to said Act, were receptive nominees at a preceding union nomination meeting held November 2, 1960, for election to certain respective union offices, but the union executive board, as a committee to determine eligibility of nominees at said nomination meeting, ruled that each of said five nominees was ineligible to hold union office since not in good standing because of alleged failure to comply with union constitution and by-law requirements for payment of dues in advance on or before the first business day of every month for each of the twenty-four consecutive months preceding the nomination date.

The said union members ruled out as nominees, thereafter having satisfied the intervening requirements, filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor and as an outgrowth thereof this suit was filed to declare the election of December 10 and 11, 1960, to certain of the union offices null and void and for judgment directing the conduct of a new election for such offices under the Secretary's supervision.

The relevant provisions of the union constitution and by-laws, both require continuous good standing for a two year period to support eligibility to office. The International Union Constitution reads:

"To be eligible for election to union offices of a local union * * * a member must be in continuous good standing for a period of two (2) years prior to nomination for said office, * * *."

The local union bylaw requires

"such continuous good standing for each month in the two (2) year period immediately prior to nominations,"

as a qualification for office.

The International Constitution also provides:

"All members paying dues to local unions must pay them on or before the first business day of the current month, in advance. Where membership dues are being checked off by the employer, pursuant to properly executed check-off authorization, it shall be the obligation of the member to make (1) payment of one (1) month's dues in advance to insure his good standing for each consecutive month for which the monthly check-off is made. Any member failing to pay his dues at such time shall not be in good standing."

The employer of each of the five union members in question, respectively, was a party to a collective bargaining contract with the defendant union, which provided in part as follows:

"The employer agrees to check-off the union membership dues, consisting of monthly dues, initiation fees and uniform assessments for all union employees covered by this agreement, provided that the union delivers to the employer a written authorization, signed by the employee, irrevocable for one year or expiration of this agreement, whichever shall occur sooner. The union shall certify to the company in writing, each month, a list of its members working for the employer who have furnished to the employer such authorization, together with an itemized statement of all dues, initiation fees, and uniform assessments owed, to be deducted for such month from the pay of each member. The company shall deduct and remit to the union in one lump sum the amount so certified in respect to such member from the first pay check of such member following the receipt of such certification statement, and within seven (7) days following such deduction remit the same to the union. Check-off procedure and timing may be worked out locally."

Each of the aggrieved union members aforesaid had, more than twenty-four months previous to the said union nomination meeting in November 1960, executed a check-off authorization card, providing in material part as follows:

"I, the undersigned member of Local Union No. 577 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, of Amarillo, hereby authorize my employer to deduct from my wages each and every month my union dues consisting of initiation fees, monthly fees and uniform assessments owing to such local union as a result of membership therein, and direct that the amount so deducted be sent to the Secretary-Treasurer of such local union for and on my behalf."

None of these particular union members had ever revoked such check-off authorization prior to the above union meeting.

The dominant statute bearing on this litigation is in the provisions of Title 29, § 481(e) U.S.C.A., reading in presently crucial part as follows:

"(e) In any election required by this section which is to be held by secret ballot a reasonable opportunity shall be given for the nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to Section 504 of this title and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed) and shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of his choice, without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper interference or reprisal of any kind by such organization or any member thereof. * * Each member in good standing shall be entitled to one vote. No member whose dues have been withheld by his employer for payment to such organization pursuant to his voluntary authorization provided for in a collective bargaining agreement shall be declared ineligible to vote or be a candidate for office in such organization by reason of alleged delay or default in the payment of dues. * * * The election shall be conducted in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of such organization insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this subchapter."

The record shows that although it was the practice of the defendant union to mail a statement of each employee's union dues to the particular employer on the last day of the second month preceding the month for which the dues were to be deducted, and under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the employer was to make the deductions from the first payroll following receipt of that statement, such deductions nevertheless were not always made and the dues money remitted in accordance with such agreement, but frequently varied considerably during the years of 1959 and 1960. In other words, there was no rigid uniformity about it and, in particular, the dues of the aggrieved members in question were some time deducted in strict accordance with the provisions directing such deduction to be made in the first pay period of the month next preceding the given accrual month, but just as often same were not deducted until another later pay period in that preceding month, or even the last pay period of the second preceding month. The defendant union accepted all said irregular dues payments and for aught shown acquiesced in such variations from the strict letter of the check-off provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. This calls to mind again that sentence in the collective bargaining contracts reading, "Check-off procedure and timing may be worked out locally."

It is noteworthy that in the instance of each aggrieved member, whose eligibility for office was challenged, the dues item, though not actually paid to the union in advance, was paid during the month for which it was owed and the union accepted such payments without any evident complaint. It is well worth emphasizing that there were no delinquent dues against any one of the aggrieved members at the time of the...