Gonzales v. International Ass'n of Machinists

• Citation: 298 P.2d 92,142 Cal.App.2d 207
• Decision Date: 12 June 1956
• Docket Number: No. 16536,No. 68,68,16536
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 38 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2333, 30 Lab.Cas. P 70,085 Marcos GONZALES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, an unincorporated association; Thomas E. McShane, and A. C. McGraw, as International Representatives thereof; International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge, an unincorporated association; Robert Roller, as President of said Local Lodge; Reese Conte, as Secretary of said Local Lodge; Edward Peck, as Treasurer of said Local Lodge, Respondents and Appellants.

Page 92

298 P.2d 92

142 Cal.App.2d 207, 38 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2333,

30 Lab.Cas. P 70,085

Marcos GONZALES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, an unincorporated association; Thomas E. McShane, and A. C. McGraw, as International Representatives thereof; International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 68, an unincorporated association; Robert Roller, as President of said Local Lodge; Reese Conte, as Secretary of said Local Lodge; Edward Peck, as Treasurer of said Local Lodge, Respondents and Appellants.

No. 16536.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

June 12, 1956.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1956.

Hearing Denied Aug. 8, 1956.

Phoenix & Kennedy, Redwood City, for appellants.

McMurray, Brotsky, Walker, Bancroft & Tepper, by Lloyd E. McMurray, San Francisco, for respondent.

BRAY, Justice.

The superior court rendered judgment reinstating petitioner in the International Association of Machinists and awarding him $6,800 damages for loss of wages and $2,500 for mental distress. All respondents ¹ in the lower court are appellants here.

Questions presented.

1. Was petitioner excused from exhausting his administrative remedies?

2. Did the lodge violate the constitutions of the organization?

3. Are the International President's interpretations binding on the courts?

4. Damages: (a) Does the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., Taft-Hartley Act apply? (b) Is the award supported?

Facts.

This proceeding grew out of the recommendation in 1948 by petitioner, as a member of the investigating committee of the lodge, that one Nelson be denied admission to membership. Thereafter petitioner was physically assaulted by Nelson. Petitioner, believing that the assault was instigated by Charles Truax, who was the International Representative, filed suit in the superior court against both Nelson and Truax for damages for injuries received in the assault. A nonsuit was granted in favor of Truax and a judgment in favor of petitioner against Nelson for $10,000. July 7, 1950, petitioner was tried by the trial committee of the lodge for violation of article XXV, section 1, Grand Lodge Constitution. ² July 19th, the trial committee at the regular bi-monthly meeting submitted to the lodge its verdict--'guilty as charged,' and its recommendation that petitioner be expelled from the association. Thereupon pursuant to article K, section 7 of the constitution, the membership present voted on the action of the committee. ³ The vote was 43-31 against sustaining the verdict. ⁴ August 2, 1950, at a regular meeting a motion was made to rescind the action of July 19th rejecting the verdict of the trial committee. A standing vote showed 38 yes, 4 no. Thereupon a secret ballot vote was taken on a motion to sustain the 'guilty' verdict of the committee. This resulted in 31 yes, 12 no, 2 blank ballots. A secret ballot vote was then taken on a motion to expel petitioner from the association as recommended by the committee. This resulted in 29 yes, 14 no, 1 blank. August 2nd petitioner appealed to the International President from this action of the lodge, claiming among other things that the action of the lodge on August 2nd, after his vindication on July 19th, was a violation of the constitution, and also that the vote for his expulsion was not the required 'two-thirds (2/3) vote of those voting.' November 13th, the International President sent a letter to the president and secretary of the lodge, in which he made formal findings, conclusions and decision. He upheld the conviction of petitioner, but decided that expulsion was too severe a penalty and then modified the penalty to a fine of $500 to be paid the lodge, and a 'complete and appropriate apology' in writing from petitioner to Truax, copy thereof to be sent to the president. January 30, 1951, petitioner received a letter from the General Secretary-Treasurer of the International to the effect that on his appeal of the decision of the International President to the Executive Council that body had unanimously sustained the decision. 'Accordingly, President Hayes' decision of November 13, fining you $500.00, becomes the decision of the Executive Council, and our records have been so indicated.' February 23, 1951, in reply to a letter from petitioner, asking the course to be followed in appealing the decision of the Executive Council, the General Secretary-Treasurer wrote petitioner calling attention to section 6, article XXV, of the constitution ⁵ which provides for appeals to a convention of the Grand Lodge and stated that his appeal could not be sent to the convention nor considered by it 'until you have carried out the decision of the Executive Council, which means you must pay the fine of $500.00 before you can appeal to the convention.' February 11, 1952, the lodge's financial secretary notified petitioner that the lodge would no longer accept dues from him until he had complied with the president's decision by paying the $500 fine and making a complete and appropriate apology to Truax. February 20th, petitioner formally refused to pay the fine or make apology. December 3, 1952, petitioner filed his application for a writ of mandate in the superior court.

Whatever confusion there may have been in this state as to the right of a trade union member to appeal to the courts for redress from his union's action, without first exhausting all remedies provided by its constitution and by-laws, such confusion has been resolved and a definite rule established in the recently decided Holderby v. International Union, etc., Engineers, 45 Cal.2d 843, 291 P.2d 463. There the plaintiff was expelled from the union in complete violation of the union's constitution. In holding that he could not appeal to the courts without first availing himself of the remedies provided in the constitution for a review by the general board of the action taken against him, the court refused to follow cases like Weber v. Marine Cooks' & Stewards' Ass'n, 93 Cal.App.2d 327, 208 P.2d 1009, which had held that 'where an organization has violated its own laws and arbitrarily violated a member's property rights the rule of exhaustion of remedies by appeals to a higher body within the organization need not be adhered to before direct resort to a judicial tribunal.' 93 Cal.App.2d at page 338, 208 P.2d at page 1016. It then ruled that the union member must exhaust the union remedies before he may appeal to the courts, no matter what the initial violation of union rules may have been, and that the only exception to the general rule is if there has been a violation of the rules on appeal. 'It is only when the organization violates its rules for appellate review or upon a showing that it would be futile to invoke them that the further pursuit of internal relief is excused. The violation of its own rules which inflicts the initial wrong furnishes no right for direct resort to the courts.' 45 Cal.2d at p. 849, 291 P.2d at page 466. Therefore we are limited to a determination of whether the union rules on appeal were violated in any respect or whether further pursuit of internal relief is excused.

1. Administrative Remedy.

Petitioner followed his administrative remedy through an appeal to the International President and then from his decision to the Executive Council. He did not proceed with an appeal either to the convention of the Grand Lodge or to the membership at large. He was barred from so doing by the requirement that he first fully comply with the orders of the Executive Council.

Petitioner contends that the International President and the Executive Council violated the union rules on appeal in deciding that the required two-thirds vote had expelled him and in changing the penalty from expulsion to a fine and apology. As to the finding of the president that there was a two-thirds vote in favor of expulsion, such finding, if erroneous, could not alone justify noncompliance by petitioner with the appeal rules of the organization. Just as a court has the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly, the president on appeal likewise has such power and a wrong decision is not the violation of the organization's rules on appeal which under the Holderby case justifies the member in refusing to further follow the union's rules on appeal. The constitution provides (art. V, § 1) that the president shall decide all constitutional questions subject, however, to the right of appeal. ⁶ However, the imposition of an apology requirement would appear to be in a different category. Article XXV, section 1, the section which petitioner was charged with violating, provides a penalty of fine or expulsion, or both. That section is in the Grand Lodge Constitution. In the local lodge constitution (art. K, § 7) it is provided that the membership may substitute another punishment for that recommended by the trial committee. It is questionable whether this gives the membership the right to substitute any penalty other than that included in the phrase 'fine or expulsion or both' in the penalty section of the Grand Lodge Constitution. However, we can find no authorization to the president, upon appeal, to change the penalty voted by the lodge. It would appear that his authority is either to affirm or reject the action of the lodge, and in the event he affirms its action in finding a member guilty but, as here, feels that the penalty is too great, he may reverse the penalty but the determination of the new penalty is for the lodge and not for him. It may be that had the president merely reduced the penalty to a $500 fine, petitioner could not complain of a departure from the rules so obviously in his favor, as a fine is included in the penalties provided by the constitution. But the requirement of an apology is an entirely different matter. Nowhere is there a provision for such a penalty and it is completely outside the penalties prescribed. This action...