Hanley v. Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 21 February 1956
• Docket Number: No. 3903,3903
• Citation: 72 Nev. 52,293 P.2d 544
• Parties: Thomas B. HANLEY, Appellant, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 544

293 P.2d 544

72 Nev. 52

Thomas B. HANLEY, Appellant, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 3903.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Feb. 21, 1956.

Zenoff, Magleby & Manzonie, Las Vegas, Carl W. Berueffy and Albert M. Dreyer, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Rudiak, Horsey & Lionel, Las Vegas, Mulholland, Robie & Hickey, Toledo, Ohio, Gilbert, Nissen & Irvin, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

MERRILL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order quashing service of an alternative writ of mandate. The question involved is whether an international labor union, being an unincorporated association, can be served with process by making service upon an official or member of one of its locals within the state. We concluded that it cannot and that the order appealed from must be affirmed.

Respondent is an unincorporated international labor union with its principal office located in Washington, D. C. It operates in the State of Nevada through three locals situated in the cities of Las Vegas, Reno and Sparks. Appellant was a member of the Las Vegas local. By letter from the General President of the respondent union, appellant was required to stand trial for expulsion from membership on certain charges. Trial was had before a trial board of the union in Los Angeles, California, resulting in a decision of expulsion. Appellant appealed from this decision to the general convention of respondent union held in Montreal, Canada, which convention affirmed the decision of the trial board.

In the court below appellant sought a writ of mandate against the international union to compel his reinstatement to membership upon the ground that his expulsion was in violation of the provisions of the union's constitution relating to notice and hearing, and, therefore, was void. The alternative writ was ordered by the lower court, was issued, and thereafter was served upon the president of the Las Vegas local. Upon motion of the international union, service was quashed upon the ground that service upon an officer of the local did not constitute service upon the international organization.

Authority is in accord with this ruling. Singleton v. Order of Railway Conductors of America, D.C.S.D., Ill., N.D.1935, 9 F.Supp. 417; Christian v. International Ass'n of Machinists, D.C.Ky.1925, 7 F.2d 481; Dean v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, D.C.W.D.La.1936, 17 F.Supp. 748; Kelley v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, D.C.W.D.Mo.1950, 90 F.Supp. 925; Daily Review Corp. v. International Typographical Union, D.C.N.Y.1949, 9 F.R.D. 295; Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. National Marine Engineers' Ben. Ass'n, D.C.N.Y.1949, 9 F.R.D. 541, 544; McFarland v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 1939, 193 La. 337, 190 So. 573; Hurley v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 1946, 147 Neb. 781, 25 N.W.2d 29; Amon v. Moreschi; 1947, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716; Petition of Western Union Telegraph Co., N.Y.1954, 206 Misc. 561, 133 N.Y.S.2d 371; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. McMurtrey, 1937, 179 Okl. 575, 66 P.2d 1051; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc., v. Wood, 1934, 162 Va. 517, 175 S.E. 45. As expressed in the Isbrandtsen Company case , 'The national and local are autonomous entities, and therefore, service of process on the one is not valid service on the other.' In this connection it may be noted that the officials of the local are elected by the members of the local and in no respect are selected by the international or authorized by it to act in its behalf. In Farnsworth & Chambers Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, D.C.N.M., 125 F.Supp. 830, following the Isbrandtsen Company case, this general rule was specifically applied to the respondent union.

In opposition to this well-established rule appellant relies on International Union of Operating Engineers v. J. A. Jones Const. Co., Ky., 240 S.W.2d 49, 54, holding that 'service on the agents of the Local was sufficient to bring International before the court as an organization.' In this case, however, a Kentucky statute provided that as to associations service might be had upon the agent or manager in charge of the local agency "in all actions growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency." Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co., 214 Iowa 739, 241 N.W. 700, 91 A.L.R. 1308, is likewise distinguishable. Nevada has no such statute. It may also be noted that in the case at bar the cause of action against the union did not arise out of business transacted by it by or through its Nevada locals. The general rule would, therefore, seem clearly to apply.

Appellant contends, however, that Nevada has prescribed a method of service upon associations. This is through § 8564, N.C.L.1929 which reads as follows: 'When two or more persons, associated in any business, transact such business under a common name, whether it comprise the names of such...