Harris v. Geier

• Decision Date: 21 December 1932
• Citation: 164 A. 50
• Parties: HARRIS et al. v. GEIER et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

164 A. 50

HARRIS et al.

v. GEIER et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Dec. 21, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Members of an unincorporated trade union may enforce their joint rights in equity by suit brought in the name of the union.

2. The constitution and by-laws of the International Brotherhood constitute a contract between the members of complainant inter sese (a local union of the brotherhood) and the members of complainant local and the general body of membership of the brotherhood, and between the local and the joint council and other agencies of the brotherhood.

3. Complainants may enforce rights founded, on this contract, against defendants joint council and three of its members, since they are bound by the same contract.

4. Complainants held relieved from the necessity of exhausting their remedies within the union, by the remoteness or uncertainty of the time and place for the sitting of the union tribunal.

5. Objection to relief is made on the ground that the purpose of the union is to monopolize the supply of labor employed in operating taxicabs and autobusses, contrary to public policy. Held, the objection not sound, since complainants are suing to enforce rights independent of such a monopoly and which are not tainted by its alleged illegality.

Suit by Raymond Harris and others against George Geier and others.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

William Eiehenbaum, of Jersey City, for complainants.

Frank J. Higgins, of Jersey City, for defendants.

BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor.

Complainants are Auto Bus Operators Local Union 461 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers of America, and two members of the local. Defendants are Joint Council No. 18 of the International Brotherhood and "Joint Council No. 18 Special Local," and three members of the joint council. The case is before the court on an order that defendants show cause why they should not be restrained from interfering with the affairs of Local 461 and from interfering with the employment of the individual complainants. A few months ago, a similar order to show cause in this suit was discharged because of laches, absence of necessary parties, and because the equity of complainants was denied by the defendants. Since then an amended bill has been filed and new affidavits presented on both sides.

Local 461 is an unincorporated association having now or recently 800 members. No statute permits such an association to sue or be sued in its common name in this court. But there are a large number of equity decisions in which an unincorporated trade union by name has been made a defendant, and these precedents establish that such a course is proper. In one of them, Mayer v. Journeymen Stone-Cutters' Association, 47 N. J. Eq. 519, 20 A. 492, Vice Chancellor Green mentioned P. L. 1885, p. 26, as authority for a suit against a voluntary association. But this statute, now found in 3 Comp. St. 1910 p. 4064, §§ 40-42, was a supplement to "An act to regulate the practice of courts of law," and did not apply to suits in chancery. International Hod Carriers', etc., v. International Hod Carriers', etc., 101 N. J. Eq. 474, 138 A. 532, was a case in which both complainant and defendant were unincorporated labor unions. Defendant objected that complainant had no power to bring suit in its own name, but Vice Chancellor Church did not pass on the objection. In Great Council, etc., of New Jersey v. Mohican Tribe, 92 N. J. Eq. 593, 114 A. 440, relief was granted a voluntary association upon its counterclaim. If a trade union may be sued by name, it may counterclaim, and I see not why it may not prosecute an original bill in the same convenient style. Obviously, all the members cannot join as complainants. Suit in the name of the association involves the fiction of imputing to it unity and personality, but it is a convenient fiction, and can lead to no inequity so long as we bear in mind that it is a fiction. I hold that the members of an unincorporated trade union may enforce their joint rights in equity by suit brought in the name of the union.

When the bill in this cause was first filed, the sole complainants were two members of the union. They asserted that they sued in behalf of the entire membership to enforce rights belonging to all; but they did not claim that authority to bring suit had been delegated to them by the union. The only defendants were two nonmembers who allegedly had usurped control of the union. I was of the opinion, as I still am, that the dispute could not be decided unless the officers or other authorized representatives of the union, or else the entire membership by their common name, be joined. The rule is that all substantial interests must be represented; there must be sufficient parties to insure a full presentation of the case. Story, Eq. P1. § 107, etc. Accordingly, in the amended bill, the union appears as a co-complainant. The practice of making a corporation a party to a suit brought by a stockholder in a representative capacity may well be followed, even though not compulsory, in similar cases involving large voluntary associations.

The bill has two purposes: to enforce rights common to all members of Local 461, and to protect the personal rights of the individual complainants. The allegations relative to the grievance of the local union may be summarized as follows: The local, by reason of contracts with taxicab and autobus operators, did control, and still does control, the filling of over 800 positions for taxicab and bus chauffeurs within Hudson county. This number includes all the taxicab chauffeurs and 95 per cent. of the bus chauffeurs employed in the county. None of these positions is available except to members in good standing of the local.

Joint Council No. 18 is composed of the seven executives of Local 461 and of each of five other locals of the International Brotherhood functioning in Hudson county. The powers of the council are set forth in the constitution and by-laws of the brotherhood, namely, "to adjust all questions of jurisdiction between local unions, subject to the approval of the general executive board, to try cases against local unions, cases appealed from local unions and to try individual cases which local unions refuse or neglect to try."

In April, 1931, trouble arose within Local 461 regarding the funds of the local. The joint council appointed a committee to investigate. The committee reported back to the council a recommendation that a receiver of the local be appointed, or that its charter be revoked, or that action be taken to eliminate the officers of the union. This report was approved by the council and by the president of the International Brotherhood. On July 21, 1931, a meeting of the local was held under the direction of the president of the council for the purpose of electing officers of the local. (This seems to indicate that the council had decided to eliminate the then officers of the local rather than follow the other recommendations, that a receiver be appointed, or the charter revoked.) No officers were elected at the meeting, but the meeting adjourned without taking action. On August 10, 1931, the defendants Geier, Allen, and Galli, who were delegates to the council from truckmen's or teamsters' locals, were appointed by the council business managers of the local, and took possession of all its books, records, etc., and have since collected from the members of the local their dues, and have entered into contracts with employers governing the employment of the members of the local, and in fact have been doing all those things for the conduct of the affairs of the local which properly belong to the local and its members.

The day last mentioned, August 10, a committee from Local 461 waited on the joint council, and sought information as to the authority of Geier, Allen, and Galli to assume control of the local, and were informed that these three were in power for six months, and that toward the end of August or in September a meeting of the local would be held to elect officers; but no such meeting was held. Since that time, members of the local have on several occasions attempted to appear before the joint council, but have been refused admittance. Last winter about 300 members of the local sent a petition to the general executive board of the brotherhood complaining of the situation in the local. This petition was sent in time to be considered by the executive board at their meeting to be held in February, 1932, at Miami, Fla. No reply was received except a statement published in the official magazine of the brotherhood in April, 1932: "It was further decided that the petition sent in containing several names written in pencil, some of which did not look authentic, said petition calling for an election of officers and that the handling of the affairs of the local be turned over to the membership, the time was not appropriate for such action. Consequently the board decided to refuse request of the petition."

The next step in the controversy was the filing of the bill of complaint in this cause August 18, 1932. Later, on October 18, 1932, the members of...