Harvey v. Calhoon, No. 168

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtLUMBARD, , and MEDINA and FRIENDLY, Circuit
Citation324 F.2d 486
PartiesRaymond H. HARVEY, Herman Shapiro and John Galletta, each of them individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jesse M. CALHOON, as President, or Herbert W. Peters, as Secretary-Treasurer of District No. 1 National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 168,Docket 28445.
Decision Date07 November 1963

324 F.2d 486 (1963)

Raymond H. HARVEY, Herman Shapiro and John Galletta, each of them individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Jesse M. CALHOON, as President, or Herbert W. Peters, as Secretary-Treasurer of District No. 1 National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 168, Docket 28445.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued October 23, 1963.

Decided November 7, 1963.


324 F.2d 487

Burton H. Hall, New York City, for appellants.

David Scribner (Pressman & Scribner, New York City), for defendant-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge.

On August 12, 1963, plaintiffs, members of District No. 1, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, a labor organization consisting of some 6000 marine engineers, instituted this action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the District Association, its President and its Secretary-Treasurer. The complaint asserted that the action was brought on behalf of plaintiffs and all other similarly situated members of the union to prevent the infringement of rights guaranteed by § 101 (a) (1) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereafter LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (1); the jurisdiction of the district court was laid under § 102. Believing that in fact the complaint alleged only a violation of § 401 of LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 481, and that the Act did not confer jurisdiction on a federal court to entertain a suit by union members to prevent a violation of that section, Judge Feinberg dismissed the complaint for want of federal jurisdiction. We think the complaint alleged a violation of § 101(a) (1) and that federal jurisdiction existed under § 102.

The complaint set forth that bylaws, imposed upon District No. 1 by a District Executive Committee composed of officials of its various locals, provide that the only candidate whom a member may nominate for any office is himself; that the practice of the District prohibits a member from nominating himself for more than one District office; that the national constitution of the union further restricts members' right to nominate by providing that no member other than an incumbent official is eligible for nomination or election to a full-time elective office unless he has been a member for five years and has served 180 days or more of sea time on vessels covered by collective bargaining agreements with the national organization or its subsidiary bodies in each of two of the three years preceding nomination; and that the national constitution further provides that a candidate for the office of District President must have previously been elected and served as a full-time and paid official of an organization affiliated with the national body. The complaint prayed that an impending election under these provisions should be enjoined, as well as for other relief. An affidavit of plaintiff Harvey, submitted in support of a motion for a temporary injunction, enlarged upon the complaint by alleging that defendant was holding its first general election during the 90-day period beginning September 1, 1963; and that each plaintiff had been denied any right to nominate because he could nominate only himself but was ineligible for failure to meet the 180-day sea time requirement. Defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint did not challenge plaintiffs' allegations but contended that these did not make out a case under § 101 (a) (1) of LMDRA and that in any event the court was without jurisdiction.

Title I of LMRDA, "Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organization," was added during the Senate's consideration of the Kennedy-Ervin bill, S. 1555, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959), as reported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The initial proposal by Senator McClellan, adopted on April 22, 1959, see NLRB Legislative History of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 1102, 1119 (1959), was substantially amended in a form proposed by Senator Kuchel and passed by the Senate on April 25, id. at 1220, 1239ff. The bill later passed by the House of Representatives and the statute as enacted contained provisions similar to Senator Kuchel's amendment. For our purposes the vital ones are the portion of § 101(a) (1) which declares that "Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates,

324 F.2d 488
to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization * * *" and § 102, which reads as follows
"Sec. 102. Any person whose rights secured by the provisions of this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate. Any such action against a labor organization shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the district where the alleged violation occurred, or where the principal office of such labor organization is located."

The Kennedy-Ervin bill had included a Title III — Elections which became Title IV of LMRDA. Section 401 contains a considerable number of substantive provisions. Among these are requirements concerning the frequency and manner of election of officers, distribution by the union of campaign literature at a candidate's request and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Hodgson v. CARPENTERS RESILIENT FLOORING LOCAL U. NO. 2212, No. 19507.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 27, 1972
    ...certain rights of union members. Compare Mamula v. United Steelworkers of America, 304 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1962) with Harvey v. Calhoon, 324 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1963), rev'd Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964). When Harvey v. Calhoon reached the Supreme Court it......
  • Calhoon v. Harvey, No. 17
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1964
    ...of Appeals reversed, holding that 'the complaint alleged a violation of § 101(a)(1) and that federal jurisdiction existed under § 102.' 324 F.2d 486, 487.9 Because of the importance of the questions presented and conflicting views in the courts of appeals and the district courts,10 we grant......
  • Stettner v. International Printing Pressmen & AU, Civ. A. No. 2136.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • November 17, 1967
    ...would seem to involve important considerations as to the legitimate conduct of a union's internal affairs. See Harvey v. Calhoon, 324 F.2d 486 (2 Cir., 1963)4 (dealing with the right to nominate candidates); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 945 84 S.C......
  • Coleman v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, ETC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 1964
    ...Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO, supra; Acevedo v. Bookbinders & Machine Operators Local No. 25, supra. Neither Harvey v. Calhoon, 324 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. granted 375 U.S. 991, 84 S.Ct. 633, 11 L.Ed.2d 478 (Jan. 20, 1964), nor Robins v. Rarback, 325 F.2d 929 (2d Cir. 1963......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Hodgson v. CARPENTERS RESILIENT FLOORING LOCAL U. NO. 2212, No. 19507.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 27, 1972
    ...certain rights of union members. Compare Mamula v. United Steelworkers of America, 304 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1962) with Harvey v. Calhoon, 324 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1963), rev'd Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964). When Harvey v. Calhoon reached the Supreme Court it......
  • Calhoon v. Harvey, No. 17
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1964
    ...of Appeals reversed, holding that 'the complaint alleged a violation of § 101(a)(1) and that federal jurisdiction existed under § 102.' 324 F.2d 486, 487.9 Because of the importance of the questions presented and conflicting views in the courts of appeals and the district courts,10 we grant......
  • Stettner v. International Printing Pressmen & AU, Civ. A. No. 2136.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • November 17, 1967
    ...would seem to involve important considerations as to the legitimate conduct of a union's internal affairs. See Harvey v. Calhoon, 324 F.2d 486 (2 Cir., 1963)4 (dealing with the right to nominate candidates); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 945 84 S.C......
  • Coleman v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, ETC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 1964
    ...Laborers' Union of America, AFL-CIO, supra; Acevedo v. Bookbinders & Machine Operators Local No. 25, supra. Neither Harvey v. Calhoon, 324 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. granted 375 U.S. 991, 84 S.Ct. 633, 11 L.Ed.2d 478 (Jan. 20, 1964), nor Robins v. Rarback, 325 F.2d 929 (2d Cir. 1963......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT