Herman v. New York Metro Area Postal Union
| Citation | 30 F.Supp.2d 636 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97 Civ. 4450(CBM).,97 Civ. 4450(CBM). |
| Parties | Alexis HERMAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, Peter Raska, Jonathan Smith, William Smith, Daniel Zachman, Jr., Burnie Freeman, J. Renee Bost, and Wade Aerial, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. NEW YORK METRO AREA POSTAL UNION, American Postal Workers Union, AFL — CIO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York City by Andrew W. Schilling, for plaintiff.
Lewis, Greenwald, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C., New York City by Louie Nikolaidis, for plaintiffs-intervenors.
O'Donnell, Schwartz, Glanstein & Rosen, New York City by Joel Glanstein and Howard Wein, for defendant.
OPINION GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OPINION
Plaintiff Alexis Herman, the United States Secretary of Labor, filed this lawsuit to void a portion of the March 3, 1997 election of union officers of defendant New York Metro Area Postal Union ("Metro"). The Secretary contends that Metro violated the union election rules of the Labor-Management Relations Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. ("LMRDA"), by unreasonably disqualifying all seven opposition candidates for failing to submit required information by an unnecessarily strict and undisclosed deadline. Metro counters that the deadline was adequately published and was necessary for an orderly election.
The seven excluded candidates intervened as additional plaintiffs and Secretary Herman then moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs motion is granted because any reasonable fact finder would conclude that the union failed to give reasonable notice of the deadline it cited as its reason for disqualifying the seven candidates. Because of the likelihood that this LMRDA violation affected the election outcome, the election is void as to the seven offices at issue. A new election for the seven positions must be conducted under Secretary Herman's supervision.
Because the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to Metro, the nonmovant, the following account relies on points that Metro, the non-movant, has stated, admitted, or declined to rebut.
Metro is a roughly 14,000-member local labor union representing U.S. Postal Service employees in the New York Metropolitan Area. Metro is a subordinate of the American Postal Workers Union ("APWU"), a national labor organization. Metro and APWU each are a "labor organization" covered by LMRDA § 402(i). (Def.'s Admis. ¶¶ 3-6.) Two Metro officers are particularly relevant to this case: Josie McMillian, the President, and Wilma Alexander, the Executive Secretary (id. ¶¶ 17-18).
Plaintiff-intervenors are seven Metro members nominated on February 19, 1997 as candidates in a March 3, 1997 election of union officers: William Smith for President, Jonathan Smith for Executive Vice President, Burnie Freeman for Director of Organization, Renee Bost for Secretary-Treasurer, Daniel Zachman for Director of Industrial Relations, Wade Aerial for Executive Secretary, and Peter Raska for Director of Maintenance Craft. (Def.'s Admis. ¶¶ 35, 40, 44, 49, 54, 59, 64). When Metro disqualified the seven from candidacy, Mr. Raska filed a complaint with plaintiff Alexis Herman, the United States Secretary of Labor.
Article 12, Section 8 of the Metro Constitution (Schilling Decl. Ex. B) provides for union officer elections every three years. On March 3, 1997, Metro held such an election for thirty-two union offices. A notice in the January 1997 Metro newsletter announced that candidate nominations would be one of two agenda items at Metro's February 19, 1997 meeting. The notice read as follows (Def.'s Mem. at 3):
NEW YORK METRO UNION HALL
(NINTH FLOOR)
AGENDA
SECOND READING AND VOTING ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
In February 1997, Mr. Raska was Executive Director of Maintenance Craft. He was a member of the incumbents' slate, but one gradually leaving the fold. After six years as Executive Director of Maintenance Craft, Mr. Raska sought to become Director of Maintenance Craft. Ms. McMillian, the incumbent President, told Mr. Raska several days before the caucus that she opposed this move and would support the incumbent Director of Maintenance Craft, James McCluster. (Def.'s Mem. at 3-4.) Meanwhile, Ms. Alexander spoke with Charles Edmonds about whether he would replace Mr. Raska as the slate's candidate for Mr. Raska's current Executive Director position. Ms. Alexander eventually drafted an acceptance form for Mr. Edmonds. (Def.'s R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 13.) More broadly, Mr. Raska and the six other plaintiffs-intervenors "had been dissidents for six months or so." (Def.'s Counsel, Tr. at 19).
In spite of any ongoing disputes, Mr. Raska attended an incumbents' caucus on February 18, 1997, the day before the nominations meeting. At the caucus, the incumbents finalized their "slate" for the upcoming election. Wilma Alexander, Metro's Executive Secretary, handed out nomination acceptance forms to all likely candidates, including to Mr. Raska for renomination to his Executive Director position. The form asked for the nominee's name, address, social security number, and position sought. Mr. Raska returned the form to Ms. Alexander after she repeatedly asked him to complete it and return it to her. (Def.'s Mem. at 3-4.)
At the February 19, 1997 nominations meeting, Mr. Raska left the incumbents' slate and aligned with a slate of six other members challenging the incumbents' slate. During the meeting, there were nominations for the thirty-two members of the incumbents' slate as well as for the seven members of the opposition slate. Ms. McMillian presided over nominations for thirty-one offices while Ms. Alexander presided over nominations for President. (Def.'s Admis. ¶¶ 19-21.)
For each nomination, the presiding officer (Ms. McMillian at all times except Ms. Alexander for nominations for President) publicly asked whether the nominee accepted nomination. Ms. McMillian and Ms. Alexander believed that nominees were required to submit their social security numbers and addresses in writing during the meeting or risk disqualification. None of the seven opposition candidates submitted a social security number and address during the meeting. (Def.'s Mem. at 6-7; McMillian Depo. at 64; Alexander Depo. at 85.) Neither Ms. McMillian nor Ms. Alexander reminded nominees of this requirement nor distributed any forms soliciting this information. (Def.'s Admis. 31, 32, 69.)
Ms. McMillian only solicited the social security number of one nominee, William Smith, the opposition candidate for President, because there were two William Smiths in Metro. The relevant William Smith was absent, so his social security number was offered by Jonathan Smith, a candidate on the same slate who nominated him. Ms McMillian then told him to submit it in writing instead. (Def.'s Mem. at 5-6; Alexander Depo. at 53-54).
At the meeting, Ms. Alexander had Mr. Raska's form from the incumbents' caucus the day before. That form was for Mr. Raska's anticipated renomination as Executive Director of Maintenance Craft, rather than for his nomination that evening for Director of Maintenance Craft, but the form had his social security number and address. At the meeting, Ms. Alexander did not turn in Mr. Raska's form for the other position as a submission of his social security number and address (Def.'s Mem. at 6-7; Alexander Depo. at 84), but she did turn in forms for two absent candidates (Def.'s Mem. at 5; Alexander Depo. at 16).
On February 20, 1997, the day after the nominations meeting, Mr. Raska went to Metro's office and asked Ms. Alexander for a copy of the Metro Election Rules (Def.'s Mem. at 7). Ms. Alexander told him that he could not make a photocopy of the Rules. Rather, he only could copy the rules by hand. (Def.'s Mem. at 7; Tr. at 23-36.) Metro interprets its Constitution as prohibiting distribution of the Election Rules to members; it only allows members to copy the Rules by hand in an office appointment with a Metro officer. (Pl.'s R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 36-38).
Mr. Raska read the Election Rules, including the following sections:
Eligibility.... Nominee must submit his/her name in print with the correct spelling to the Election Committee no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, February 20, 1997....
Nominations.... (A) Any member in good standing may nominate an eligible candidate for any position at the General Membership Meeting to be held beginning at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 19, 1997.... (B) Each nominee shall submit complete address and social security number.
(Schilling Decl. Ex. C.) The Metro constitution, which Metro gave to all members at the nominations meeting, has a similar provision in Article 12, Section 7(a):
Any eligible member may be nominated by any member in good standing. The nominee must announce acceptance at the nomination meeting either in person, or by written statement signed by him or her, and submitted in his or her behalf; the nominees shall provide their social security numbers and mailing address.
After reading the election rules, Mr. Raska left and returned with a sealed envelope containing his name, address, and social security number. (Def.'s Mem. at 8; Raska Depo. at 50, 65-66.) He gave the envelope to Ms. Alexander before the close of business on February 20, 1997. (Def.'s Admis. ¶ 73.) Ms. Alexander told him that he was required to submit his social security number and address at the nominations meeting, not the day after, but she forwarded his envelope to the Election Committee. (Def.'s Mem. at 8).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acosta v. Local 101, Transp. Workers Union of Am. Afl-Cio
...the merits," "[t]he language is not to be read literally and summary judgment lies in a proper case." Herman v. New York Metro Area Postal Union , 30 F.Supp.2d 636, 642 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (quoting Usery v. Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Int'l Maritime Div. , 538 F.2d 946, 949 n.5 (2d C......
-
Walsh v. Local 1970, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
...voter or candidate disqualification, and that neglect of this duty voids a union election.” Herman v. New York Metro Area Postal Union, 30 F.Supp.2d 636, 646 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). As stated above, the one-year rule has not been enforced since its inception in 2011. Although the one-year rule was......
-
Scalia v. Local 1694, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
...& Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO, 761 F.2d 870, 875 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 452.53); see also Herman v. N.Y. Metro Area Postal Union, AFL-CIO, 30 F. Supp. 2d 636, 645-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding a Section 401(e) violation where a union did not provide sufficient notice of a facially reason......