Hodgson v. District 6, United Mine Workers of America

• Decision Date: 28 February 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-1198.,72-1198.
• Citation: 474 F.2d 940
• Parties: James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, Appellant, v. DISTRICT 6, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

474 F.2d 940 (1973)

James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, Appellant, v. DISTRICT 6, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1198.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued October 16, 1972.

Decided February 28, 1973.

Robert S. Greenspan, Dept. of Justice, for appellant; L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., Walter H. Fleischer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Harry R. Paulino, Columbus, Ohio, for appellees; Edward L. Carey, Gen. Counsel, United Mine Workers of America, Washington, D. C., Paul A. Pachuta, Columbus, Ohio, on brief.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and GUBOW,^* District Judge.

WEICK, Circuit Judge.

The Secretary of Labor Secretary has appealed from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment dismissing his complaint in an action to declare void an election conducted by District 6, United Mine Workers of America union, in violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531.

The Secretary brought the suit following a complaint made to him by a union member that he (the union member) had been prevented from becoming a candidate for an elective office in the United Mine Workers Union. The Secretary alleged in his complaint filed in the District Court that the particular union rule which barred the candidacy of the union member was unreasonable, and thus in contravention of Section 401(e) of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 481(e).

The District Court held that the Secretary was precluded from filing an action under Section 401(e) on the ground that the union member had not exhausted internal union remedies as required under Section 402(a) of the Act. The Court held, alternatively, that even if the union member had exhausted internal union remedies, the rule which precluded his candidacy was reasonable.

We reverse. We are of the opinion that the union member exhausted his internal union remedies, and that the union rule which barred his candidacy was unreasonable, in contravention of Section 401(e) of the Act.

On December 10, 1968, an election was conducted by District 6, United Mine Workers of America, for the office of International Executive Board Member. William Howard, whose complaint led to the institution of this action, attempted to become a candidate for this elective office.

The nominating procedure to be followed by the union in elections for international offices, are prescribed by Article VIII of the Constitution of District 6, UMW.¹

On June 25, 1968 the Secretary-Treasurer of District 6 sent letters to all seventy-nine locals under the jurisdiction of District 6, informing the locals that there was an upcoming election for the office of International Board Member. The letters contained blank nominating certificates to be used by the locals if they wished to nominate a union member for candidacy in the election.

The letter of June 25, 1968 also stated:

"All nomination certificates must be sent so they will reach this office on or before August 10, 1968. Certificates of Nomination arriving at District Headquarters, 85 East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, after that date cannot be counted."

This statement conformed with the nomination rules prescribed in the Constitution of District 6 in that it provided approximately one month within which the locals were to send in their completed nominating certificates.

It is undisputed that William Howard was duly nominated for the position of International Executive Board Member by five local unions as required by Article VIII of the Constitution. Nomination certificates were timely sent by four of the local unions to Columbus, by the local recording secretaries of those unions. However, although Howard had received the nomination of Local 1417 by vote of its members on July 28, 1968, the recording secretary of this local did not mail the nominating certificate to District 6 in Columbus until August 13, 1968, and the certificate was not received until August 14, 1968. Because this fifth certificate was received after the August 10th deadline, it was voided by the District 6 officials.

The District contended that Howard had only four nominations, i. e., one short of the constitutionally required five nominations. Howard was not permitted to become a candidate for office.

The incumbent member of the International Board ran unopposed in the December 10, 1968 election and was reelected.

When Howard did not receive notice of his nomination from the District Secretary-Treasurer, on September 16, 1968, he mailed the following letter to the President of District 6, to W. A. Boyle, President of the International Union, to the International Executive Board Member from District 6, to the Secretary-Treasurer of District 6, and to the Division 4 Board Member of District 6:

"I am a member in good standing of Local 6271, District 6. I was disqualified as a nominee for the office of International Executive Board Member for not having the required endorsements of local unions. I received the nominations of 6 locals but only 4 locals were counted. The 2 locals whose nominations were not counted were not my fault or the fault of the members of these locals. I am protesting my disqualification as a nominee.²

"I am also protesting and opposing the system of trusteeship where by our District President and Secretary-Treasurer are appointed.

"If this is not the correct way to protest my disqualification as a nominee, I request you to forward this appeal to the correct channel and that I be so advised.

Sincerely s/s William S. Howard William S. Howard Local 6271"

Thomas Williams, President of District 6, answered Howard's letter on October 3, 1968, sending copies to the other Board members, and stating in part:

"I am advised that District No. 6 Secretary-Treasurer R. C. Owens received from Local Unions in District No. 6 by registered mail four nomination blanks nominating you for the office of International Executive Board Member not later than four months before the date of election (August 10, 1968).

"Section 4 of Article VIII states in part: `no person shall be notified or be a candidate who has not been nominated by five or more Local Unions\'. Inasmuch as District No. 6 Secretary-Treasurer R. C. Owens had received by registered mail only four nominations for International Executive Board Member in your name by August 10, 1968, you could not be considered a candidate for this office under the above provisions of Section 4 of Article VIII of our District Constitution.

"However, if you could substantiate your claim through registered mail receipts from five or more Local Unions that you allege nominated you for the office, I am confident that reconsideration could be given you as a nominee for International Executive Board Member from District No. 6."

It is obvious that Williams was not responding to Howard's complaint that although he had been duly nominated for the office by the requisite number of local unions, as required by Article VIII, Section 4 of the District Constitution, he had been disqualified for something which was not his fault nor the fault of the members of the union whose vote was not counted.

Howard had done everything which the Constitution of the union required of him to become a candidate for the office. He had appeared before five local unions and had persuaded their members to nominate him. It was not Howard's fault, nor the fault of the members of Local 1417, that the Recording Secretary of the local waited until after time for filing had expired before sending the nomination certificate to the District office in Columbus. The Constitution placed on the Recording Secretary, and not on Howard, the mandatory duty to forward to the District office the nomination certificate. It was solely on account of the dereliction of duty of the Recording Secretary that Howard's nomination was not timely forwarded.

Williams told Howard in his letter only that he (Howard) would have to substantiate his claim through registered mail receipts proving that the nomination certificates were received by the District office by August 10, 1968, which was an impossibility, as Williams well knew.

On December 11, 1968, one day after the election was held, Howard sent to the union officials another letter which was identical with his letter of September 16th. Williams responded on December 12, 1968, simply referring Howard to Williams' previous letter of October 3rd.

On January 7, 1969, Howard filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, alleging a violation of Section 401 of the Act in the conduct of the election. The Secretary investigated the complaint, found probable cause of a violation of the Act under Section 402(b) and after unsuccessful efforts to settle the dispute, instituted the present suit on April 3, 1969.

EXHAUSTION OF UNION REMEDIES

Section 402 of the Act prescribes the method of determination and enforcement of Section 401(e) voting rights. It provides:

"A member of a labor organization—(1) who has exhausted the remedies available under the constitution and bylaws of such organization and of any parent body . . . may file a complaint with the Secretary . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 482(a).

The Secretary cannot make an investigation or file a civil suit in the federal courts unless there is a valid complaint by a union member, i. e., a complaint that is made after the member has exhausted his internal union remedies.

The issue of whether William Howard exhausted internal remedies in the United Mine Workers of America before he complained to the Secretary is bifurcated. The first portion of the issue is whether Howard complained through the proper union channels.³ The second portion of the issue is, assuming that Howard did complain through proper union channels, whether the complaints called into question the validity and not just the method of application, of the candidacy rule...