Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2
Decision Date | 17 May 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 70 Civ. 2497.,70 Civ. 2497. |
Citation | 334 F. Supp. 1369 |
Parties | James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LIQUOR SALESMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 2 of the State of New York, Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers' International Union of America, AFL-CIO, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., by Daniel Riesel and Peter A. Herbert, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, Francis V. LaRuffa, R. Sol. N. Y. Region, Dept. of Labor, New York City, by Edward F. Beane for plaintiff.
Schulman, Abarbanel, Perkel & McEvoy, New York City, for defendant.
This is an action by the Secretary of Labor to set aside the January 9, 1970 election of officers held by defendant, Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2, (the Union) and for an order directing defendant to hold a new election under the Secretary's supervision. 29 U.S.C. § 482(b), (c).
The action was commenced on June 12, 1970. This was within 60 days of the filing of a complaint on April 13, 1970 by Union members with the Secretary, complaining of violations of § 481(g) in the conduct of the election. 29 U.S.C. § 482(b). The action was filed after an investigation of the complaint by the Secretary and a finding by him of probable cause to believe that a violation of § 481(g) had occurred. 29 U.S.C. § 482(b).
The Secretary charges that Section 481(g) of Title 29, United States Code was violated in the conduct of the challenged election in two particulars:
The controversy here arises from the near successful efforts of a large group of dissident union members to depose long entrenched incumbents and the response of the incumbents to those efforts.
The Union is composed of approximately 1600 members. They are employed as salesmen by wholesalers, distillers and distributors of alcoholic beverages in the New York Metropolitan area. The Union is chartered by the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Worker's International Union, AFL-CIO (the International). It was organized in 1937. Since that time Mortimer Brandenburg has been president. He is also the president of the International.
The insurgent group, known as the Joint Salesmen's Committee (JSC), was formed sometime in 1967 as a forum for discussion of the liquor industry and Union conditions. The activities of JSC beginning in 1968, and continuing through 1969, consisted largely of interviewing Local 2 members to ascertain their views, and of publishing a monthly newsletter, for which publication, funds were solicited. In 1969, JSC also filed two law suits against Local 2. One suit sought to recover some $960,000 in back commissions allegedly owed to Local 2 members. The other suit challenged the Union's pension plan.
Around July, 1969, JSC decided to run a slate of candidates against Local 2's incumbents. It began contacting Union members to gather support for the upcoming January, 1970 election. The battle lines between insurgents and incumbents were thus drawn, and the bitterness which usually attends such contests, as reflected in the literature of both sides, was not absent here.
In December, 1969, the acts of which the Secretary complains took place. At that time the Union sent out the December issue of its house organ, the Journal. The feature article in the issue, which, significantly, was received by the membership of Local 2 in the latter part of December, was written by the incumbent president, Mortimer Brandenburg. Much of the content of the article and, indeed, of the issue as a whole, was dedicated to criticism of JSC and the lawsuits which JSC had filed. The incumbent Brandenburg stated in the article among other things:
p. 1, cols. 1-2.
Mr. Brandenburg continued by stating that JSC action in filing a complaint with the New York District Attorney's Office regarding certain acknowledged irregularities between "the correlation of membership lists with records of payment of initiation fees" was "shafting" the Union to "gain political capital." "With savage vindictiveness they press . . . for blood . . ." the article said. .
At another point, it said, "their (JSC's) concern (is) with what is politically expedient for them, not what is good for our Union." (Id. col. 2). At still another place, he said, "in these individuals human degradation reached a new low." (p. 4, col. 2).
The December as well as the January issue of the Journal excerpted testimony taken by the Union's lawyer upon the pre-trial depositions of certain of the leaders of JSC in the suit brought by them to recover alleged unpaid commissions. These excerpts were followed by editorial comments unfavorable to the JSC leaders.
In the January Journal incumbent Brandenburg wrote another article entitled, The Choice Is Yours, which reads as follows:
The January issue was also received by Union members prior to the election as was obviously intended.
Returning to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galella v. Onassis
...greater than is essential to the furtherance of the government interest which is being protected. In Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union Local No. 2, 334 F.Supp. 1369, 1380 (S.D.N.Y., 1971), the court sustained a statute prohibiting endorsements, in a union newspaper, of candidates for union......
-
New Watch-Dog Com. v. New York City Taxi Drivers U., 77 Civ. 4137.
...of opposing candidates and lavish campaign promises on his own behalf as was held unlawful in Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2, 334 F.Supp. 1369, 1371-73 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 444 F.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1971). Nor is there here "electioneering for the incumbent candidate and ad homi......
-
McLaughlin v. American Federation of Musicians
...important government interests and, as such, does not impermissible infringe on the First Amendment. Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2, 334 F.Supp. 1369, 1379-81 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 444 F.2d 1344 (2d Cir.1971) (articles in union journal praising incumbent and criticizing challe......
-
Marshall v. Local Union 20, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Commerce
...is unconstitutional as written because it violates rights protected by the First Amendment. We disagree. In Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local 2, 334 F.Supp. 1369 (S.D.N.Y.), Aff'd, 444 F.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1971), the court discussed the constitutionality of § 481(g) in light of a Firs......
-
29 C.F.R. § 452.75 Union Newspapers
...regardless of the amount, constitutes a violation of section 401(g). 38Notes:Source: 38 Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2, 334 F.Supp. 1369 (S.D. N.Y.) aff'd 444 F.2d 1344 (C.A. 2 1971); Shultz v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers, 426 F.2d 969 (C.A. 9...
-
29 C.F.R. § 452.75 Union Newspapers
...regardless of the amount, constitutes a violation of section 401(g). 38Notes:Source: 38 Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2, 334 F.Supp. 1369 (S.D. N.Y.) aff'd 444 F.2d 1344 (C.A. 2 1971); Shultz v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers, 426 F.2d 969 (C.A. 9...