Holmes v. Donovan
| Decision Date | 17 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-5744,85-5744 |
| Citation | 796 F.2d 173 |
| Parties | 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3026, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,884 James W. HOLMES; Charles Todd; and Wendell Boyd, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ray DONOVAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, Defendant-Appellant. William Anderson, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert M. Williams, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., William H. Berger, argued, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Atlanta, Ga., Ramilro Salazor, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Jose' Ramiro Salazar, for defendant-appellant.
Donald A. Donati, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before WELLFORD and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Department of Labor appeals the district court's entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, various union members. The district judge held as a matter of law that the Department of Labor lacked jurisdiction to compel a rerun election for a particular union office because neither the aggrieved party in the union election nor any union member had ever exhausted internal union remedies as required under Sec. 402(a)(1) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 482(a)(1) with respect to the miscount involved. We reverse.
On February 8 and 11, 1984, Local 149 of the Bakery, Confectionary and Tobacco Workers Union ("Union") held its regular triennial election of union officers. The positions that were at stake included business agent 1 and four executive board member positions 2 from the Jackson, Mississippi Frito-Lay plant. Members of the Local who lived in Memphis, Tennessee voted either on February 8 or 11, 1984 in voting machines located in Memphis. Union members living outside of Memphis were sent two ballots: one for union officers and another for board positions from the particular plant where each was employed.
Each candidate was entitled to have a poll watcher and to have a person available for the counting of out-of-town ballots. After the ballots were counted and certified in Memphis on the evenings of February 11 and 13, the results were posted at each plant represented by Local 149.
After the election, plaintiff Holmes filed a protest with the Local, alleging various irregularities and illegalities including the fact that a member of the election commission had apparently obtained a second batch of officer ballots, and that Mr. Anderson, the winner, had used a union car, union supplies, and other items to aid his reelection efforts. The Local refused to take any action, and plaintiff Holmes in accordance with the Union's Constitution requested review by the International. A review was conducted, and the International refused to take any action.
Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Holmes filed a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging that Anderson and other union officers used union assets and equipment to assist him and his slate of candidates, and afforded him campaigning opportunities denied to his opponents; that Anderson held a Labor Day dinner where he solicited money from the Employer companies without accounting for the proceeds; that Anderson and the incumbent chairman of the board of trustees had complete control over out-of-town ballots; and that additional ballots were printed at the request of union officials and that a number of additional ballots were not accounted for.
The Labor Department conducted an investigation of the asserted violations. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that the tally for the Fourth Executive Board position at the Jackson, Mississippi plant had been miscounted. Plaintiff Boyd, instead of winning by one vote, had actually tied with candidate Lucille Robinson. After being informed of the tie vote, the Union's Business Agent and the Labor Department's Compliance Officer agreed to a voluntary runoff of the election for that one Frito-Lay Executive Board position. The Labor Department representative unsuccessfully tried to notify Boyd and Robinson by phone about the rerun election. He was only able to notify Boyd through a subsequently mailed notice of the agreement for the election rerun. This also advised Boyd about a scheduled pre-election conference that Boyd attended. During the pre-election conference, Boyd filed a protest about the runoff with the Department of Labor claiming he had not been given sufficient notice of the rerun election. No charges were filed by Boyd with the Union. The rerun election was held in December 1984, and Robinson defeated Boyd by 10 votes. She thereafter replaced Boyd on the Executive Board. By letter dated November 15, 1984, Holmes was informed by the Department of Labor that after investigating his complaint,
Only plaintiffs' second cause of action is at issue on appeal involving the question 3 of the authority of the Secretary of Labor to enter into an agreement with Local 149 to conduct a supervised rerun for one of the Executive Board positions. Boyd claims that the Local's Business Agent lacked authority to make such an agreement and that there was a failure to exhaust internal union remedies as required by LMRDA. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Lucille Robinson, the winner of the runoff election, from serving as a member of the Local's Executive Board and a mandate that Boyd serve instead.
The district court first held that the Local's Business Agent did in fact have delegated authority to enter into the election agreement with the Department of Labor. The court then concluded, however, that the Secretary of Labor lacked authority to enter the runoff election agreement because no union member had complained of the specific miscount irregularity uncovered by the Secretary's investigation. The parties agreed that the hearing on the preliminary injunction would also serve as the hearing on the merits of the claim.
The basic issue on appeal is the Department of Labor's authority to bring about a voluntary agreement with a local union for a runoff election when that agency uncovers an election violation that was not specifically addressed in a grievance to the union. In addressing the scope of the Secretary's authority to pursue through judicial channels election violations uncovered during the course of an investigation, the Supreme Court has twice considered the issue. In Wirtz v. Local Union No. 125, Laborers' International Union of North America, 389 U.S. 477, 88 S.Ct. 639, 19 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), the Secretary challenged the validity of the general and runoff election for a single office; the runoff had been necessary because of a tie vote in the general election. The complaining union member, the loser in the runoff, had submitted a protest letter to the union, alleging that his opponent was ineligible to run for office and that numerous voters had been ineligible to vote in the runoff election. The union provided the complainant no relief, and he filed a complaint with the Secretary pursuant to Sec. 402 of LMRDA. After a thorough investigation, the Secretary uncovered serious election irregularities far greater than the union member had been aware, affecting the runoff and general election. The Secretary then tried to invalidate the results of both elections in federal court, and the union claimed that the Secretary exceeded the scope of his authority because no exhaustion had occurred as to the asserted violations in the general election.
The Court rejected the union's exhaustion argument stating:
It is true that the exhaustion requirement was regarded by Congress as critical to the statute's objective of fostering union self-government. By channeling members through the internal appellate processes, Congress hoped to accustom members to utilizing the remedies made available within their own organization; at the same time, however, unions were expected to provide responsible and responsive procedures for investigating and redressing members' election grievances. These intertwined objectives are not disserved but furthered by permitting the Secretary to include in his complaint at least any Sec. 401 violation he has discovered which the union had a fair opportunity to consider and redress in connection with a member's initial complaint.
389 U.S. at 484, 88 S.Ct. at 642.
Under the facts before it, the Local No. 125 Court concluded that the Secretary had the authority to investigate and remedy the results of the general election because the "overwhelming" evidence of improprieties surrounding the runoff election strongly suggested that the same misconduct had occurred at the earlier general election. Thus, because the alleged wrongdoings were identical, the union essentially had had a "fair opportunity to consider and resolve" all violations. Id. at 484-85, 88 S.Ct. at 642-43. The Court concluded: "Again, Congress, having given the Secretary a broad investigative power, cannot have intended that his right to relief be defined by a complaining member's ignorance of the law or the facts or by the artlessness of the member's protest." Id. at 485, 88 S.Ct. at 643 (emphasis added).
Three years later in Hodgson v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 403 U.S. 333, 91 S.Ct. 1841, 29 L.Ed.2d 510 (1971), the Court again addressed the scope of the Secretary's authority to investigate and remedy election violations not specifically raised by a union member's complaint. The losing party in a union election complained to the union that the successful incumbent had violated Sec. 401 of LMRDA by using union facilities to prepare various campaign materials. Failing to obtain relief from the union, the unsuccessful candidate filed a complaint with the Secretary, asserting the same objection presented to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solis v. Laborer's Int'l Union of North Am.
...which required Local 368 to conduct a new election for three union positions to be supervised by the Secretary. See Holmes v. Donovan, 796 F.2d 173, 178–79 (6th Cir.1986) (finding that a consent agreement for a voluntary runoff election was a reasonable exercise of the Secretary's authority......
-
Perez v. Postal Police Officers Ass'n
...to suit in federal court to permit a union to set its own house in order before subjecting it to costly litigation.” Holmes v. Donovan, 796 F.2d 173, 177 (6th Cir.1986). This exhaustion “ ‘rule preserves a maximum amount of independence and self-government by giving every international unio......
-
Chao v. Local 743, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters
...482]. But he can investigate and report without such a complaint. Id. at 448. A similar conclusion was reached in Holmes v. Donovan, 796 F.2d 173, 178 (6th Cir.1986) (citation omitted), where the Sixth Circuit held that in the LMRDA: [T]he Secretary was empowered to sue only under specific ......