Hugler v. Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union

• Decision Date: 18 July 2017
• Docket Number: Case No.: GJH–16–2052
• Citation: 266 F.Supp.3d 855
• Parties: Edward C. HUGLER, Acting Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 689, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

266 F.Supp.3d 855

Edward C. HUGLER, Acting Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff,

v.LOCAL 689, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, Defendant.

Case No.: GJH–16–2052

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division.

Signed July 18, 2017

Allen F. Loucks, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.

Paul MacKenzie Tyler, Gromfine Taylor and Tyler PC, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge

This dispute involves a union officer election held by Defendant Local 689. Amalgamated Transit Union ("the Union"), on December 2, 2015. Thomas E. Perez, then Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor ("the Secretary")¹ brought this action under the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 481 –84, to void the election and conduct a new election under the supervision of the Secretary. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 13; ECF No. 21. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons, the Secretary's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is granted, and the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The material facts are essentially undisputed. Local 689 is the collective bargaining representative for approximately 13,535 active and retired transit, maintenance, and clerical employees of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and three paratransit contractors. See ECF No. 13–28 at 5.² Approximately 570 union members live outside the Washington. D.C., Maryland, and Northern Virginia areas. See id. The Union is a labor organization subject to the provisions of Title IV of the LMRDA, including Section 401(e), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 481(e), which governs notice of elections and eligibility to vote and run for office. Section 401(e) also mandates that a union conducts elections pursuant to the union's constitution and bylaws. 29 U.S.C. § 481(e).

The Union holds a general election for all offices every three years. ECF No. 13–3 at 37. The most recent election was held on December 2, 2015. See ECF No. 13–33 at 1. Under Section 401(e) of LMRDA. "[n]ot less than fifteen days prior to the election, notice thereof shall be mailed to each member at his [or her] last known home address." 29 U.S.C. § 481(e) ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 452.99. The Union's Local Bylaws also provide for a fifteen-day notice period. ECF No. 13–4 at 24 (Section 11(b)). In advance of the December 2, 2015 election, the Union sent notices to members on November 18, 2015, only fourteen days prior to the election. See ECF No. 13–34 at 4; ECF No. 21–7 at 2–4. Approximately 5,468 members voted in the election and 8,067 members did not vote. See ECF No. 13–29 at 1. An investigation conducted by the Secretary following the election allegedly identified at least twelve members who stated that they did not receive notice of the election. See ECF No. 13–1 at 33 (citing ECF No. 13–29).

Under the Amalgamated Transit Union Constitution and General Laws ("CGL"), to be eligible to run for office, a member must be in continuous "good standing" with his or her Local Union for two years preceding nomination. See ECF No. 13–3 at 37–38 (Section 14.2); see also 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). Section 8(a) of the Local Bylaws provides the same requirement. See ECF No. 13–4 at 14; ECF No. 21–4 at 15. Members who fail to pay dues are "in arrears" and not in good standing. ECF No. 13–3 at 57 (Section 21.9). Where the arrearage continues for two months, the member in arrears is suspended from the Union. See id. at 57–58 (Section 21.10). Suspended members must pay the full arrearage and $1.00 per month spent in arrears to be reinstated into the Union. Id. at 58 (Section 21.11). Members in arrears for more than twelve months cannot reinstate themselves, but rather must re-enroll as a new member. Id. at 59.

On October 9, 2015, the Union sent letters to members who were in arrears for more than two months. See ECF No. 13–26 at 4–5. The letters described the amount of the arrearage, and informed the members that they were suspended. See, e.g., ECF No. 13–5 at 1; ECF No. 21–6 at 2–4. Nominations for candidates took place on November 3–4, 2015. Only members in good standing could be nominated or nominate a fellow member for office. See ECF No. 13–3 at 39 (Section 14.4). After the October 9, 2015 letters were sent out, some members contacted Financial Secretary–Treasurer (FST) Esker Bilger, and were put on a payment plan to regain good standing. See. e.g., ECF No. 13–31 at 1–117. However, the option of entering into such a payment plan was not announced publicly to the Union membership. See ECF No. 13–6 at 4; ECF No. 13–27 at 6. The Union's computer specialist and administrative assistant, Brent Loughry, testified that he was not aware of any alternative payment arrangements. See ECF No. 13–26 at 3.³

While some members were allowed to enter a payment plan and thus become eligible for the November 3–4, 2015 nominations and/or the subsequent December 2, 2015 election, others were not. Two members who sought to run for office, Harry Johnson and Glenn Jarrett, were not permitted to enter a payment plan to come back into good standing. Harry Johnson, who was nominated for the position of Shop Steward # 1, Montgomery Bus Division, see ECF No. 13–24 at 2, was informed on November 6, 2015 that he was not in good standing and therefore not eligible to be elected. ECF No. 13–24 at 5. Similarly, Glenn Jarrett, who was nominated for the position of Shepard Parkway Division Executive Board Member # 2, see ECF No. 13–25 at 2, was informed on November 6, 2015 that he was not in good standing and not eligible to be elected, ECF No. 13–25 at 6—even though Jarrett had previously signed a letter agreeing to a payroll deduction, see ECF No. 13–25 at 3.

Other members in arrears were allowed to run for office. Eleven members were permitted to run in the election that had unpaid dues, and nine of these members had arrearages significant enough to warrant suspension from the Union under Section 21.10 of the CGL. For instance, Luis Chevalier had an arrearage of $867.90, but was able to run for System Maintenance Shop Steward # 2. Another member, John Gaines, was $617.50 in arrears, see ECF No. 13–12 at 1, but ran and was elected to the position of Bladensburg Division Executive Board Member & Shop. ECF No. 13–29 at 1. Wilbur Lucas, was $482.70 in arrears, see ECF No. 13–21 at 1, but was able to run and was elected to the position of Station Manager Divisions Shop Steward # 2. ECF No. 13–29 at 3.

In Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant does not dispute the material tacts presented in the Secretary's Motion. ECF No. 21. Rather. Defendant instead relies heavily on the testimony of FST Esker Bilger and employee Brent Loughry, who explain that the Union's payment records were kept by hand for many years, and efforts in 2014–2015 to modernize the system and verify individual records was a time-consuming process. See ECF No. 21–5 at 87. Mr. Loughry, who assisted with data management, testified in his deposition that "we had so many problems getting the dues records from Metro," ECF No. 21–8 at 16. and that, at the time, the records were filled with "discrepancies," id. at 16–17. Defendant acknowledges in its briefing that "[t]he election coincided with a massive undertaking by the Financial Secretary to modernize the Union's record keeping system in order to keep more accurate dues payments information. Because of the scope of that project and the large size of the Local, the Act [LMRDA] was not followed to the letter." ECF No. 21–1 at 9. Defendant further admits that "[t]he election notices were sent out one day late under the notice provision of the Act. However, this was a benign mistake that was not made maliciously. Any payment arrangements that were made by Local 689 were in keeping with the spirit of the Act in ensuring that as many people could participate in this election." Id. at 10.

The union officer election was held on December 2, 2015 for forty separate positions. See ECF No. 13–29 at 1–3. The largest margin of victory was 930 votes for the position of Maintenance and Construction At–Large Executive Board, id. at 2, and the smallest margin of victory was eleven votes for the position of Bladensburg Division Executive Board Member # 2, id. at 1. Following member protests and an investigation by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary filed a Complaint on June 13, 2016, seeking to void the election of twenty-two of these positions based upon the notice issue and "failing to apply [the Union's] candidacy qualifications in a uniform manner."⁴ ECF No. 1 at 6. The Secretary subsequently moved for summary judgment on January 12, 2017. ECF No. 13. The Union opposed the Secretary's motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2017. ECF No. 21. The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety, the parties' arguments, and relevant authorities, and now grants the Secretary's Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), the Court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. The Court considers the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). However, the Court must also abide by its affirmative obligation to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from going to...