Joinette v. Local 20, Hotel and Motel Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union
| Citation | 722 P.2d 83,106 Wn.2d 355 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 52100-0,52100-0 |
| Parties | , 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2159 Lucien JOINETTE, Clara Joinette, Archie Douglas, Roy Neher, James Reed, Henry Ramsey, Stan Koval, Amanda McCall, Joe Carbone, Ruth Kerrigan, Ann Cobb, Ted Mason, Sam Santo, Ann Robertson, Richard Hutchinson, Gladys Loveland, Louise Thornley, Stephanie Schwabel, Eugen Lewis, Jeanette Scott, Lowell Banford, Joe Wild, Lena Hankinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. LOCAL 20, the HOTEL AND MOTEL RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS UNION, and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union, Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Welch & Condon, David Condon, Tacoma, Wash., for appellants.
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Deheim, John Connelly, Jerome McCarthy, Tacoma, Wash., for respondents.
This is a class action brought on behalf of numerous retired members of a local hotel, motel and restaurant employees union. These retirees had been promised that their annual dues either would be eliminated or reduced by 50 percent upon retirement, as long as they had been union members for 20 years and did not return to the industry after retirement. In 1981, the international convention of the union increased dues and made dues applicable to all retirees, regardless of what was provided by local bylaws. If dues are not paid, the retirees are stricken from union membership and divested of all union benefits. The superior court held that the retirees had a contractual right to union membership and benefits, and that the international union could not deny their rights by increasing union dues. The union local appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case pursuant to RAP 4.3. We affirm on different grounds.
The respondents in this case, retired members of Local 20 of the Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union (hereinafter "Members"), filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court on June 30, 1982, seeking damages and injunctive relief against the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union and its affiliate Local 20 (hereinafter "International Union"). The Members predicated their cause of action on breach of contract and promissory estoppel. This suit was certified as a class action pursuant to CR 23(b)(2) on October 22, 1982.
In 1976, Local 61 of the Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees Union merged with Local 711 of the Bartenders Union to form Local 20. Prior to the merger agreement, article 5, section 18 of the bylaws of Local 61 specified that any person who had been a member of both the International Union and Local 61 for 20 consecutive years would have his dues remitted, provided the member ceased to work in the industry. That section further entitled these members to all of the rights and privileges of a dues paying member, provided they complied with all union laws.
Similarly, the bylaws of Local 711 specified that retired members who had been members of the union for 20 years and regularly paid their dues would be eligible for life membership privileges. The bylaws of Local 711 provided that these members would have to pay only 50 percent of the dues applicable to non-retired workers at the time of their retirement. The subsequent merger of Local 61 and Local 711 did not affect the special dues rates provided in the original bylaws of both local unions.
The bylaws of Local 20 also afforded its retired or disabled members reduced monthly dues. Specifically, article 14, section 3 provided that a non-working member in good standing for 20 years in the union who reached the age of 65 years was required to pay only 50 percent of the regular monthly dues at the time of retirement.
The union members who retired under the bylaws of Locals 61, 711, and 20 were promised by local union officers prior to retirement that the above-mentioned special dues rates provided in the respective local bylaws would not be increased. The promises made by the local union officers were verbal assurances and were never incorporated into the local bylaws.
In October 1981, at the international convention of the International Union, the delegates voted to amend the constitution of the International Union to increase dues. This dues increase, effective October 1, 1981, applied to all members of the International Union and Local 20, whether retired or working.
On October 13, 1981, the International Union, acting pursuant to the authority vested in its constitution and in accordance with federal law, imposed a trusteeship on Local 20. Thereafter, the international trustee submitted a written recommendation to the president of the International Union requesting that the Members be exempted from the October 1981 dues increase. In response, the president authorized a $1.06 reduction in the dues obligation of retired members, but declined to rule the increases inapplicable . After attempting to exhaust intra-union remedies, the Members subsequently filed suit in superior court.
The trial court held that the oral representations made by local union officers to the Members constituted a binding promise which was breached by the implementation of the October 1, 1981 dues increase. Additionally and alternatively, the court held that the principles of promissory estoppel also applied, thus making the oral promises irrevocable and binding. 1 Accordingly, the court found that the Members were entitled to injunctive relief, a judgment for monies charged by the International Union as increased dues, and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to a common fund theory of recovery.
The first issue in this case is whether the Members' failure to exhaust internal union procedures required by the International Union's constitution can be excused on the ground that compliance with union procedure would have been futile. The International Union maintains that the Members prematurely abandoned efforts to exhaust union remedies prior to filing suit in superior court. We disagree.
As a general rule, a union member may not seek the assistance of a civil court to remedy an alleged wrongful act by a union unless he has first exhausted the internal remedies provided in the constitution and bylaws of the union. Rizzuto v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, 573 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1977). This rule is not applicable, however, where the aggrieved union member has shown that pursuit of the intra-union remedies would be futile or inadequate. Buzzard v. Local Lodge 1040 Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 480 F.2d 35, 41 (9th Cir.1973).
Section 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(4) (1982), authorizes labor unions to require aggrieved members to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures as a prerequisite to suit in civil court. Rizzuto, at 554. Section 411(a)(4) provides in pertinent part:
No labor organization shall limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any court, or in a proceeding before any administrative agency ... Provided, That any such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a four-month lapse of time) within such organization, before instituting legal or administrative proceedings against such organizations or any officer thereof ...
The constitution of the International Union expressly obligates the members to exhaust internal union remedies before resorting to the courts, and affords members a detailed internal grievance procedure. Nevertheless, the general requirement that the Members exhaust internal remedies before instituting court proceedings does not give the International Union authority to compel the Members to pursue internal remedies before resorting to the courts as the International Union claims. Rather, the exhaustion doctrine grants the court the discretionary power to stay proceedings if it determines that internal union procedures should be exhausted. NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U.S. 418, 426, 88 S.Ct. 1717, 1722, 20 L.Ed.2d 706 (1968).
As stated in Giordani v. Upholsterers Int'l Union, 403 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.1968):
It is now beyond question that the statutory exhaustion requirement does not give the union authority to compel its members to pursue internal remedies before resorting to the courts, but rather preserves the discretionary exhaustion doctrine as it had been judicially dveloped [sic ], subject to the four-month limitation.
Giordani, at 88 (citing NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, supra). See also Eisman v. Baltimore Regional Joint Bd. of Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 352 F.Supp. 429 (D.Md.1972), aff'd, 496 F.2d 1313 (4th Cir.1974). Thus, the determination of whether an action should be dismissed because of failure to exhaust internal union remedies rests within the discretion of the trial judge.
The trial court concluded that the Members had attempted to resolve this dispute through union procedures, but the union failed to properly respond. According to the court, the International Union's failure to respond made any further attempts by the Members unnecessary and futile. This conclusion is supported by the facts, and the trial court's exercise of discretion clearly comports with the case law.
In any event, § 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(4) (1982), indicates that a union member may institute legal proceedings if union procedures exceed 4 months. The Members filed a charge with the International Union on February 25, 1982, followed by the filing of a complaint on June 30, 1982. During the intervening 4 months, the Union gave no indication that it was taking action in response to the charge. Accordingly, the trial court's decision that further attempts were unnecessary comports with the Act. Thus, we affirm ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. J.C. Penney, Inc.
... ... after beginning work, Hill joined the union representing Penney employees. The collective ... Lumber Prod. Indus. Workers Local 1054 v. West Coast Indus. Relations Ass'n, Inc., ... Federal substantive law applies. Joinette v. Local 20, Hotel & Motel Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, 106 Wash.2d 355, 362, 722 P.2d 83 (1986) ... ...
-
Fowlkes v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 76
... ... of Fowlkes's failure to exhaust available union remedies; and finally, that the evidence was ... D wiremen, had been hired as non-union employees by employers when Local 76 was out of referrals ... Joinette v. Local 20, 106 Wash.2d 355, 360-61, 722 P.2d 83 ... ...
-
Ag Link, Inc. v. Shrum
... ... as the drafter. Joinette v. Local 20, Hotel & Motel ... Rest. ees & Bartenders Union , 106 Wn.2d 355, ... 364, 722 P.2d 83 ... ...
-
Local Union 112, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Bray
... ... been superseded by our recent opinion in Joinette v. Local 20, Hotel & Motel Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, 106 Wash.2d 355, 722 P.2d 83 (1986). We ... ...
-
Legal Mechanisms of Public-private Partnerships: Promoting Economic Development or Benefiting Corporate Welfare?
...such reimbursement constituted consideration for services rendered and no donative intent was present). 61. 106 Wash. 2d at 327-28, 722 P.2d at 83. 62. 108 Wash. 2d 679, 743 P.2d 793 (1987). 63. Id. at 682-84, 743 P.2d at 795-96. 64. Id. at 702, 743 P.2d at 805. See also In re Marriage of J......