Local 1575, Intern. Longshoremen v. Reich, Civil No. 96-1443 (HL).
| Decision Date | 19 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 96-1443 (HL). |
| Citation | 951 F.Supp. 329 |
| Parties | LOCAL 1575, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN ASSOCIATION, AFLCIO, Plaintiffs, v. Robert REICH, U.S. Secretary of Labor; Carlos Santiago-Lugo, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Fidel A. Sevillano-Del-Rio, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of P.R., Civil Division, Hato Rey, PR, for Robert B. Reich, Carlos Santiago-Lugo.
Ada Perez-Alfonso, San Juan, PR, for International Longshoremen Association.
Before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the merits, Defendants' reply thereto, Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(5) motions to dismiss, and Plaintiff's reply thereto. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 17, & 19). Because the Court finds merit in Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion asserting that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint, the Court does not reach the merits of Plaintiff's motion and dismisses the complaint with prejudice.
The Court shall apply the well-known standard of review for Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss. The Court assumes that Plaintiff's allegations in its complaint are true and draws all reasonable inferences from these allegations in Plaintiff's favor. Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 51 (1st Cir.1990).
In the complaint filed on April 10, 1996, Plaintiff, the Local 1575 of the International Longshoremen Association, AFL-CIO ("Local 1575"), requests declaratory relief before the June 9, 1996 elections. Local 1575 wants the Court to declare that its local bylaws and constitution regarding the voting rights of its retired members trumps the apparently contradictory rule in Article XVI Section 1 of the International Longshoremen Association's constitution. Local 1575 filed the complaint before the election with the hope of persuading the Court to permit its retired members to vote even though they have not paid their union dues. By the time that Defendants answered the complaint, the election was over and the votes of the retired members who had not paid their dues did not count.
It is unclear why Local 1575 is bringing the lawsuit against the United States Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich, and the District Director of the Department of Labor, Carlos Santiago-Lugo. According to the complaint, the Secretary and the District Director were organizing new elections for the Local 1575's Board of Directors pursuant to an order and judgment entered by Judge Cerezo in the District Court of Puerto Rico. The Secretary of the International Union, Robert Gleason, informed the District Director that only the retired members who paid their union dues for the prior six years had the right to vote. When the elections were held on June 9, 1996, therefore, the Secretary and the District Director complied with Gleason's directive and prohibited the retired members who have not paid their dues from voting. Why Local 1575 never filed a formal complaint with the International Longshoremen Association or the Secretary of Labor is unclear. In the complaint, Local 1575 simply states that "Plaintiff and Defendant have no adequate remedy at law to determine the rights of the pensioners to vote." Pl's Compl., Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 8.
In Local 1575's motion for summary judgment, it states that the District Director permitted eighty retired union members to vote but would not count their vote unless this Court ordered otherwise. Pl's Mot. Summ.J., Dkt. No. 13 at Statement of Material Facts. The votes of these eighty members could have affected the election of the Treasurer and two Directors. Id. at 2-3. Local 1575 concluded its motion with the request that "the Court enter summary judgment declaring the rights of pensioners to vote and their vote be counted in the June 9, 1996 elections." Id. at 8.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Defs.' Cross-Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 17 at 2-3. Although Defendants base their argument on the erroneous concept that Judge Cerezo has retained jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of the June 9, 1996 union elections, in an independent examination of Local 1575's complaint the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. See 29 U.S.C.A. 401 et seq. (West 1985).
The Court forewarned Local 1575 that the Court may lack subject-matter jurisdiction over its complaint because the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 "requires not only the exhaustion of all remedies available with the union but also the filing of a complaint with the Secretary of Labor before proceeding with any further action." September 17, 1996 Order, Dkt. No. 18. In fact, the Court asked Local 1575 to "consider carefully" the Court's jurisdiction over the issue. Unfortunately, in its response, Local 1575 failed to discuss the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Pl.'s Reply, Dkt. No. 19. For the benefit of the parties, the Court shall explain briefly why this dispute is not ripe for the District Court of Puerto Rico's review.
Under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes arising out of alleged violations of Title I and Title IV of the Act. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 412 & 482 (West 1985). Title I protects the labor organization member's (a) right to be free of discrimination, (b) freedom of speech and assembly, (c) union dues and initiation fees, (d) right to sue, and (e) freedom from improper disciplinary action. Id.; Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 536-37, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 2563-64, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984); Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 139, 85 S.Ct. 292, 295-96, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964); Meader v. District Lodge No. 4, IUMSWA, 786 F.Supp. 95, 101 (D.Me.1992). These liberties are known as the union member's "bill of rights." Pursuant to section 102 of Title I, union members neither need to exhaust their remedies under the local bylaws nor file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. They may file a complaint alleging a violation of their bill of rights directly in federal court. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 411 & 412 (West 1985).
Title IV, in contrast, governs the rules and regulations for union elections. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 481 & 482 (West 1985). "Title IV sets up a statutory scheme governing the election of union officers, fixing terms during which they hold office, requiring that elections be by secret ballot, regulating the handling of campaign literature, requiring a reasonable opportunity for the nomination of candidates, authorizing unions to fix `reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed' for candidates, and attempting to guarantee fair union elections in which all members are allowed to participate." Calhoon, 379 U.S. at 140, 85 S.Ct. at 296 (emphasis added). This latter category includes the requirement that "every member in good standing ... shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of his choice, without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper interference or reprisal of any kind by such organization or any member thereof." 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(e) (West.1985).
Unlike individuals alleging violations of Title I, persons filing complaints alleging violations of Title IV must exhaust all the remedies available under the constitution and bylaws of the union. 29 U.S.C.A § 482(a) (West 1985). Once the person fulfills this requirement without obtaining a remedy, he or she must file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. Id. "The challenged election shall be presumed valid pending a final decision thereon ... and in the interim the affairs of the organization shall be conducted by the officers elected or in such other manner as its constitution and bylaws may provide." Id. The Act gives the Secretary the discretion to investigate the complaint and file an appropriate complaint in the federal courts. "In so doing Congress, with one exception not here relevant, decided not to permit individuals to block or delay union elections by filing federal court suits for violations of Title IV." Calhoon, 379 U.S. at 140, 85 S.Ct. at 296. Section 403 establishes clearly that Title IV provides the exclusive means by which union...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robles v. International Longshoremen Ass'n
...467 U.S. at 536-37, 104 S.Ct. 2557; Molina v. Union De Trabajadores De Muelles, 762 F.2d 166, 167 (1st Cir.1985); Local 1575, ILA v. Reich, 951 F.Supp. 329, 331 (D.P.R.1996). An aggrieved union member may enforce Title I by filing a private action in federal court. 29 U.S.C. § 412; see also......