Local No. 2, Int. Bro. of Tel. W. v. International Bro. of Tel. W.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 66-432-C.
• Citation: 261 F. Supp. 433
• Parties: LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS and Alton S. MacDonald, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

261 F. Supp. 433

LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS and Alton S. MacDonald, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 66-432-C.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

December 15, 1966.

Warren H. Pyle, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Joseph T. Doyle, Condon, O'Callaghan & Doyle, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

OPINION

CAFFREY, District Judge.

This is a civil action brought by Local No. 2, International Brotherhood of Telephone Workers, against the International Brotherhood of Telephone Workers, seeking temporary and permanent restraining orders enjoining defendant International from suspending the charter of Local No. 2, from suspending the authority of the officers of Local No. 2, and enjoining defendant Alton S. MacDonald from administering the affairs of Local No. 2.

The following appears from the amended verified complaint and the answer thereto: Jurisdiction of this court is based on the provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. Both parties are labor organizations as defined in Sec. 3(i) of the Act. Local No. 2 has approximately 1,100 members. Defendant International has about 12,000 members. All members of both labor organizations are employees of the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company. Defendant Alton S. MacDonald is a resident of Boston and a member of the Executive Council of International.

On May 31, 1966, acting by its President, Gerald J. Walsh, the International caused a letter to be written and delivered to plaintiff which letter purported to "suspend the charter of Local Union No. 2 in that said Local refused to observe the decisions and instructions of the International Executive Council relative to the strike action of the Local on May 13, 1966. On the same day, International designated Alton S. MacDonald "to be in complete charge of all of the affairs of the Local," and made demand on the members and officers of Local No. 2 to turn over "all books, papers, money and property of the Local which is in your possession." Each officer of Local No. 2 was advised that he "no longer has any power to act in a representative capacity for any member under the jurisdiction of Local Union No. 2."

The matter came before the Court for hearing on plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction and was orally argued by counsel, after which the parties filed briefs in support of their respective contentions. The crux of plaintiff's claim for equitable relief is its contention that, in legal effect, what the International did in "suspending" the charter of Local No. 2 and in installing MacDonald to take over and conduct all business of the Local was impose a trusteeship over the Local in such a way as to violate mandatory requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 462 and 29 U.S.C. § 464(c).

Jurisdiction exists in this court for the filing of a complaint of the type herein involved by a Local under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 464(a), which provides in pertinent part:

"Any * * * subordinate body of a labor organization affected by any violation of this subchapter * * * may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the labor organization for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate."

29 U.S.C. § 402(h) defines "trusteeship" as follows:

"`Trusteeship' means any receivership, trusteeship, or other method of supervision or control whereby a labor organization suspends the autonomy otherwise available to a subordinate body under its constitution or bylaws."

I rule that the action of the International on May 31, 1966 was the imposition of a trusteeship within the meaning of 29 U. S.C. § 402(h).

The next contention of plaintiff to be resolved is the argument that there has been a non-compliance by the International with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 462:

"Trusteeships shall be established and administered by a labor organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the organization which has assumed trusteeship * * *." (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff urges that the constitution of the International, a copy of which is appended to the complaint as Exhibit A, contains no provision for the establishment of a trusteeship. An examination of this document shows that Article V, Section 4 thereof, empowers the International president "to suspend or revoke the charter of any Local Union that refuses to observe the law or decisions rendered by proper authority." I rule that a necessary implication of this power to suspend a charter is the power to take over the supervision and operation of the affairs of the Local during the vacuum created by the suspension of the charter, i.e., impose a trusteeship.

This ruling, in turn, raises the question whether or not a trusteeship so created complies with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 464(c):

"* * * trusteeship established by a labor organization in conformity with the procedural requirements of its constitution and bylaws * * *."

I rule that the constitution of the International does not contain any procedural requirements for the establishment of a trusteeship and that, on the contrary, the constitution provides only for an appellate review procedure. In United Bro. of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. Brown, 343 F.2d 872 (10th Cir.1965), the Court struck down a trusteeship established under an International constitution with a provision in its constitution which stated in pertinent part:

"The General Executive Board is empowered to take such action as is necessary and proper for the welfare of the Union, subject, however, to the right of appeal to the next General Convention." (p. 878, n. 4.)

The Court ruled that Section 462 "requires at the very least that the organization's constitution and bylaws set forth the circumstances under which a trusteeship may be established over its local unions and the manner or procedure in which it is to be imposed." (p. 882.)

I rule that Article V, Section 4, of the constitution of the defendant herein, complies with one of the requirements of Section 462, namely, that it set out the circumstances under which a trusteeship may be established, but it fails to set out the manner or procedure under which a trusteeship is to be imposed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that by reason of the prohibitions of Section 462 an International Union has no inherent right to establish a trusteeship over a Local absent an express constitutional provision authorizing such action. Flight Engineers International Assn., etc. v. Continental Air Lines, 297 F.2d 397 (9th Cir.1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 871, 82 S.Ct. 1141, 8 L.Ed.2d 276.

The legislative history of the Act shows that one of the purposes of Congress in enacting the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act was to place limitations on the right of International Unions to place Local Unions in trusteeships,¹ and it certainly intended that constitutional provisions allowing the imposition of a trusteeship should be more...