LOCAL U. 1219, UNITED BRO. OF C. & J. v. UNITED BRO. OF C. & J.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 10-199.
• Citation: 314 F. Supp. 148
• Parties: LOCAL UNION 1219, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

314 F. Supp. 148

LOCAL UNION 1219, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civ. No. 10-199.

United States District Court, D. Maine, S. D.

June 15, 1970.

G. Curtis Webber, Auburn, Me., for plaintiff.

Errol K. Paine, William S. Cohen, James G. Lynch, Bangor, Me., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

GIGNOUX, District Judge.

This is an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1964), brought by a local union against its parent international, seeking injunctive relief and damages for the failure of defendant to fulfill obligations claimed to have been assumed by it in plaintiff's charter. The present lawsuit is the culmination of a long-standing jurisdictional dispute concerning the representation of millwrights in the State of Maine. Plaintiff contends that by its charter defendant conferred upon it exclusive state-wide jurisdiction over millwrights and undertook to support plaintiff in asserting and maintaining this jurisdiction, but that defendant has failed to support plaintiff's jurisdictional claims and has acquiesced in the continued representation of millwrights in this state by defendant's affiliated carpenter locals.

Plaintiff first brought suit in this Court on February 26, 1969. On May 15, 1969, the Court dismissed the complaint in that action because of plaintiff's failure to allege or otherwise to show either exhaustion of its intra-union remedies or excuse for its failure to do so. See Local 1219 Carpenters v. International Brotherhood of Carpenters, Civil No. 10-172 (D.Me. May 15, 1969). The present action was filed on June 2, 1969. On July 22, 1969 the Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, holding, insofar as here material,¹ that plaintiff was entitled to the opportunity to establish by proof at trial a legally sufficient excuse for its admitted failure to exhaust its intra-union remedies. Plaintiff was provided that opportunity at a three-day trial on February 2-4, 1970. Having now considered the evidence submitted by the parties and the written and oral arguments of counsel, the Court has concluded that the action must be dismissed because the record clearly discloses that plaintiff has not exhausted the internal appeal procedures prescribed by defendant's Constitution and Laws, and has not shown any legally sufficient excuse for its failure to do so.

I

There is no substantial dispute over the essential factual background of the present litigation. Defendant is a large international union claiming jurisdiction over carpenters and the various subdivisions of the carpenters' trade, including millwrights.² For many years prior to 1966, jurisdiction over both carpenters and millwrights in the State of Maine was vested in five local carpenter unions chartered by defendant, each having geographical jurisdiction within a defined area of the state. These were Local 621 (Bangor), Local 348 (Waterville), Local 914 (Augusta), Local 407 (Lewiston), and Local 517 (Portland).³ Historically, these five local carpenter unions have been parties to collective bargaining agreements, which are renegotiated every two years, with the so-called "local," or intrastate, contractors in this state. By the terms of these agreements the local carpenter unions have been recognized as the appropriate bargaining representatives for millwrights in their respective geographical areas. Additionally, defendant has entered into an "international agreement" with the so-called "international," or interstate, contractors doing business in Maine, by the terms of which the international contractors recognize defendant's jurisdictional claims and agree to be bound by the terms of the collective bargaining contract in effect between the local contractors and the recognized bargaining agency of the locality in which an international contractor is working.

On June 15, 1966 defendant chartered plaintiff, Local 1219, as a new local with jurisdiction to represent all millwrights in the State of Maine.⁴ It is uncontroverted that the carpenter locals vehemently opposed the formation of a millwrights' union.⁵ During the summer of 1966, defendant's General President instructed the carpenter locals not to bargain for millwrights in the new contracts which were then being negotiated with the local contractors. Only Local 621 (Bangor) heeded this directive, but as the result of an unfair labor practice charge filed against it by a local contractor, it acceded to a compromise settlement, one condition of which was that it would continue to bargain for millwrights. In the meantime, the other four carpenter locals simply ignored the General President's order.

From its inception plaintiff has been confronted by the frank hostility of the carpenter locals, and its road has been a rocky one. It has long since abandoned its initial effort to furnish millwrights to the local contractors,⁶ and its attempts to supply millwrights to the international contractors have been consistently frustrated by the refusal of defendant's General President to inform the international contractors that they could hire plaintiff's members on their jobs in Maine.⁷ In the absence of such assurance, the international contractors, with only two exceptions, have been unwilling to recognize plaintiff as the bargaining agent for their millwrights.⁸ As a result, plaintiff's membership has dropped from a peak of 110 members in the summer of 1966 to approximately 50 members at the present time.

The record is clear that throughout the period since the granting of its charter plaintiff has sought the assistance of defendant's General President, general counsel and regional representatives in establishing its state-wide jurisdiction over all millwright work. Plaintiff's business agent and its counsel have repeatedly written, telegraphed and met with these officials and have requested the General President to instruct the carpenter locals that they are not authorized to bargain for millwrights, and to furnish the international contractors with written authorization to obtain millwrights from plaintiff. None of these efforts have met with success. Plaintiff has not, however, instituted any appeal either to defendant's General Executive Board or to its General Convention from the failure of the General President to accede to plaintiff's demands.⁹ Asserting that it would be futile for it to do so, plaintiff now turns to the courts for relief.

II

Section 57(G) and (H) of defendant's Constitution and Laws, as amended January 1, 1968, provides:

(G) Any member, or any Local Union, District, State or Provincial Council having any grievance may appeal to the General President within thirty days from the date the grievance occurred. All protests directed to the conduct of nominations or elections in any subordinate body may also be appealed to the General President within thirty (30) days from the date of the election. All grievances and election protests shall be in writing and shall contain a brief statement of the grounds relied upon. Decisions of the General President on grievances may be appealed to the General Executive Board subject to a further appeal to the General Convention. Decisions of the General President in cases of protests directed to the conduct of nominations or elections in subordinate bodies may be appealed to the General Executive Board, in which case the decision of the General Executive Board shall be final.

(H) All appeals from decisions of the General President to the General Executive Board must be forwarded to the General Secretary within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the General President's decision. Also any appeal from a decision of the General Executive Board to the General Convention must be forwarded to the General Secretary within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of decision of the General Executive Board.¹⁰

Plaintiff freely admits that it has not complied with these procedures. Plaintiff also concedes that, as a general proposition, parties are not entitled to a judicial resolution of intra-union disputes until they have exhausted available internal appeal procedures. Local 33, Intern. Hod Carriers v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York, supra n. 1, 291 F.2d at 498-500; Local Union No. 28 Electrical Workers v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, supra n. 1, 197 F. Supp. at 107-108. Plaintiff contends, however, that the present case falls within the recognized exception to the general rule where an effort to pursue intra-union remedies would be futile, or result in irreparable injury because of probable delay. Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, supra n. 1, 314 F.2d at 924-925; Farowitz v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York, 330 F.2d 999, 1002-1003 (2d Cir. 1964). Cf. Detroy v. American Guild of Variety Artists, 286 F.2d 75, 77-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 929, 81 S.Ct. 1650, 6 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1961).

In the instant case, the record does not support plaintiff's claim that the appeal to the General Executive Board provided by defendant's Constitution and Laws would be futile or otherwise unreasonable because of delay. Plaintiff's claim of futility is not substantiated by the charge that the General President and other of defendant's officers are "hostile" to p...