Lonsford v. Burton

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Parties: , 34 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2100, 25 Lab.Cas. P 68,268 LONSFORD et al. v. BURTON et al.
• Citation: Lonsford v. Burton, 200 Or. 497, 267 P.2d 208 (Or. 1954)
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 24 February 1954

Page 208

267 P.2d 208

200 Or. 497, 34 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2100,

25 Lab.Cas. P 68,268

LONSFORD et al. v.BURTON et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued Oct. 21, 1953.

Decided Feb. 24, 1954.

Stuart W. Hill, Portland, argued the cause for appellants.On the brief were James L. Means, and Kerr & Hill, Portland.

Thomas H. Tongue, III, Portland, argued the cause for defendants-respondents and intervenors-respondents.On the brief were Clif.Langsdale, Kansas City, Mo., and Hicks, Davis & Tongue, Portland.

Before LATOURETTE, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND, TOOZE, and PERRY, JJ.

BRAND, Justice.

This is a class suit in equity brought by three members of Local 401 of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America 'on behalf of themselves and all other members of Local 401,' seeking equitable relief from alleged interference with the affairs of Local 401 by the International Brotherhood, with which Local 401 is affiliated.Plaintiffs prosecute this appeal from a decree entered in the lower court in favor of the defendants dismissing the cause.

The suit was commenced on 4 May 1951, with the filing of the original complaint.An amended and supplemental complaint was filed by the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County on July 10, 1951.The complaint alleges that Local 401 is a voluntary, unincorporated association of approximately 140 members; that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court; that plaintiffs Lonsford, Coffey and Osburnsen, being members in good standing, therefore sue on behalf of all except the defendant Burton, and that the plaintiffs'have paid initiation fees and dues into the treasury of said Local which fees and dues, together with the surplus accumulated therefrom in the past, amount to the sum of approximately $300,000.'The International Brotherhood is described as a voluntary, unincorporated association and the parent organization of Local 401, and the defendants are identified as officials of the International.Concerning the defendant Burton, it is alleged that he'is a member of the Local.He is also an officer and agent of the International, trustee of the funds of the Local, and the officer and agent in charge of the affairs of said Local.He has never been elected by the Local [as] one of its officers or agents, but was appointed by the International and is now serving as the only governing officer and trustee of said Local.'A printed copy of the constitution and by-laws of the International Brotherhood and of the subordinate lodges or locals is physically attached to and made a part of the complaint.The constitution of the subordinate lodge designates the officers thereof and their duties and provides that they shall be elected by the subordinate lodges and be responsible to the International.It is further alleged:

'That from the establishment of the Local in Vancouver, Washington, about January 1943, the affairs of the said Local * * * have been administered by representatives of the International appointed by the International for that purpose and the funds of the said Local have been under the trusteeship of representatives of the International appointed by the International for that purpose.* * * On or about January 16, 1951 the Governing Board of the Local which had been appointed by the International, was dissolved by the International, and the said board was notified of that action on January 25, 1951.On the date last mentioned the defendantHarold E. Burton was appointed International Trustee of the Local by the International to take over the affairs and funds of the Local.The said defendant is now acting as such International Trustee in violation of the rights of the Local and the members thereof.'

It is then alleged that the defendants without right or justification transferred the offices of the Local to Roseburg, Oregon, without the knowledge or consent of the Local, and that the Local will not be returned to Vancouver, Washington, unless ordered to do so by this Court.It is further alleged that the International exercised unlawful control over the affairs and funds of the Local

'by transferring the offices of the Local without the knowledge or consent of the Local or the members thereof, to Roseburg, Oregon, and informing the members of the Local that they could either become affiliated with Local 72 of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, in Portland, Oregon, or could remain affiliated with the Local at Roseburg, Oregon.Requests for transfer of membership from the Local to Local 72 was made for many members of the Local, but Local 72 has failed to permit affiliation of any members of the Local.The members of the Local do not desire to affiliate with Local 72 and would not have permitted the request for affiliation to be made for them had they known they had any choice in the matter excepting to affiliate with Local 72 or to remain affiliated with the Local at Roseburg, Oregon. * * *'

Plaintiffs allege that many members of the Local, including the three named plaintiffs, reside and work in Vancouver, and are unwilling to move to Roseburg.Fear is expressed that unless the Local is retransferred to Vancouver, the plaintiffs will be unable to exercise the rights given them by their membership.The complaint sets forth the following provision of the subordinate lodge constitution:

'Article XV, Section 2: 'The funds and property of the subordinate lodge shall be trust funds for the benefit of its members and shall not be divided in any manner among the members of the subordinate lodge.'

'Article I, Section 9: '* * * No money shall be drawn out of such depository * * * and no amounts shall be withdrawn or security engaged without the consent of a majority of the members in good standing at the meeting of the subordinate lodge.''

It is asserted that the defendants, through the defendant Burton, have removed the funds, are improperly administering them, and are depriving the plaintiffs of benefits which would be derived from the maintenance in Vancouver of a labor union.It is further alleged that the defendants have deprived Local 401 of all of its jurisdiction which was given to it under its charter, and that such jurisdiction has been transferred to Local 72 of Portland, Oregon.Lastly, it is alleged that since the filing of the original complaint, the defendants have been and now are attempting to expel from membership certain members of said Local without any hearing, and without just cause.The prayer is for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the Local, and from maintaining the office of the Local at any place other than Vancouver, and from expelling the plaintiffs.They seek an accounting and receiver and a restoration of the funds of the Local.

The three specifically-named defendants filed an answer on behalf of themselves only, and not on behalf of any other members of the International.In addition to formal matters, the defendants admit that the affairs of the Local have been administered by representatives of the International, and that no meetings of the Local have been held and no officers elected, and that Harold E. Burton was appointed by the International as trustee to administer the affairs of the Local.They admit that the charter of the Local has been moved to Roseburg, Oregon, and will not be returned to Vancouver.They admit that the jurisdiction formerly given to Local 401 was taken away and given to Local 71.The defendants admit that the defendant Burton declined to accept monthly dues from the plaintiff Lonsford, and from one John Stucklik because they were residing within the jurisdiction of Local 72, but defendants allege that the said Lonsford and Stucklik were permitted, and did, pay their dues to the International.The defendants further allege that the plaintiffs have failed to exercise the right of appeal to the executive council of the International and that the court has no power to intervene in the dispute.They allege that any order such as that prayed for in the complaint would abridge the constitutional rights of the members of the International peaceably to assemble and would impair the obligation of the contract between the local union and the International and would deny to the defendants due process of law.As a separate defense, it is alleged that at no time since the formation of Local 401 in 1943 has there been any request or demand by the Local, or by any of its members, for the holding of meetings or the election of officers or any objections to the conduct of the affairs of the Local, except as indicated by the filing of the complaint.

As a fifth separate defense, it is alleged that on June 12, 1951 an order was duly entered in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, in the nature of a restraining order, and appointing a receiver to supervise certain funds of Local 401, and that after hearing in open court, the provisions of the said order were, on July 6, 1951, continued in effect.The orders of the federal court are set forth as exhibits to the answer.The reply was in the nature of a general denial, except that they admit that the orders of the federal court were made as alleged in the answer.

On September 5, 1951 eight separate documents purporting to be petitions in intervention were filed by members of Local 401, in opposition to the complaint of the plaintiffs.Ninety-five persons who are members of Local 401 have signed one or more of the petitions which were allowed as such by an oral order of the court during the progress of the trial.The plaintiffs filed a general denial to the petitions in intervention.The petitions and their effect will be considered at a later point in this opinion.

A brief review of the facts, as we find them to be, is necessary for an understanding of the legal problems involved.

It appears from the...