Maceira v. Pagan

• Decision Date: 19 August 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 80-1029.
• Citation: 501 F. Supp. 641
• Parties: Efrain MACEIRA et al., Plaintiffs, v. Luis Enrique PAGAN et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

501 F. Supp. 641

Efrain MACEIRA et al., Plaintiffs, v. Luis Enrique PAGAN et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 80-1029.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

August 19, 1980.

Ellis Boal, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Alejandro Torres Rivera, Torres & Velaz, Rio Piedras, P. R., for defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

TORRUELLA, District Judge.

In this action Plaintiffs¹ seek injunctive relief and damages against Defendants² pursuant to the so-called Bill of Rights provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. (more specifically 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(1), 411(a)(2), 412, 501(a) and 529). Plaintiffs claim a right to reinstatement of Plaintiff Maceira to his position as local general steward and further seek to enjoin Defendants "to cease infringing or denying member's rights to speak, write, assemble, or organize regarding union matters ... and ... disciplining any member for exercise (sic) of these rights."

Upon issuance of an Order to Show Cause, a hearing was held on July 11, 1980 to determine whether a preliminary injunction was proper. At the hearing both testimonial and documentary evidence was presented to the Court, whereupon we make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Local 901 is the bargaining agent for the employees of the Hotel Condado Beach-Hotel La Concha-Convention Center bargaining unit in San Juan, Puerto Rico.³

2. Defendant Pagán is the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 901 and its chief executive officer.

3. Plaintiff Maceira is and has been a member in good standing of Local 901 since February, 1977, and has been an employee of the La Concha unit throughout said period of time and at present.

4. Plaintiff Employees are also members in good standing of Local 901 and employees of the bargaining unit.

5. On or about April, 1979 Plaintiff Maceira was elected local general steward of the employees of the bargaining unit.

6. Article XXIX of the Constitution and By-Laws of Local 901 (Exhibit A), in substance makes the steward⁴ responsible for the internal administration of the bargaining unit, including the handling of grievances at a preliminary stage. Intervention at a more formal level is the responsibility of the business representatives (Section 6.39) or higher authority (Section 6.03). Although elected by the membership, stewards may be "removed in such manner as the Executive Board may determine" (Section 19.08), which we deem to mean, for cause.⁵

7. Plaintiff Maceira, with the exception of the instances hereinafter noted, performed his duties as a steward in an adequate manner.

8. Plaintiff Maceira engaged in various activities which can generally be described as directed against the leadership of Local 901, and more particularly, against Defendant Pagán. These included, among others, joining and participating in a group called "TALC",⁶ seeking the support of the steward's council for the general dissemination of the by-laws of Local 901, and opposing a mandatory disaster fund fee to be assessed against the membership.

9. Plaintiff Maceira was also highly and publicly critical of Defendants' handling of an arbitration case involving the discharge of a La Concha bartender, Angel Martínez. Plaintiff Maceira advised Martínez to sue the Union and otherwise surreptitiously aided and promoted Martínez in other actions directed at Local 901. Martínez finally did not follow Plaintiff Maceira's advice, and with Local 901's aid, is presently seeking the setting aside of the award against him.

10. On November 22, 1979, Plaintiff Maceira wrote the Secretary of Labor of Puerto Rico claiming violations by the bargaining unit employers of the Christmas Bonus Law (29 LPRA 501 et seq.) and asking that an investigation be conducted of the books of said employers. Thereafter, on November 30, 1979, Plaintiff Maceira issued a written press release, and held a press conference, regarding these matters, which received wide circulation in the local press. These actions are outside of Plaintiff Maceira's scope of duties as steward and Defendants did not authorize the same.

11. At approximately this same time Plaintiff Maceira held another press conference in support of a strike then in effect by the employees of the Caribe Hilton Hotel, who are represented by a rival labor organization. This conference was covered by the local and national news media. These actions by Plaintiff Maceira were also ultra vires. Plaintiff Maceira also cooperated with the Caribe Hilton picket line, but it is not clear whether this was done in an individual or an official capacity.

12. On December 7, 1979 Defendant Pagán called a meeting of all stewards, which was to be held at the Sheraton Hotel. The purpose of the meeting was a Christmas party and no official business was to be conducted. Plaintiff Maceira arrived before the meeting formally started intending to discuss various union matters. He forcefully attempted to close down the bar and to address the delegates. After the meeting was formally opened he was given the opportunity to talk to the assembly, but they voted against his proposal to the effect that serious union business be discussed. Various insults were exchanged between Plaintiff Maceira and Defendant Pagán, and thereafter, Plaintiff Maceira walked out of the gathering with various followers, and the party continued.

13. On December 21, 1979, Defendant Pagán wrote Plaintiff Maceira informing him of his removal as steward in that he did not "represent the best interests of the Union." Defendant Pagán cited Plaintiff Maceira's activities as delegate in dealing with the Martínez case, in holding the Christmas bonus press conference, and during the Christmas party, as examples of this conduct. Defendant Pagán's action was later ratified by Local 901's board of directors at its January 11, 1980 meeting.

14. Plaintiff Maceira has filed an administrative appeal pursuant to Local 901's internal procedures, which is presently pending before the International's General Executive Board.⁷

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Among other things, the allegations of the parties bring into focus "the fine line which must be drawn between what might be termed insubordination on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other",⁸ when dealing with the actions of a union official who is also a member of the labor organization in which he is an official.

There is no question but that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, supra, gives members of labor organizations the right of free speech and assembly vis-a-vis their labor organizations and the officialdom thereof.⁹ Furthermore, the rights thereby created are enforceable by an action in this Court.¹⁰

The free speech rights created by this Statute are far-reaching and even include what amounts to a license by members to engage in libel against union officials concerning union affairs. Salzhandler v. Capute, 316 F.2d 445 (C.A.2, 1963), cert. den. 375 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 344, 11 L.Ed.2d 275 (1963); Keeffe Brothers v. Teamsters, Local 592, 562 F.2d 298, 304 (C.A.4, 1977); Semancik v. UMW, District 5, 466 F.2d 144 (C.A.3, 1972); Fulton Lodge No. 2 v. Nin, 415 F.2d 212 (C.A.5, 1969), cert. den. 406 U.S. 946, 92 S.Ct. 2044, 32 L.Ed.2d 332 (1972).

There is however, a clear distinction between what a union member can say and do as a member, and his statements and actions when acting in the capacity of a union representative or official. Although union members do not lose their free speech rights by accepting official responsibilities and duties within the union,¹¹ the ball does not stop there. As the court said in Sewell v. Grand Lodge of Int. Ass'n. of Mach. & Aero. Wkrs., 445 F.2d 545 (C.A.5, 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 1024, 92 S.Ct. 674, 30 L.Ed.2d 674 (1972), at pages 550-552:

"... This conclusion, however, does not permit an employee who accepts employment for the performance of certain specified duties to take the largesse and pay of the union, on the one hand, and, on the other, to completely subvert the purposes of his employment by engaging in activities diametrically opposed to the performance of his specified duties. As Judge Bell observed in Airline Maintenance Lodge 702, etc. v. Loudermilk: 444 F.2d 719 (C.A.5, 1971)

The rights of a union member under this statute must be balanced against the right preserved to the union to make rules as to the responsibility of the member toward the union as an institution. And this balancing process must rest on the facts.

To permit an individual to accept union employment, to receive union pay, and to enjoy the prestige of a union position, while spending his employer's time opposing the plans and policies he was employed to execute, would in our judgment, be unreasonable. All employees, whether they work for a union or a large commercial company, may be required at times to subordinate personal expression to the responsibilities of their employment. An essential and elemental ingredient of all employment is basic loyalty by employees to the employer in performing the duties of the job for which they were hired. If a conflict of interest arises between an individual's desire to oppose the plans and policies of his employer and the discharge of the duties of the position in which he is employed, fundamental considerations of fair play would require him to remove himself from such a position.

To hold that a union has no right to discharge an employee for insubordination under the facts of this case would, we believe, seriously detract from effective, cohesive union leadership. The result might well be weak, ineffective and fragmented unions which would be paralyzed in bargaining for the rights and welfare of union members against the monolithic front of large commercial corporations in the modern commercial world. For this very reason it has long been the philosophy of collective bargaining and other vital union activities that the union representing the employees should be

...