Marshall v. Local 299, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 79-1273

• Decision Date: 04 March 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-1273,79-1273
• Citation: 617 F.2d 154
• Parties: 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3155, 89 Lab.Cas. P 12,212 Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor for the U. S. Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Peter Karagozian, Applicant/Plaintiff, Intervenor/Appellant, v. LOCAL 299, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 154

617 F.2d 154

104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3155, 89 Lab.Cas. P 12,212

Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor for the U. S. Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee and Peter Karagozian, Applicant/Plaintiff, Intervenor/Appellant, v. LOCAL 299, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-1273.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1980.

Alvin L. Levine, Levine & Benjamin, Pontiac, Mich., Beate Bloch, Associate Sol., Norris R. Saunders (for Sec'y of Labor), Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

James P. Hoffa, Hoffa, Chodak & Robiner, Detroit, Mich., David Leo Uelmen, Gerry M. Miller, Goldberg, Previant & Uelmen, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant-appellee.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and KEITH and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

BAILEY BROWN, Circuit Judge.

In the fall of 1977, Local 299 of the Teamsters Union, appellee, held an election of officers, and a number of protests by members were filed, claiming impropriety in the conducting of the election, but the protests were ultimately overruled by the union's internal decision makers. Having so exhausted their remedy several of these protesting members then timely filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.). After investigation, the Secretary found probable cause to believe that violations of the Act had occurred and filed a civil action, as authorized by the Act, in the district court to set aside the election and to obtain an order for a new election supervised by him.

Thereafter, Camarata, one of those who had protested to the Secretary and who was an unsuccessful candidate for vice president, and later appellant, Karagozian, who had also so protested and who was an unsuccessful candidate for president, moved to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Secretary did not oppose the intervention by Camarata as first applicant, it being his view that one intervention by a complaining party was appropriate and indeed was required by Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 92 S.Ct. 630, 30 L.Ed.2d 686 (1972). The district judge held, however, that neither applicant met the test for intervention as set out in Trbovich. Only Karagozian brought this appeal.

Thereafter, the Secretary and Local 299 settled the action by stipulation for a new election subject to approval by the district court. The district judge then held a hearing, at which appellant's counsel appeared and opposed the entry of the agreed order and the judge overruled objections and entered an order which, in summary, provides that a new election will be completed on or before May 31, 1980 and those elected will be installed by July 1, 1980, and it further provides that the election will be held in accordance with Title IV of the Act and, insofar as lawful and practicable, in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the local and international.

Local 299 then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as being moot, which appellant opposes, and which has been referred to the hearing panel.

At oral argument, counsel for the Secretary appeared and, though the Secretary did not file a brief, answered questions posed by the court. Counsel stated that it is still the view of the Secretary that Camarata, as the first applicant for intervention, should...