McCormack v. Labor Relations Commission, AFL-CI
| Decision Date | 10 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,I |
| Citation | 266 N.E.2d 651,358 Mass. 682 |
| Parties | , 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2591, 64 Lab.Cas. P 52,493 George E. McCORMACK et al. v. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,ntervener. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Augustus J. Camelio, Boston, for intervener, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.
Warren H. Pyle, Boston, for petitioners.
Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, REARDON, and QUIRICO, JJ.
This is an appeal by the intervener from a final decree of a three-judge Superior Court panel (see G.L. c. 212, § 30, inserted by St.1959, c. 600) ordering the respondent, the Labor Relations Commission (Commission), to certify a voluntary association represented by the petitioners, Massachusetts Public Employees Local 384, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Local 384), as the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees of the Department of Public Works of the Commonwealth in the classification Unit No. 5--Maintenance.
We summarize the relevant facts. In March, 1968, the Commission supervised an election to determine which labor organization should represent a group of maintenance employees of the Department of Public Works. The intervener and Local 384 received the most votes, another union finishing third. Since neither received a majority, a runoff election was held in May, 1968.
The results were:
Local 384 668
Intervener 644
Challenged 21
Blank 38
Void 13
Protested 1
The results were:
A recount left the results substantially unchanged. The Commission, in a 2--1 decision, decided to hold another runoff election on motion of the intervener. Before this election could be held the petitioners brought this petition for a writ of certiorari and obtained an interlocutory decree granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the rerun of the runoff election and ordering the Commission to adjudge the validity of the protested blank, void and challenged votes of the May, 1968, runoff election. This second recount left the result still substantially unchanged and the Commission again rendered another 2--1 decision that neither organization had received a majority.
The petition was then heard on its merits. The intervener filed its second demurrer. The court overruled the demurrer and issued a final decree ordering the Commission to certify Local 384 as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees Unit No. 5--Maintenance. The Commission complied with this order, and has not appealed from the final decree.
The intervener filed a letter with the clerk on February 18, 1969, purporting to appeal from the final decree. The petitioners made a motion to dismiss the appeal based on a number of grounds. This motion was denied after hearing, and petitioners appeal.
Each side raises a number of issues, but in the view we take of this case we find it necessary to discuss only one. We assume without deciding that certiorari was an appropriate remedy. And we also assume that the matter was properly heard by a three-judge panel under G.L. c. 212, § 30. We are of opinion, nevertheless, that the appeal must be dismissed and accordingly the certification of Local 384 by the Commission must stand. We reach this conclusion because we believe that the appeal should have been dismissed on at least one ground set forth by the petitioners in their motion to dismiss, i.e., 'Intervenor is a voluntary, unincorporated association and lacks capacity to be a party to litigation or to appeal, particularly in the absence of any appeal by the * * * (respondent).' General Laws c. 249, § 4, as amended through St.1963, c. 661, § 1, provides, in relevant part, as follows with respect to a petition for a writ of certiorari: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Fairmont v. Retail, Wholesale, and Dept. Store Union, AFL-CIO
...by joining a representative group of its members. This appears to be the more enlightened rule. E. g. McCormack v. Labor Relations Commission, 358 Mass. 682, 266 N.E.2d 651 (1971); 6 Am.Jur.2d Associations and Clubs §§ 54 & 55 (1963); Annot., 92 A.L.R.2d 499 (1963). We recognize, as we did ......
-
Diluzio v. United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of America, Local 274
...See Labor Relations Comm'n v. Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, 374 Mass. 79, 93, 371 N.E.2d 761 (1977); McCormack v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 358 Mass. 682, 685, 266 N.E.2d 651 (1971); Members of Bakery & Confectionery Workers Int'l Union, Local 458 v. Hall Baking Co., 320 Mass. 286, 291 (19......
-
Save the Bay, Inc. v. Department of Public Utilities
...Trinity Polish Roman Catholic Church v. Maria Konopnicka Soc., 331 Mass. 565, 568, 120 N.E.2d 769 (1954). McCormack v. Labor Relations Comm., 358 Mass. 682, 684, 266 N.E.2d 651 (1971). Nevertheless, the record demonstrates that Concerned Citizens was throughout, by its counsel, acting for P......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins.
...Insurance Rating Bd. v. Commissioner of Ins., 359 Mass. 111, 112-113, 268 N.E.2d 144 (1971). Compare McCormack v. Labor Relations Commn., 358 Mass. 682, 684-685, 266 N.E.2d 651 (1971); Mass.R.Civ.P. Rule 23.2, effective July 1, 1974, -- Mass. --. Each company which authorized the filing was......