McNamara v. Johnston, 71 C 654.
Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 71 C 654.,71 C 654. |
Citation | 360 F. Supp. 517 |
Parties | Bernard W. McNAMARA et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert JOHNSTON et al., Defendants, UAW, Intervenor. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William J. O'Brien, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Harold A. Katz and Irving M. Friedman, of Katz & Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Stephen I. Schlossberg, Gen. Counsel UAW, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-intervenor.
This cause comes on the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
This is an action for an alleged breach of the fiduciary duty imposed on defendants under Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 ( ) 29 U.S.C. § 501(a).
The plaintiffs are employed as production unit workers in the Fisher Body Plant of General Motors Corporation at Willow Springs, Illinois, and are dues paying members of the International United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW"), the designated collective bargaining representative of production unit workers in the plant. The plaintiff, Bernard W. McNamara, in addition to being a dues paying member of UAW, also serves in the capacity of Recording Secretary of UAW, Local 558, a post to which he was duly elected by the membership of the Local. The plaintiffs bring this action as members of UAW for the benefit of the union and its members.
The defendant, Robert Johnston, is Regional Director of UAW, Region 4, a region which includes the State of Illinois. Robert Johnston also serves as Chairman of the UAW Illinois State Community Action Program Council ("CAP").
Defendant James Wright is Chairman of the UAW Chicago Area CAP Council. Defendants Johnston, Wright and Peterson exercise custody and control over Illinois CAP funds, and all decisions respecting the use and expenditure of such funds.
Defendant Emil Mazey is Secretary-Treasurer of UAW International and in such capacity receives and handles union funds as hereinafter described.
Defendant Leonard Woodcock is International President of UAW and in such capacity exercises control and direction over the handling and expenditure of union funds.
The plaintiffs, in the complaint, allege, inter alia, the following facts:
The plaintiffs seek an order of this Court requiring defendants to furnish an accounting and repay in damages to the Union all monies unlawfully diverted by them.5
The defendants, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, contend:
The plaintiffs, in opposition to the instant motion, contend that the complaint states a proper cause of action according to 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) and has met the procedural requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 501(b).
It is the opinion of this Court that the plaintiffs' claims do not constitute a proper cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 501.
THE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 29 U.S.C. § 501.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 501. This legislation confers fiduciary status upon union officers who deal with the property and funds of a union. As a fiduciary under the Act, a union officer must account to his union for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the union.6 The statute further provides that any breach of fiduciary duty shall not be relieved by a subsequent exculpatory resolution passed either by the union itself or by its governing board. Should a union or its governing board fail or refuse to sue, recover damages or secure an accounting within reasonable time any member of the union may sue in a federal court in a derivative capacity for the benefit of the union.7
The clear intent of Congress in enacting this legislation was to weed out instances of corruption and breach of trust; to preserve the rights of individual union members; and to insure high standards of responsibility on the part of, at that time, powerful and sometimes detached and autocratic union officers. Richardson v. Tyler, 309 F.Supp. 1020 (N.D.Ill.1970); Purcell v. Keane, 277 F.Supp. 252 (E.D.Pa.1967). Thus the precise issue of the instant action is whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duty in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501.
Section 501(a) of the Act literally requires, and was intended to so require, union officers to expend union funds in accordance with the union's constitution and bylaws and any resolution of the governing bodies adopted thereunder.8
Congress did not in Section 501, or elsewhere in the Act, attempt to regulate or limit the purposes for which a union may spend its money, and the use of the phrase "taking into account the special problems and that the labor organization" indicates an awareness of the fact that the labor union of today does not typically confine its activities to "business unionism."9 What the Act does require is that expenditures of a union's funds as well as use of its other assets, be exclusively for purposes which are authorized by its constitution, bylaws, and any pertinent resolutions of its governing body.10 Congress did not intend § 501 to be a bar to union expenditures for political activity. Nowhere in the Act is there an attempt to limit or regulate the purposes for which a union uses its funds. The very words which are embodied in § 501 of the Statute — ". . . taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization . . ." indicates a recognition of the political realities of modern unionism. Senator McClellan, the principal Congressional proponent of fiduciary responsibility for union officials, stated:
105 Cong.Rec. 6526 (Daily Ed., April 23, 1959); II Legislative History of the Labor Management Act of 1959, at 1131 (1959).11
It is clear that political expenditures of union funds which are authorized by its constitution, bylaws, and any pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McNamara v. Johnston, 73-1829
...court granted the motion to intervene, 55 F.R.D. 441 (N.D.Ill.1972), and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, 360 F.Supp. 517 (N.D.Ill.1973). This appeal followed. We After we heard oral argument, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Federal Election Campai......
-
Farrington v. Benjamin, Civ. A. No. 76-40053.
...of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Such acts are void as against public policy. 29 U.S.C. 501(a); McNamara v. Johnston, 360 F.Supp. 517 (D.C.Ill., 1973); aff'd 522 F.2d 1157 (CA 7, 1975), cert. den'd 425 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 1506, 47 L.Ed.2d 8. A union officer who conforms ......
-
Gabauer v. Woodcock, 72C 180 (A).
... ... With respect to Count II, a Section 501 action, in McNamara v. Johnston, likewise a Section 501 action, 7 Cir., 522 F.2d 1157, 1157-67 ... ...
- Austin v. Calhoon