Mori v. INTERN. BROTH. OF BOILERMAKERS, ETC.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1979
• Docket Number: No. C 78-2759 SAW.,C 78-2759 SAW.
• Parties: Robert MORI and Sam Polino, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL LODGE NO. 6, and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

482 F. Supp. 838

Robert MORI and Sam Polino, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL LODGE NO. 6, and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Defendants.

No. C 78-2759 SAW.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

July 5, 1979.

Joe R. McCray, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Charles P. Scully, Donald C. Carroll, San Francisco, Cal., Joseph W. Moreland, Blake & Uhlig, Kansas City, Kan., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEIGEL, District Judge.

The issue in this case is whether an international union has the power to raise dues payable to a local without approval of the members of the local.

Robert Mori and Sam Polino challenge that power in their class action suit for damages and injunctive relief against the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 6 (hereafter "Local 6") and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO (hereafter "the International"). They claim that the increase in their local union dues violates their rights under the constitution of the International and under the "Bill of Rights" of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereafter "LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(1) and 411(a)(3)(A).

Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs are members in good standing of the defendant organizations; that Local 6 is a local labor organization headquartered in San Francisco, California; and that it is a local affiliate of the International, an international labor organization whose principal place of business is in Kansas City, Kansas. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 412 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337.¹

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To prevail on their motion, defendants must show beyond any doubt that the plaintiffs cannot prove sufficient facts to entitle plaintiffs to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Cal. Dump Truck v. Associated General Contractors, 562 F.2d 607, 614 (9th Cir. 1977). Defendants have not made the requisite showing.

For the purposes of deciding this motion, the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. Id.; Mark v. Groff, 521 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 1975). Those allegations are as follows:

Plaintiffs are part of a class of members of Local 6 who have field construction cards and are qualified to work in the construction trade. Prior to August, 1977, the membership of Local 6 established its own local dues rates by secret ballot election. Members of said class paid to Local 6 field dues of $4.00 per month in addition to the regular monthly local dues.

A regular convention of the International was held in August 1977. At that convention a majority of the delegates present and voting "purportedly" adopted a new dues structure applicable only to field construction members. The new structure required that plaintiffs and other field construction members pay not less than two percent of their gross income to their local as a field dues supplement to their regular local dues, unless a lesser amount was approved by the International president.

Since January 1, 1978, defendants have collected local field dues amounting to two percent of gross earnings plus regular local dues of $13.00 per month from plaintiffs and members of their class. The membership of Local 6 has never voted for that increase of field dues. Indeed, plaintiffs and other Local 6 members objected to the increase at a regular local membership meeting prior to the end of 1977. G. P. Campbell, chief executive officer of Local 6, then promised to ask Harold Buoy, president of the International, to relieve the field construction members of the obligation to pay the new field dues. Buoy declined to do so. Thereafter, Local 6 adopted local bylaws specifically excluding the new field dues requirement. Buoy refused to grant approval of the bylaws, his approval being necessary for them to become effective. At a regular local membership meeting in April, 1978, members of Local 6 passed, by a majority vote, a resolution refusing to allow the continuation of the two percent field dues requirement and requesting that Buoy give his permission to halt the collection of those dues. But the requested relief was not forthcoming.

Plaintiffs contend that their rights have been violated by the imposition of the local field dues supplement without the approval of a majority of the Local 6 members in good standing, by the assessment of such dues on field construction workers but not on other members of the union, and by the failure of defendants to give plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to vote on and participate in union business.

Plaintiffs claim that Section 101(a)(3)(A) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(3)(A) provides that local dues may not be increased without the approval of a majority of local members. Defendants dispute this claim. They urge that action by local members is merely one of several permissible methods of establishing local dues. Another such method, they claim, is action by a majority of the delegates voting at an international's regular convention. See 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(3)(B)(i). Defendants maintain that the complaint concedes that the contested dues increase was enacted in precisely that manner. Therefore defendants argue that plaintiffs' claim under Section 411(a)(3)(A) must be dismissed. This argument is not well-taken.

29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part:

"Dues, initiation fees, and assessments. —. . . the rates of dues and initiation fees payable by members of any labor organization in effect on September 14, 1959 shall not be increased, and no general or special assessment shall be levied upon such members, except—

(A) in the case of a local labor organization, (i) by majority vote by secret ballot of the members in good standing voting at a general or special membership meeting, after reasonable notice of the intention to vote upon such question, or (ii) by majority vote of the members in good standing voting in a membership referendum conducted by secret ballot; or

(B) in the case of a labor organization or a federation of national or international labor organizations, (i) by majority vote of the delegates voting at a regular convention, . . . or (ii) by majority vote of the members in good standing of such labor organization voting in a membership referendum conducted by secret ballot, or (iii) by majority vote of the members of the executive board or similar governing body of such labor organization, pursuant to express authority contained in the constitution and bylaws of such labor organization: Provided, That such action on the part of the executive board or similar governing body shall be effective only until the next regular convention of such labor organization."

As plaintiffs contend, Section 101(a)(3) states clearly that dues payable to a local labor organization may be increased only according to the methods provided in Section 411(a)(3)(A), and not by the regular convention of an international. Section 411(a)(3)(B) establishes the methods for increasing dues payable to "a labor organization other than a local labor organization . . .." (emphasis added).

Defendants' reliance on King v. Randazzo, 346 F.3d 307, 309 (2d Cir. 1965) is misplaced. There the court held that the convention of an intermediate union could establish the amount of dues payable to the intermediate union by its members. The case did not involve the question whether an intermediate union's convention can determine the dues payable to locals. See also United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners v. Brown, 343 F.2d 872, 886 (10th Cir. 1965); White v. King, 319 F.Supp. 122, 125 (E.D. La.1970).

Defendants also rely on Ranes v. Office Employees, Local 28, 317 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1963). There it was held that an international may, by convention vote, establish the maxima and minima of rates of dues that affiliated locals must collect from their members. The court noted that international unions had traditionally exercised the power to establish a "local dues structure sufficient to insure the financial health of the union structure." Id. at 917. It reasoned that "We cannot assume that Congress was unaware of the traditional structure and dues practices of labor unions when it enacted 101(a)(3), or that Congress, being aware of the traditional structure and practices, intended by enacting that Section to strip international unions of their traditional power to control the minima and maxima of rates of dues without one word in the Committee Reports expressing that intention." Id. Accordingly, the court rejected the argument that the minimum dues level was not binding on a local unless it was ratified by a majority of the local members pursuant to Section 411(a)(3)(A).²

Neither the court in Ranes nor defendants in this case have suggested, and this Court has not found, anything in the legislative history of the LMRDA to support the Ranes holding. Indeed, Ranes noted that "The legislative history of the Act is silent on this question . . .." Id. Defendants here have cited portions of the legislative history of the LMRDA which, far from supporting their suggested interpretation of Section 101(a)(3), show only that Congress intended to protect union members from "arbitrary financial exactions." 105 Cong. Rec. 2668. See also 2 U.S.Code, Cong. & Admin.News, 1959, at p. 2428. That history also shows that Congress sought to increase rank and file participation in union affairs by ensuring that members of a local union could govern themselves with a minimum of outside interference. See United Brotherhood of...