Nass v. LOCAL 348, WAREHOUSE PRODUCTION, ETC.
Decision Date | 16 December 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79 C 1625.,79 C 1625. |
Citation | 503 F. Supp. 217 |
Parties | Nathan NASS, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 348, WAREHOUSE PRODUCTION, SALES AND SERVICES EMPLOYEES UNION and Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor of The United States, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Rappaport & Frost, New York City, for plaintiff.
O'Connor, Quinlan & Mangan, P. C., for Local 348, by J. Warren Mangan, Long Island City, N.Y.
E. R. Korman, U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y. by Abraham Y. Skoff, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant, Marshall.
This is an action by plaintiff, Nathan Nass, to permanently enjoin the defendant, Local 348, Warehouse Production, Sales and Services Employees from discharging him from union office pursuant to the direction of defendant, Ray Marshall, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. Jurisdiction is predicated on the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531. Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction barring his dismissal. Defendant Marshall has cross-moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits. Defendant Local 348 has filed briefs and affidavits in support of the position of the plaintiff in both motions.
Plaintiff has been employed as Secretary-Treasurer of the defendant union since he was first elected to the post in October 1966. In 1975 plaintiff was indicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, for, inter alia, Grand Larceny by means of Extortion (Indictment 5616/75) and Conspiracy to Commit Labor Bribery (Indictment 5617/75). On February 24, 1978, plaintiff pleaded guilty to Indictment 5617/75 in satisfaction of all charges against him. On March 28, 1978, plaintiff was sentenced to pay a fine of $500.00 and was simultaneously granted a certificate of relief from civil disabilities under New York Correction Law § 701 (McKinney 1972).
In November 1978, the United States Department of Justice advised plaintiff and the defendant union that in view of plaintiff's conviction for conspiracy to commit labor bribery, he was no longer able to hold union office by virtue of 29 U.S.C. § 504. That section, set forth more fully below, bars the holding of union office by one who has been convicted of a crime involving misuse of union office.
In June 1979, plaintiff commenced this action and, by notice of motion dated June 21, 1979, sought a preliminary injunction against his discharge. In view of the fact that plaintiff had filed an appeal of his conviction with the Appellate Division, First Department, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and that plaintiff had not yet received official notice of termination, this Court denied the motion without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Division on February 14, 1980. On August 13, 1980, the defendant union notified plaintiff that he would be terminated. In light of these developments, plaintiff now renews his complaint and application for an injunction.
The sole question for determination in this matter is whether the certificate of relief from civil disabilities issued under New York Correction Law § 701 by the State court judge at the time plaintiff was sentenced on the criminal charges bars the application to plaintiff of 29 U.S.C. § 504.*
New York Correction Law § 701 provides:
It is plain from § 701 that if plaintiff were about to suffer a forfeiture of employment based upon New York law, the policy expressed in § 701 would bar such a forfeiture. In this case, however, 29 U.S.C. § 504 reflects a federal policy concerning the governance of union conduct, a field which Congress has entered through an extensive legislative scheme. The question is thus whether a State court's determination that an individual should not suffer the loss of certain rights following a conviction may override the intention of Congress to purge unions of illegal influences through the actions of their employees and officers. We conclude that it may not.
It is a fundamental constitutional principle that where Congress has entered a field it may lawfully regulate, federal law prevails to the extent that State and federal law conflict. U.S.Const. art. VI, cl. 2. It is equally elemental that preemption of State law by Congress need not be expressly stated in the federal legislation. State authority is also curtailed when congressional action serves as an implicit barrier, i. e., when State legislation would interfere unduly with the accomplishment of congressional objectives. See Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 98 S.Ct. 1185, 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978). Furthermore, State law may not frustrate the operation of federal law even though the State, in passing its law, had some purpose in mind other than one of frustration. Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 91 S.Ct. 1704, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971). In this case, Congress has not expressly provided for a preemptory effect of § 504; however, a perusal of the legislative history and case law interpreting § 504 discloses a strong federal policy which cannot be displaced by what under these circumstances is an inconsistent State law.
355 F.Supp. at 183. In Illario v. Frawley, 426 F.Supp. 1132 (D.N.J.1977) the Court noted that the congressional intent in enacting this legislation was broadly remedial:
One of the regulatory mechanisms selected by Congress to achieve the purification of unions was the proscription contained in § 504, banning certain convicted criminals from holding union office for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Able Cycle Engines, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...as the law of this State in Rehman v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 544 F.2d 71, 74 and Nass v. Local 348, Warehouse Production Sales & Serv. Employees Union, 503 F.Supp. 217, 218. Even more persuasive is United States v. DiNapoli, 557 F.2d 962, 966, cert. den. 434 U.S. 858, 98 S.Ct. ......
-
Miranti v. Amalgamated Indus. Toy & Novelty Workers of Am. Local 223
...defeat the policies of the [LMRDA].” 29 U.S.C. § 401(c); see also Nass v. Local 348, Warehouse Production, Sales and Servs. Emps. Union, 503 F.Supp. 217, 220 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (“[I]n enacting § 504 Congress sought to eliminate the intolerable and corrupt conditions which prevailed throughout ......
-
Carollo v. Herman, 00-CV-346 (JG).
...which distort and defeat the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act...."); Nass v. Local 348, Warehouse Production, Sales and Services Employees Union, 503 F.Supp. 217, 220 (E.D.N.Y.1980) ("[I]n enacting § 504 Congress sought to eliminate the intolerable and corrupt conditions which......
-
U.S. v. Cullison
...USSG § 5J1.1. The Government argues that this approach is supported by the decision in Nass v. Local 348, Warehouse Prod., Sales and Serv. Employees Union, 503 F.Supp. 217 (E.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd mem. 657 F.2d 264 (2d The parties agree that there currently is no precedent establishing the sta......
-
The Difference a Day Makes: How Courts Circumvent Federal Immigration Law at Sentencing
...Morelos, 133 Wash. App. 591,600, 137 P.3d 114, 119 (2006). 89. Nass v. Local 348, Warehouse Prod., Sales and Servs. Employees Union, 503 F. Supp. 217 (E.D.N.Y. 90. Id. at 218. 91. 29 U.S.C. §504(2006). 92. Nass, 503 F. Supp. at 218. 93. Id. 94. Id. at 219. 95. Id. at 221. 96. Id. at 219. 97......