Null v. Carpenters District Council of Houston

• Decision Date: 20 March 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 63-H-461.
• Parties: William M. NULL, Plaintiff, v. CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF HOUSTON et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

239 F. Supp. 809

William M. NULL, Plaintiff, v. CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF HOUSTON et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 63-H-461.

United States District Court S. D. Texas, Houston Division.

March 20, 1965.

C. Anthony Friloux, Jr., of Friloux & Eddington, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

Glynn W. McDonald, of Combs & Mitchell, Houston, Tex., for defendants.

GRAVEN, Senior District Judge (by assignment).

The plaintiff, a member of a union, was in union proceedings convicted of charges that he violated certain provisions of the by-laws of the union. He seeks, in this action, to set aside that conviction under the provisions of Section 411, Title 29, U.S.C.A. The pertinent portion of Section 411 provides as follows:

(a) (5) "No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing."

(b) "Any provision of the constitution and bylaws of any labor organization which is inconsistent with the provisions of this section shall be of no force or effect."

Section 411 is a part of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Sec. 401 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A.

On April 19, 1962, and for a number of years prior thereto, the plaintiff Null was an active member in good standing of Local Union 213 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The defendant Carpenters District Council of Houston is a council of nine unions in the Houston area belonging to and a part of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. It has a membership of forty. It has an Executive Committee. The District Council has its business office in Harris County, Texas. During the period of time here involved, Fred Lucas was the Secretary-Treasurer of the District Council; Roy Bruce was the Business Agent of Local No. 213 and President of the District Council; and D. O. Goforth was the Business Representative of Local No. 213. They were made defendants to the action.

In February, 1962, the plaintiff was acting in the capacity of job steward for the members of Local 213 working on the construction of the Continental Houston Motel in downtown Houston, Texas. It was the duty of the job steward, under the By-Laws and Trade Rules of the District Council, to examine the credentials of each member of the union under his jurisdiction once each week and to have each member sign a steward's report. Local 213 has no central control over the payment of dues by its members and one of the purposes of having the job steward perform the above-described duties is to insure prompt payment of dues by the members of Local 213. On February 19, 1962, it was brought to the attention of the District Council that the plaintiff may have been derelict in the performance of those duties.

The Constitution, By-Laws and Rules of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America contain numerous sections. Section 55(B) provides as follows:

"Any member charged with violating the By-Laws and Trade Rules of the locality in which he is working, shall be notified in writing to appear before the Executive Committee of the Local Union or District Council as the case may be. If it appears to the satisfaction of the Executive Committee that the violation occurred, the Executive Committee may reprimand the member and make such action a part of the records of the Local Union or District Council or may recommend that the charges be processed in accordance with Section 56."

Section 56 provides, in part, as follows:

"A Any member charged under Section 55 shall be given a fair and impartial trial, and must exhaust all his remedies allowed by Sections 56 and 57 before taking his case to the civil courts.

"B A member must be charged and tried within the jurisdiction of the Local Union or District Council where the offense was committed. Where a District Council exists all charges shall be tried by that body.

"C All charges must be in writing, must specify the particular Paragraph of Section 55 or the particular By-Law or Trade Rule violated, and must contain a brief statement of the facts upon which the charge is based.

"D When charges are filed in the Local Union or District Council, they shall be referred promptly to the Executive Committee of the Local Union or District Council. In the event that the Executive Committee determines that the charges do not conform to the provisions of Paragraphs B and C above or in the even that the charges allege a By-Law or Trade Rule violation which occurred more than thirty (30) days prior to the filing of the charges, the Executive Committee shall return the charges to the member who filed them with a notice that the charges cannot be considered or processed. If the Executive Committee determines that the charges conform to the provisions of Paragraphs B and C above, it shall refer the charges to the Local Union or District Council or if it appears to the satisfaction of the Executive Committee that the violation occurred, the Executive Committee may reprimand the member and make such action a part of the records of the Local Union or District Council. The provisions of Section 55 B and C shall govern the handling of charges of Trade Rule violation. The Executive Committee shall have no authority to impose penalties.

"E The charges must be read at the meeting and lay over until the next meeting, and the member must be notified by registered or certified mail by the Recording Secretary of the Local Union or District Council to be present, and at the same time shall be furnished by the Recording Secretary with a copy of the charges specified. The notice shall be sent to the member's last known address.

"F A Trial Committee consisting of five members of the Local Union or five delegates to the District Council shall be selected as follows: the Local Union or District Council shall nominate eleven members or delegates. The Recording Secretary of the Local Union or District Council shall place their names in the ballot box and the Vice-President shall draw the same from the box and call the names aloud until five have been drawn. The accused and the accuser shall have the alternative of each challenging any three members of the Trial Committee; the member so challenged shall not serve. When the five have been selected, they shall constitute the Trial Committee and the case shall be given to them for trial.

"G Any officer or member who is a party to or directly interested in any case in a Local Union or District Council, shall not be permitted to act as a member of the Trial Committee.

"H The chairman of the committee shall without delay, summon the accused in writing, together with all witnesses and try the case on such date as the chairman shall determine.

"I The accused and the accuser may appear before the Trial Committee either in person or by counsel (who shall be a member of the United Brotherhood), and shall be entitled to be present at all times when the Trial Committee is receiving evidence. All testimony shall be accurately recorded in writing. Persons who are not members may be called as witnesses by either side. No member shall be suspended, expelled or fined in an amount in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) unless the proceedings of the Trial Committee shall have been properly recorded by a competent stenographer who need not be a member. * * *"

Section 57(A) provides, in part, as follows:

"A A member who has been expelled, suspended or fined in an amount in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) may appeal to the General President, subject to a further appeal to the General Executive Board and a final appeal to the General Convention. * * *"

When it came to the attention of the District Council on February 19, 1962, that the plaintiff may have been derelict in the performance of the duties referred to, the Council ordered D. O. Goforth to conduct an investigation into the matter and to file charges if the situation so merited. On February 20, 1962, Goforth visited the job site at which the plaintiff was job steward and informed him of the investigation and that charges might be brought against him. During the course of the conversation, Goforth questioned the plaintiff about one Max Osborne, an apprentice member of Local 213, and the failure of the plaintiff to inspect Osborne's credentials and have him sign the steward's report.

The charges were thereafter filed by Goforth. The charges were first read to the District Council at its next regular meeting on March 19, 1962. The plaintiff was informed by letter from Fred Lucas, President of Local 213, bearing the date March 26, 1962, that charges had been filed against him. The letter was delivered to the plaintiff in due course of the mails. Attached to the letter was a written specification of the charges filed, bearing the date February 20, 1965. The March 26, 1962, letter informed the plaintiff to be present at a meeting of the District Council on April 2, 1962, at which a Trial Committee would be selected. The meeting of April 2, 1962, was held and a Trial Committee was selected, as provided by Section 56(F), from among the members of the District Council. On April 16, 1962, a trial was had on the charges against the plaintiff.

The specification of charges, bearing the date February 20, 1962, charged the plaintiff as follows:

"He violated the By Laws of Carpenters District Council of Houston and Vicinity under `Steward's Authority and Duties', page 8, section 1, by not properly examining credentials of a Member. He violated section 2, under the same heading, by not having each Member or applicant sign the Steward's Report.

"By his actions he permitted an Apprentice Member to work on the job every day for a period of approximately eight months and became approximately five and

...