Walsh v. Local 1970, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n

• Decision Date: 26 July 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:22CV56 (RCY)
• Parties: MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 1970, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 1970, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:22CV56 (RCY)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

July 26, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderick C. Young United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Local 1970, International Longshoremen's Association's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9). The Motion has been fully briefed, and the Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Loal 1970, International Longshoremen's Association (“Defendant”) is an unincorporated association maintaining its principal office in Norfolk, Virginia. (Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.) Defendant is a local labor organization, and its membership is comprised of maintenance and repair technicians who primarily work for four employers covered by the Hampton Roads Shipping Association. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.) Martin J. Walsh, Secretary of Labor of United States Department of Labor (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint on February 7, 2022, against Defendant, seeking a judgment that (1) declared Defendant's election for the offices of President, Vice President, Recording

1

Secretary, Secretary Treasurer, Delegate to District Council, Chaplain, Inner Guard, and Sergeant-at-Arms, to be void and (2) directed Defendant to conduct a new election, including nominations, for those offices under Plaintiff's supervision. (Id. at 10.)^[1] Plaintiff also seeks judgment for the costs of this action. (Id.) The Complaint alleges that Defendant conducted its 2020 election in a manner violative of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“the Act” or “LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. (Id. at 8-9.)

Every three years, Defendant, governed by Local 1970's Bylaws (“the Bylaws”), elects new officers, which includes the positions of President, Vice President, Recording Secretary, Secretary Treasurer, Delegate to District Council, Chaplain, Inner Guard, and Sergeant-at-Arms. (Id. ¶ 9.) Article VII, Section 3 of the Bylaws states:

The Local shall appoint an Election Committee of three (3) members, whose duties shall be to investigate the nominees and report the qualifications of each to the Local. This shall be done at the Nomination Meeting by moving the nomination up to the order of business to provide time for the committee to investigate and report their findings on the eligibility and qualifications of the candidates at the same meeting

(Id. ¶ 10.) Article VII, Section 3 of the Bylaws also states that the qualifications for being a candidate include being “[a] member in good standing of [the] local union for at least one (1) year proceeding^[2] the date of his nomination” (“the one-year rule”). (Id. ¶ 11.) Further, Article IV, Section 5(a) of the Bylaws provides that “[a]ny member who has not worked within a three (3) month period shall pay a fee of $35.00 per quarter not worked.” (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendant interprets Article IV, Section 5(a) as requiring payment of the $35.00 inactive fee by the last day of each quarter not worked. (Id. ¶ 13.) Article IV, Section 5(b) of the Bylaws states:

2

Any member who is thirty (30) days or more in arrears in the payment of dues or fails to pay the fee shall be automatically, and without notice, suspended from all rights and privileges of membership. Any member who is eighty (80) days or more in arrears in the payment of dues shall be given written notice that failure to pay within ten (10) days shall mean automatic expulsion; and upon his/her failure to pay within such ten (10) days, he/she shall be automatically, and without further notice expelled and dropped from the Local

(Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant interprets Article IV, Section 5(b) as providing a thirty-day grace period for payment of the inactive fee before a member is no longer in good standing. (Id. ¶ 15.) Accordingly, Defendant interprets its Bylaws to mean that a member would fall out of good standing-and thereby become delinquent-if they paid the inactive fee more than thirty days after the last day of each quarter not worked. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.)

During the 2011 officer election, four members were nominated to run for office, but each were delinquent at some point during the year prior to the November 22, 2011 election meeting. (Id. ¶ 19.) However, three out of the four members paid outstanding amounts to Defendant in order to regain good standing status. (Id. ¶ 20.) The Election Committee determined that those three members were eligible to run for office in 2011, despite having been delinquent at some point during the year prior to their nomination. (Id. ¶ 21.) In 2014, during the next officer election cycle, Defendant held a meeting for the nomination of candidates on November 18, 2014. (Id. ¶ 22.) Two members were nominated to run for office, and both were delinquent in dues payments at some point during the year prior to the November 18, 2014 meeting. (Id. ¶ 23.) However, in the year prior to or during the November 18, 2014 nominations meeting, the two members paid outstanding amounts to Defendant in order to regain good standing status. (Id. ¶ 24.) Despite their delinquency at some point during the year prior to their nomination, the Election Committee determined that the two candidates were eligible to run for office. (Id. ¶ 25.) During the next election cycle in 2017, Defendant held a meeting for the nomination of candidates on November 21, 2017. (Id. ¶ 26.)

3

Two members who were delinquent at some point during the year prior to the November 21, 2017 meeting were nominated to run for office. (Id. ¶ 27.) These two members paid their outstanding amounts to Defendant in order to regain good standing status in the year prior to or during the November 21, 2017 nominations meeting. (Id. ¶ 28.) Despite their previous delinquency, the Elections Committee determined that the two candidates were eligible to run for office. (Id. ¶ 29.)

During the next officer election cycle in 2020, Defendant mailed a notice to members about a nominations meeting to be held on November 17, 2020 and an election to be held on December 15, 2020. (Id. ¶ 31.) The notice included a separate page that listed the qualifications for candidates as explained in the Bylaws, and among these qualifications was the requirement that a candidate be “[a] member in good standing of [the] local union for at least one (1) year proceeding the date of his nomination.” (Id. ¶ 32.) Ronald Wright Jr. (“Complainant”), a member of Local 1970, was unable to work from mid-November 2019 to mid-October 2020. (Id. ¶ 33.) Due to his inability to work, Complainant owed Defendant the $35 inactive fee for the three quarters of the year that he was inactive: January to March 31, April to June 30, and July to September 30, 2020. (Id. ¶ 34.) Complainant was aware that during at least the past three elections, Defendant had found members eligible to run for office despite having been delinquent at some point during the year prior to the nominations meeting so long as the members paid their outstanding amounts and regained good standing prior to or during the nominations meeting. (Id. ¶ 35.) Accordingly, Complainant believed that he would be allowed to pay his inactive fees when he returned to work without being disqualified as a candidate. (Id. ¶ 36.) Complainant returned to work on or about October 19, 2020. (Id. ¶ 37.) Complainant attempted to pay the fees for all three inactive quarters in cash on October 20, 2020 but was told that he needed to pay via check. (Id. ¶ 38.) By November 3, 2020,

4

Complainant had paid the fees for all three inactive quarters and was nominated to run for the office of President at the November 17, 2020 nominations meeting. (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.)

The Election Committee determined that Complainant was ineligible to run for office because he had been delinquent at some point during the year prior to the November 17, 2020 nominations meeting which meant that the incumbent President ran unopposed.^[3] (Id. ¶¶ 41-42.) Prior to the December 2020 election, Complainant appealed the Election Committee's decision to the Local 1970 Executive Board. (Id. ¶ 44.) The Executive Board heard Complainant's appeal at a special meeting on December 14, 2020, during which the Board was divided equally as to whether Complainant should be allowed to run for President. (Id. ¶ 46.) As a result of the deadlock, the Board deemed Complainant ineligible to run for office. (Id.) On December 16, 2020, Complainant sent an email to the Executive Board and the Secretary-Treasurer protesting the determination that he was ineligible to run for office. (Id. ¶ 47.) On March 1, 2021, the Executive Board informed Complainant that his protest was denied. (Id. ¶ 48.) On the same day, Complainant sent a letter to the Atlantic Coast District (“ACD”) Executive Board appealing the Executive Board's denial. (Id. ¶ 49.) On June 21, 2021, the ACD Executive Board denied Complainant's appeal and adopted the Executive Board's decision. (Id. ¶ 50.) On June 29, 2021, Complainant appealed the ACD Executive Board's decision to the International Executive Council (“IEC”) through Stephen Knott, ILA National Secretary-Treasurer. (Id. ¶ 51.) On October 29, 2021, the IEC denied Complainant's appeal. (Id. at 52.) Having exhausted the remedies available to him and upon receipt of a final decision, Complainant submitted a complaint to the U.S. Department of Labor on November 4, 2021. (Id. ¶ 53.)

5

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant on February 7, 2022 (ECF No. 1). On February 28, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for...