Walsh v. Local 688, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
| Decision Date | 08 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-cv-902-MTS |
| Parties | MARTIN J. WALSH, the Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 688, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Before the Court are the parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment, Docs. [23] and [26], pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. This dispute involves a union officer election held by Defendant Local 688, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “Union”). Plaintiff Martin Walsh, the Secretary of Labor, brought this action pursuant to Title IV of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) of 1959, 29 U.S.C §§ 481-84, requesting a judgment declaring the November 2020 election of union officers conducted by the Union void and directing the Union to conduct a new election for these offices under the Secretary's supervision. Plaintiff asserts that the Union violated Sections 481 (b) and (c) of the LMRDA by failing to provide adequate safeguards to ensure a fair election and to conduct the election by secret ballot. 29 U.S.C. §§ 481(b)-(c). For reasons discussed below, the Court denies the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment and grants Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court further holds Plaintiff is entitled to an order setting aside the contested election and directing a new election be scheduled and conducted under the Secretary's supervision.
The Union is a labor organization with approximately 6,800 active members who work in a variety of industries throughout the eastern half of Missouri, including the St. Louis, Missouri metropolitan area. The Union holds regular membership meetings based on industry or shop.
The Union held its election of officers in November 2020. Members of the fair election committee (“FEC”) were responsible for overseeing voting. Polling occurred throughout November 2020 at the regularly scheduled membership meeting for each shop.[2] As such, there were over 80 polling events during the November 2020 election, and polling took place at various types of locations, including shop lunchrooms, Elks lodges, parking lots, and restaurants. There was one “catch all” polling site, located at the 688 union hall, that was open on November 28, 2020, and was available to any member who missed voting at their regular shop meeting elections.
The FEC members were never given training on how to conduct an election in a way that would ensure members voted in secret. The Union did not implement uniform rules or procedures across all polling sites that would ensure all members were required to vote in secret. There were no uniform instructions given to voters across all polling sites on how to vote a secret ballot. There were no voting booths or partitions used, no rules prohibiting members from filling out their ballots while sitting together at the same table, and no rules prohibiting voters from discussing their votes while at the polling sites. Members decided where to fill out their ballots.[3]There is evidence voters marked their ballots on each other's backs, on the tailgate of trucks, on their hands while walking to the ballot box, while sitting at tables with other voters, and in plain view of officials or other voters.
By the November 28, 2020, voting deadline, the Union received approximately 1,170 ballots out of a maximum of 6,800. After all of the votes were tallied, the incumbent slate received approximately 86-percent of the votes while the Members For Change slate received approximately 14-percent of the votes.
A member of the Union filed a complaint with Plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor, based on the voting conditions. Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint alleging that the Union violated the LMRDA during the November 2020 election. Doc. [1]. Presently before the Court, both parties move for summary judgment. Doc. [23] and [26].
The standards applicable to summary judgment motions are well settled and do not change when both parties have moved for summary judgment. See Tower Rock Stone Co. v. Quarry & Allied Workers Loc. No. 830, 918 F.Supp.2d 902, 905 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (citing Wermager v. Cormorant Twp. Bd., 716 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1983)). The Court views any factual disputes in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007), and “must grant a motion for summary judgment if the moving party shows that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “Where parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, each summary judgment motion must be evaluated independently to determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Willert Home Prod., Inc. v. Driveline Retail Merch., Inc., 4:20-cv-01151-MTS, 2022 WL 485278, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2022).
“[T]he filing of cross motions for summary judgment does not necessarily indicate that there is no dispute as to a material fact, or have the effect of submitting the cause to a plenary determination on the merits.” Wermager, 716 F.2d at 1214. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude” summary judgment. Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 1002 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A party will not withstand summary judgment with “[m]ere allegations, unsupported by specific facts or evidence beyond [his or her] own conclusions.” Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 526 (8th Cir. 2007). But, where sufficient evidence supports a factual dispute, it is up to the jury to resolve the dispute at trial. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248-49.
Plaintiff claims the Union violated Section 481 of the LMRDA during the November 2020 election. A violation of Section 481 that “may have affected the outcome of an election” requires the Court to declare a contested election void and order a new supervised election. 29 U.S.C. § 482(c). Plaintiff claims the Union violated Sections 481 (b) and (c) by failing to conduct the November 2020 election by secret ballot and provide adequate safeguards to ensure a fair election. See 29 U.S.C. § 481(b)-(c). The Union does not contest these violations but instead argues the violations did not affect the outcome of the election.
The U.S. Supreme Court established a burden-shifting framework for analyzing Section 481 violations. See Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Emps. Union, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 506-07 (1968). The plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” that the union violated Section 481. 29 U.S.C. § 482(c). Once the plaintiff proves a Section 481 violation, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case that the violation “may have affected the outcome of the election.” Wirtz, 391 U.S. at 506-07; Usery v. Stove, Furnace & Allied Appliance Workers Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 547 F.2d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir. 1977) (). The union may rebut the presumption with “tangible,” non-speculative evidence that the violation did not affect the election outcome. Wirtz, 391 U.S. at 50708; see also Acosta v. Loc. 41, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 4:18-cv-00381-HFS, 2020 WL 11563944, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2020) . If the union fails to rebut the prima facie case, then the court must declare the challenged election void and order a new election, supervised by the Secretary of Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 482(c).
In the case here, the undisputed evidence establishes that the Union violated Sections 481 (b) and (c) of the LMRDA by failing to conduct its November 2020 election by secret ballot or with adequate secrecy safeguards. See 29 U.S.C. § 481(b) (); id. at § 481(c) (“Adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided”). As such, the violations are presumed to have affected the outcome of the election. Wirtz, 391 U.S. at 506-07. The burden now shifts to the Union to show that the violations did not affect the outcome of the election. Id. The Union has not rebutted the presumption here.
First rather than pointing to “tangible” evidence, as is required, see Wirtz, 391 U.S. at 50708, the Union presents arguments based on a deep misunderstanding of the applicable legal standard. While the Union concedes there were Section 481 violations during the November 2020 election, it argues Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the violations did affect the outcome of the election. See, e.g., Doc. [31] at 7 (). But, as discussed supra, a Section 481 violation is presumed to have affected the outcome of the election. Wirtz, 391 U.S. at 506-07. The Union flips the burden-shifting framework on its head to require that, after Plaintiff establishes a violation, that Plaintiff must also take the additional step of putting forth tangible proof that the violation affected the result of the election. See, e.g., Doc. [27] at 4 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial