Wirtz v. DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 21, BRO. OF PAINTERS, ETC., 30371.
Decision Date | 27 November 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 30371.,30371. |
Citation | 211 F. Supp. 253 |
Parties | W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 21, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA (BPDP), An Unincorporated Association. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Joseph D. Guilfoyle, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. and Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., for appellant.
Meranze, Katz & Spear, Joseph B. Meranze, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This is an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under § 402(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 29 U.S.C.A. § 482 (b), hereinafter LMRDA, to set aside an election for Secretary-Treasurer held by defendant, District Council No. 21, on June 24, 1961. Defendant Union, relying on the Seventh Amendment and Rule 38, has demanded a jury trial. Plaintiff has moved to strike this demand.
Title IV of the LMRDA 29 U.S.C.A. Subchapter V deals with election of union officers, and § 401 29 U.S.C.A. § 481 contains the minimum procedural requirements which unions must follow in electing officers. Failure to comply with these requirements gives a union member the right to challenge an election under procedures outlined in § 402 29 U.S.C.A. § 482. That section authorizes a union member, after first exhausting union remedies, to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging violations of § 401 29 U.S.C.A. § 481. Once a complaint has been filed the duty to investigate and institute judicial proceedings vests in the Secretary of Labor.
Subsections 402(b) and (c) 29 U.S.C.A. § 482(b) and (c) provide:
The question before me is whether in judicial proceedings brought under § 402 (b) and (c) 29 U.S.C.A. § 482(b) and (c) the parties are entitled to a jury trial. The answer to that question depends upon whether the parties have a constitutional right under the Seventh Amendment1 to a jury trial, or whether the right has been given to them by a federal statute.
The conventional test for determining whether a party has a constitutional right to trial by jury is whether he was entitled to have the issue tried by a jury at common law. 2 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 2:02; Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 137 F. 2d 62 (3rd Cir. 1943), cert. den. 320 U.S. 777, 64 S.Ct. 92, 88 L.Ed. 467 (1943). This test has been discussed by Professor Moore in the following terms:
5 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 38:17.
In the instant case plaintiff prays that an election be set aside, that the officers be enjoined from transferring or disposing of assets and that a new election under the supervision of plaintiff be ordered. The basic relief sought is injunction. As such the matter is equitable,2 and there is no right to a jury trial.3 5 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 38:24, ¶ 38:29.
The cases cited by defendant, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 78 S.Ct. 893, 2 L.Ed.2d 953 (1958) and Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959), are not helpful to its position. Those cases, as well as the more recent one of Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962), involved legal issues (e. g. breach of contract, negligence) with claims for money damages, issues traditionally triable to a jury and, therefore, constitutionally guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment. The teaching of the Beacon and Dairy Queen cases is simply that a court may not, in a case where both legal and equitable issues are involved, dispose of the equitable issues in such a manner as to deprive the parties of their right to a trial by jury on the legal issues. In the instant case, the relief sought is purely equitable in nature and involves no legal issues and no claim for money...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marr v. Rife
...403 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1968), rev'd on other grounds, 396 U.S. 531, 90 S.Ct. 733, 24 L.Ed.2d 729 (1970); Wirtz v. District Council No. 21, BPDP, 211 F.Supp. 253 (D.C.Pa. 1962); Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). Such inquiry requires in turn a dete......
-
Wirtz v. National Maritime Union of America
...action is not the equivalent of quo warranto but is entirely equitable in nature. Wirtz v. District Council No. 21, Bhd. of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, 211 F.Supp. 253 (E.D.Pa.1962). Quo warranto was a remedy against usurpation of a public office or privilege granted b......
-
Wirtz v. National Maritime Union of America
...to challenge the election of officers in an unincorporated association. Wirtz v. District Council No. 21, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper-hangers of America, 211 F.Supp. 253 (E. D.Pa.1962); 74 C.J.S. Quo Warranto §§ 8, 9 (1951). The cases upon which defendant relied in an atte......