Wirtz v. LOCAL U. 262, GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS ASS'N OF US & CAN.

• Citation: 290 F. Supp. 965
• Decision Date: 26 August 1968
• Docket Number: No. 44741.,44741.
• Parties: Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL UNION 262, GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSOCIATION OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

290 F. Supp. 965

Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL UNION 262, GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSOCIATION OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA, Defendant.

No. 44741.

United States District Court N. D. California.

August 26, 1968.

Robert Ensign, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

Donald Carroll, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PECKHAM, District Judge.

The Secretary of Labor brought this action under Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., to set aside an election of officers and to order a new election under the Secretary's supervision. The defendant is an unincorporated association maintaining its principal office in San Jose, California and is a local labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(i), 3(j), and 401(b) of the Act. Defendant is chartered by and subject to the Constitution of the Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. All members of the defendant union are employees of the Owens Corning Fibreglass Corporation, Santa Clara, California. The challenged election was held by defendant on September 24, 1965, to elect a president, vice president, recording secretary, secretary-treasurer, inner guard, outside guard, and three trustees, to serve three-year terms. The election was conducted pursuant to the defendant's by-laws which provided:

No member may be a candidate unless said member is in good standing and has attended seventy-five percent (75%) of the regular Local meetings each year, since the last Local election. Article III, Section 5.

In cases where members have to work at the time of meetings, or having sickness, accident (excuse from doctor, nurse or foreman) and so notify the Recording Secretary, they shall be marked present at such meetings, provided they notify the Secretary in writing seventy-two (72) hours following the meeting. Article III, Section 6.

At the time of the nomination meeting on August 27, 1965, the defendant had 568 members. Ten members, including eight incumbent or former officers, were eligible to hold office under the defendant's by-laws. All ten of these members appeared on the ballot, with two running for president and the other eight running uncontested for the remaining offices. The final vote count in the election for president was 146 to 142 in favor of the incumbent.

The Secretary of Labor urges the Court to declare the challenged election void on two grounds. First, it is contended that the meeting attendance requirement was an unreasonable qualification on the union members' rights to be candidates for office, thus violating Section 401(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 481 (e).¹ Second, it is contended that the use of absentee ballots was conducted without adequate safeguards in distribution, handling, and counting, in violation of Section 401(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 481(c),² and without notice of the availability of absentee ballots, in violation of Section 401(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 481(e). The Court agrees with the Secretary on both grounds and holds that these violations may have affected the outcome of the challenged election for president, as well as the outcome of the entire election, thus rendering the election void under Section 402(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 482(c).³

I

The legislative history of Title IV of the Act shows that Congress weighed how best to legislate against abuses in union elections without unnecessary departure from the long-standing policy against unwarranted governmental intrusion into internal union affairs. Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Assn., 389 U.S. 463, 88 S.Ct. 643, 19 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1968). The provisions of Section 401 of the Act are necessary protections of the public interest as well as of the rights and interests of union members. Wirtz v. Local 125, Laborers' Int'l. Union, 389 U.S. 477, 88 S.Ct. 639, 19 L. Ed.2d 716 (1968). Whether a bylaw is a "reasonable qualification" within the meaning of Section 401(e) must be measured in terms of its consistency with the Act's command to unions to conduct "free and democratic" union elections. Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel and Club Employees Union, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492, 88 S.Ct. 1743, 20 L.Ed.2d 763 (1968).

In holding the 75% meeting requirement qualification to be unreasonable, the Court has considered the percentage of attendance required, the frequency of meetings held, the period of time involved, the allowances for excused absences, and the effects of the requirement. The Glass Bottle Blowers Association is the only major national union requiring attendance at a rate as high as 75% in order to qualify for nomination as an officer. The qualification is buttressed by the additional requirement that 75% of the meetings be attended in each year since the last Local election. The effect of this requirement was to disqualify 98.4% of the union membership from eligibility to run for office. The only excused absences allowed were illness, accident, or having to work at the time of meetings, provided written notification was made to the Secretary within seventy-two hours following the meeting.

The Union urges that the attendance requirement exists to encourage attendance at meetings by the rank and file membership. Although this purpose is laudatory, it does not serve as a sufficient basis for sustaining the qualification as a reasonable one. In view of the fact that 98.4% of the membership has not attended meetings at the required rate, it is reasonable to conclude that the candidacy restriction has not served this purpose. The Local itself does not display faith in the success of this requirement as it affords an additional incentive of pecuniary compensation that is not available to the other members, to officers who attend meetings. The Court holds that the highly-restrictive meeting attendance qualification imposed here, is not a reasonable means of achieving the legitimate end of encouraging meeting attendance.

The union further contends that members must be familiar with the workings and problems of the union before assuming union office and that this familiarity can be accomplished by requiring 75% meeting...