Witte v. Myers, Civ. A. No. 6221.

Decision Date08 October 1971
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 6221.
Citation343 F. Supp. 873
PartiesWheeler J. WITTE, Plaintiff, v. William J. MYERS and Local #324, International Union of Operating Engineers, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

Jeremy J. Hickman, Burr & Hickman, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff.

Donald F. Sugerman, Sharples, Klein, Meizlish & Sugerman, Detroit, Mich., for defendants; Boaz Siegel, Detroit, Mich., of counsel.

OPINION

ENGEL, District Judge.

THE ACTION

Wheeler J. Witte brings this action against William J. Myers and Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers pursuant to Title I, Sections 101, 102 and 609 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411, 412 and 529. It is plaintiff's claim that on March 8, 1969, he was discharged as business agent of Local 324 in charge of its branch office in Grand Rapids, Michigan "in violation of Title I, Section 2 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) for advocating views, arguments and opinions privately and at meetings of said local 324, said views, arguments and opinions being politically contra to the defendant William J. Myers, including the advocating of a District form of union government and an apprentice and training center located in western Michigan and the election of local business agents by the rank and file membership, inter alia."

Plaintiff's complaint further alleges that he was denied due process in that he was not served with written specific charges, nor given a reasonable time to prepare a defense, nor afforded a fair hearing in violation of the by-laws of said Local 324 and Title I, § 101(a) (5) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Plaintiff alleges that he was duly nominated and ran for the position of Business Agent of the Grand Rapids area office of defendant Local 324 in December of 1968, was overwhelmingly elected by the rank and file of the Grand Rapids area office and that notwithstanding this, he was arbitrarily, capriciously and wrongfully removed from his position of business representative because of his exercise of his right of dissent and freedom of speech guaranteed under the provisions of Title I of the Act.

Plaintiff seeks damages from defendant William J. Myers, then Business Manager of Local 324, and from the defendant Union, jointly and severally for his losses arising out of the alleged unlawful discharge; seeks restoration of pension fund payments and pension fund benefits; and restoration of his lawful and just position as business representative in charge of the Grand Rapids area office of defendant Local Union.

FINDING OF FACTS
BACKGROUND

Local Union 324 is an affiliate of the International Union of Operating Engineers whose charter provides hoisting and portable craft jurisdiction over the entire State of Michigan. The Local has a membership of approximately 11,000 operating engineers with its main office at Detroit, Michigan and six branch offices throughout the rest of the State at Grand Rapids, Flint, Battle Creek, Escanaba, Saginaw, and more recently, Traverse City. By way of illustration and not of definition, the membership by and large consists of the operators of heavy moving equipment such as bulldozers, cranes, and the like, used in the construction and general contracting industry.

The International Union is governed by a Constitution (plaintiff's exhibit 5), and subject to the Constitution, the Local Union is governed by detailed By-Laws (plaintiff's exhibit 6). Article XXIII of the Constitution provides for the government of the local unions and Sub-division I, Section (a) thereof provides in part as follows:

"The officers of a local union shall be the President, Vice President, Recording-Corresponding Secretary, Financial Secretary, Treasurer and three (3) Trustees."

The Constitution permits a local union to provide in its by-laws for a Business Manager, in which case he shall be elected and be an officer.

"The Business Manager shall be the chief executive officer of a Local Union. He shall appoint any and all representatives, agents and assistants, whose wages and allowances shall be determined as provided in the Local Union's by-laws. They shall work directly under his supervision. He may terminate them at any time. Should the Business Manager discharge any such employee, then said employee shall not be re-employed or paid by the Local Union in any capacity during the term of office of such Business Manager, unless his prior approval has been given. . . ."

Union Constitution, Art XXIII, Sub-Div. 1, § (a)

Section 3 of Article VIII of the By-laws of the local describes the powers and duties of the local union Business Manager as follows:

"(a) The Business Manager shall be directly responsible to the membership of this local Union. He shall be authorized and empowered to direct and conduct the business affairs of the Local Union, at all times representing the entire membership. By virtue of his position, he shall have voice and vote on all matters before the Executive Board, and shall be a delegate to attend all conventions. He shall act as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Trust Fund and any other Funds created for the membership of this Local Union, and attend all the scheduled meetings therefor.
"(b) The Business Manager is authorized to employ and terminate all business representatives and assistants, and be responsible to the membership for their supervision and direction and the capable performances of their duties. He shall set the rate of pay of his assistants with approval of the Local Union.
"(c) He shall examine all applications for membership and submit same to Executive Board if he approves of same."

Some history of the internal affairs of the local, as shown by the proofs, is necessary in order to put the controversy here in its perspective. Prior to 1968, both Wheeler Witte and William J. Myers had served as Business Agents, appointed by the then Business Manager, Louis Blok. Each had been fired by Blok. Myers was fired on December 14, 1967 after having announced that "he was taking on his boss" in the up-coming elections for Business Manager. Witte himself was fired by Blok in July of 1968, presumably after Blok learned that Witte and much of the membership in the Grand Rapids area had decided to support Myers' candidacy for Business Manager of the local.

In an effort to defeat the Blok administration and to "elect a clean slate in '68", a group of union members organized themselves into what they called the "United Rank and File" focusing their support upon the candidacy of Myers as Business Manager and upon a complete slate of other candidates for Union offices.

The 1200 union members in the Grand Rapids area and counties served by it had experienced substantial disaffection with the Local Union administration and also with its organization under the existing by-laws. Complaints particularly centered upon a belief that outstate interests were not being properly served by an administration which had its main office, and most of its membership, in the Detroit area. They also were especially concerned about the problems encountered in the Grand Rapids area in which a good deal of their competition for contracts was with non-union labor and non-union contractors and felt strongly that a training program concentrated in the western Michigan area would enable them to acquire additional skills in the operation of heavy equipment which would place them in a better competitive position. There was also a strong feeling among many of the members that the Grand Rapids area should enjoy a greater degree of autonomy. The proof is clear that Wheeler J. Witte enjoyed substantial personal prestige and respect among the union members in the Grand Rapids area and his long record of service in the labor movement over the years, together with his obvious personal ability and charm, make his popularity among the Grand Rapids area members entirely understandable.

The supporters of Myers and the rest of United Rank and File slate mounted a vigorous and effective campaign. Myers traveled extensively throughout the State and visited Grand Rapids on numerous occasions. The United Rank and File published a newspaper called the Equalizer (plaintiff's exhibits 2 and 3) which was distributed to the membership and carried to it the message of the group. The United Rank and File also distributed a slate card and platform (plaintiff's exhibit 1) which purported to represent the goals of the group. Three planks of that platform have been placed in issue here, as follows:

1. "Business Agents: We intend to let the members elect who they want to serve them in their area.
2. "District Government: At the Flint general membership meeting on July 10, we elected a 7-man Study Committee to investigate and report to the members their findings on District form government.
3. "Apprentice and re-training: A training program in your area designed to aid you and your family with more job opportunities."

Witte and the Grand Rapids area members were at first cautious in their support of the United Rank and File movement, but after several meetings with Myers and other members of it, decided to cast their lot with him. Thereafter they contributed their full and open support to the movement. It was successful and in August Myers and the rest of the slate were elected to their respective offices. On the same day that he took office, or perhaps one day later, Myers appointed Witte as Business Agent in charge of the Grand Rapids branch area and put him to work.

At least some disillusionment with the new administration on the part of the Grand Rapids area union members appeared almost immediately. It was the feeling of the Grand Rapids area union members that their confidence in the new administration had been betrayed by its failure promptly to implement the platform upon which it had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Murphy v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 30, 1985
    ...the union or its officers. 456 U.S. at 441-42, 102 S.Ct. at 1873 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original). See also Witte v. Myers, 343 F.Supp. 873, 883 (W.D.Mich.1971), in which this writer held that "[t]he provisions of ... the LMRDA, U.S.C.A. Sec. 411(a)(5) ... do not preclude the summ......
  • Runyan v. United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • December 30, 1982
    ...F.Supp. 1012 (D.C.D.C.1969); Lamb v. Miller, 660 F.2d 792 (D.C.Cir.1981); Maciera v. Pagan, 649 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.1981); Witt v. Myers, 343 F.Supp. 873 (W.D.Mich.1971); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2nd Cir.1963); Wood v. Dennis, supra; Miller v. Holden, 535 F.2d 912 (5th Cir.1976); Co......
  • Gulfcoast Transit Company v. M/S KYUNG-JU
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • April 11, 1972
    ... ... Civ. A. No. 71-297 ... United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana, New ... ...
  • Price v. United Mine Workers of America, Civ. A. No. 188-73.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 23, 1974
    ...for their discharges, the complaint as to them will be dismissed. Wambles v. Teamsters, 488 F.2d 888 (5 Cir. 1974); Witte v. Myers, 343 F.Supp. 873 (D.C. W.D.Mich.S.D.1971). II. Claim of But where Price and Burich failed Trulos succeeded with his claim. I find that Trulos' discharge on Janu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT