Wittstein v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF US & CAN.
Decision Date | 28 October 1963 |
Citation | 223 F. Supp. 27 |
Parties | Eddie WITTSTEIN et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA, Defendant. Julius SCHWARTZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL 802, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for plaintiffs.
McGoldrick, Dannett, Horowitz & Golub, New York City, for defendant American Federation of Musicians of U. S. and Canada, Emanuel Dannett, Herbert D. Schwartzman, Eugene Mittelman, New York City, of counsel.
Ashe & Rifkin, New York City, for defendant Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, David I. Ashe, New York City, of counsel.
These consolidated actions are brought by members of the defendant unions challenging certain recent fiscal enactments of both the parent Federation and its Local 802. The complaint in Wittstein challenges the procedure at the Federation's recent annual convention by which a resolution was enacted, purporting to abolish the so-called 10% traveling surcharge tax and substituting therefor an increase in the per capita dues of members of the Federation. The complaint in Schwartz is framed in two counts, the second of which is substantially identical to the cause of action asserted in the Wittstein complaint. This opinion is expressly directed to govern the disposition of the Wittstein complaint and the second count of the Schwartz complaint. The first count in Schwartz challenges a provision of Local 802's By-Laws which, for the present purposes, is sufficiently unrelated to the cause asserted in the Wittstein complaint to be the subject of a separate opinion.
The complaints challenge the procedure by which the resolution was adopted as violative of both the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 522, 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and the defendant Federation's own Constitution and By-Laws. A declaratory judgment is sought seeking to enjoin the defendant Federation from carrying into effect the resolution on its effective date of January 1, 1964. The Federation has moved for summary judgment.
In order to place the action of the convention in its proper reference, it is necessary to briefly review the legal history of the Federation's 10% traveling surcharge. Article 15 of the Federation's By-Laws requires that Federation members who perform a "miscellaneous out-of-town engagement" be paid, but not to actually receive, an amount equal to 10% of the minimum wage established by the local in whose jurisdiction the engagement takes place. This additional amount is known as the "traveling surcharge." The orchestra leader does not actually turn over the additional 10% to his musicians (sidemen) because Federation By-Laws provide that the local in whose jurisdiction such engagement is performed must collect the traveling surcharge from the orchestra leader and transmit the amount to the Federation. Should the Local fail to collect the surcharge from the leader, the leader is required to transmit the surcharge directly to the Federation. In a prior action brought by the plaintiff Cutler, the collection of the 10% traveling surcharge from Cutler, when engaged as an employer in the single engagement field, was held to be violative of Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186. Cutler v. American Fed. of Musicians, 211 F.Supp. 433 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff'd 316 F.2d 546 (2 Cir. 1963), petition for certiorari filed, 32 U.S.L. Week 3103 (U.S. Sept. 16, 1963) (No. 473). At the convention, the officers of the Federation sought to abolish the 10% traveling surcharge and substitute therefor an increase in the per capita dues of its 282,000 members.
The pertinent portion of the Act involved is as follows:
The defendant Federation is conceded to be a labor organization in an industry affecting commerce as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and is a labor organization other than a local labor organization or a federation of national or international labor organizations within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (3) (B). See Cutler v. American Fed. of Musicians, supra.
The relevant article of Federation's Constitution is Article 5 and of the Federation's By-Laws, Article 28. Article 5 is as follows:
Article 28 of Federation's By-Laws in the pertinent parts are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cutler v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF US & CAN.
...of Section 101(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 522, 29 U.S.C. § 411. Wittstein v. American Fed. of Musicians, 223 F.Supp. 27 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 326 F. 2d 26 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. granted 376 U.S. 942, 84 S.Ct. 798, 11 L.Ed. 766 (1964). As part of Res......
-
Wittstein v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF US & CAN.
...the vote of each delegate as a single vote. His opinion, Wittstein v. American Federation of Musicians, S.D. N.Y., 1963, is reported at 223 F.Supp. 27. Numerous other miscellaneous points are raised, especially in the brief of appellees, but, as we agree with Judge Levet on the principal qu......
-
Rothstein v. Manuti
...payable by each member to the American Federation of Musicians." In prior litigation in this court, Wittstein v. American Fed. of Musicians, 63 Civ. 2548, 223 F.Supp. 27 (S.D.N.Y.1963), it was held that the procedures enacting the increase in Federation dues at its annual convention were de......
-
Schwartz v. ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER NY, LOCAL 802
...Both the complaint in Wittstein and the second count of the Schwartz complaint have already been dealt with in an opinion filed October 28, 1963, 223 F.Supp. 27. This opinion is directed solely to the first count in the Schwartz The first count of the Schwartz complaint asserts that certain......