Murdock v. American Maritime Officers Union National Executive Board

United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Charles Murdock, Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) Civil Action No. 19-62687-Civ-Scola

American Maritime Officers Union )

National Executive Board and Paul )

Doell, Defendants. )

Order

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff Charles Murdock’s

emergency motion to reopen and for injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court denies the relief sought in the Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 40).

1. Background

On April 14, 2020, the Court entered an order staying this matter upon

the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay. In that order,

the Court briefly recounted the allegations put forth by the Plaintiff, which the

Court again recounts here. The Plaintiff is the Secretary-Treasurer of the

American Maritime Officers Union (“AMO”) and the Defendant, Paul Doell, is

the union’s national president. (ECF No. 34, at 1.) Doell and Murdock have

disagreed on a number of issues, which resulted in Doell purportedly stripping

Murdock of many of his constitutionally-defined duties as AMO’s Secretary-

Treasurer. (Id.) Murdock states that Doell’s actions have allowed Doell to

control AMO’s finances without oversight. (Id.) After being stripped of his

responsibilities, Murdock moved to reinstate his authority, but claims Doell

stonewalled that request by delaying a national meeting and limiting the time

Murdock had to present his motion. (Id.) Murdock’s motion ultimately failed.

Murdock was later re-elected as AMO’s Secretary-Treasurer and thereafter, two

challengers, one from a Doell faction of the AMO instituted union proceedings

to overturn the election results. (Id. at 2) This effort failed and Murdock claims

that Doell then began a campaign of harassment against him, including

beginning disciplinary proceedings against him for allegedly assaulting Doell’s

assistant as retaliation for filing this lawsuit. (Id.)

After considering these allegations, the Court found the best course of

action was to stay these proceedings as Murdock had failed to exhaust internal

union remedies. (Id. at 3.) In particular, the Court noted that Murdock could

file charges claiming Doell’s stripping him of his duties violated AMO’s

constitution or could file a suit for grievances of malfeasance or favoritism

against Doell. (Id.) While Murdock argued exhaustion would be futile, the Court

disagreed finding this argument to be conclusory and moreover, undercut by

the fact that Murdock successfully won the January 2019 challenge by Doell to

his re-election. (Id. at 3-4.)

Since the Court’s order staying this matter, on May 5, 2020, Murdock

filed impeachment charges against Doell and against the AMO’s other executive

board members for “acceding to [Doell’s] unconstitutional abuse of power.”

(ECF No. 40, at 4.) On October 6, 2020, Doell was “acquitted” though a trial

committee. (Id.) Murdock states that under the Article XXIII of the AMO

Constitution, the trial committee’s decision is not final until it is presented to

AMO’s membership at its next scheduled meeting and ratified by a majority

vote. Murdock states this has not happened as Doell has cancelled every

monthly membership meeting since March 2020, the onset of the COVID-19

pandemic. (Id.) The other executive board members were also acquitted by

other trial committees, decisions which also need to be ratified. (Id. at 4-5.)

On January 27, 2021, AMO’s Vice President of Inland Waters initiated

impeachment charges against Murdock based on allegations of non-

performance of his duties, and on May 3, 2021, a trial committee determined

that Murdock “was so deficient in collecting union dues and initiation fees that

he should be ‘DISMISSED from his position as National Secretary Treasurer

and BARRED from holding any office, position or employment in the AMO.’” (Id.

at 5 (emphasis in original).) Murdock appealed the trial committee decision to

the AMO national executive board, which included Doell and other of the board

members who Murdock sought to have impeached. (Id. at 5-6.) The appellate

committee affirmed the decision that Murdock be dismissed from his position

and barred from holding any future positions with AMO. Murdock states this

decision, as the decisions pertaining to Doell and the other national executive

board members, requires “approval of a majority vote of the membership at the

next scheduled membership meeting”. (Id. at 6.)

Murdock notes that the AMO constitution requires the AMO to hold

regular monthly membership meetings at the AMO’s headquarters, but Doell

has cancelled every meeting since March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the lifting of pandemic meeting restrictions on May 3, 2021, an AMO

monthly meeting was scheduled to be held at the AMO’s headquarters on June

7, 2021 where the trial committee decision acquitting Doell and the other

national executive board members of Murdock’s impeachment charges and

where the appellate panel’s decision affirming the impeachment of Murdock

would be presented to the AMO’s membership for ratification of rejection. (Id. at

6-7.) Murdock states that he arranged for AMO’s members to appear in person

to support his appeals and when Doell learned Murdock’s supporters would be

in attendance, Doell cancelled the meeting. (Id. at 7.) The Defendants disagree

with this characterization.

Rather than allow Doell to cancel the required monthly meeting,

Murdock, pursuant to his authority as Secretary-Treasurer, convened the June

7, 2021 membership meeting at the AMO headquarters, where he purports a

quorum of members were present and that those members voted not to ratify

the national executive board’s decision ousting Murdock and disqualifying him

from holding future office with the AMO. (Id.) Those present also voted to ratify

the trial committee decision acquitting Doell and the other national executive

board members of their impeachment charges. (Id.) Murdock states that this is

the final step under the AMO constitution and he has now exhausted all

internal AMO procedures and appeals.

Unsurprisingly, this saga does not end with a neat wrap-up of this

dispute at the AMO’s purported June 7, 2021 meeting. Murdock states that in

lieu of the union’s June 7 meeting, Doell hired “TrueBallot, the AMO election

voting service, to conduct an electronic mail ballot referendum on ratification of

the impeachment decisions” (i.e. those with respect to Doell and the other

national executive board members and Murdock) with a voting period that is

set to conclude on June 30, 2021. (Id. at 9.) Murdock states that he believes

this referendum is “rigged” and “designed and likely to overturn the June 7,

2021 membership vote.” (Id. at 1.) Murdock further states the AMO

constitution does not allow Doell “to substitute an electronic referendum which

does not allow participation by the wrongfully impeached officer, contains no

voting safeguards, and provides insufficient notice and voting time for the

membership.” (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, Murdock asks the Court to enjoin the

counting and announcement of the results of this online referendum.

Doell states that what Murdock is asking for is for “unprecedented relief;

i.e. for a court order to halt a union membership vote.” (ECF No. 43, at 4.) In

response to Murdock’s motion, the Defendants state that “[t]he decisions to

cancel the June 7 membership meeting due to the dangers of COVID and

instead hold a referendum vote on the futures of its nationally elected officers

among those very people who elected them . . . are decisions arising from a fair

and reasonable interpretation of the AMO constitution” that should not be

disturbed by the Court. (Id. at 5.) Moreover, the Defendants state that Murdock

has failed to show that a constitutional membership meeting occurred on June

7, 2021. (Id.)

2. Analysis

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a moving party must

establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that an

injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm; (3) that the injury to the

moving party outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause

the non-moving party; and (4) that an injunction will not harm the public

interest. McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998).

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be

granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to

the four requisites.” Siegel v. LePore, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1047 (S.D. Fla.

2000) (Middelbrooks, J.).

The Court has reviewed Murdock’s motion and finds he has failed to

satisfy the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the

Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show that absent a preliminary

injunction that he or other members of his union would suffer irreparable

harm. The Plaintiff argues that if the Court does not enjoin the counting and

announcement of the online votes on June 30 that both he and the union

members who elected him will suffer harm. The Plaintiff argues that if the

online vote proceeds, which the Plaintiff argues is invalid under the AMO

constitution, and such vote invalidates the results of the alleged June 7, 2021

membership meeting, then “a portion of the AMO membership will be

disenfranchised” which will adversely impact the AMO for years to come. (ECF

No. 45, at 5.)

In support of his arguments the Plaintiff relies on Sheet Metal Workers

Int’l Ass’n v. Lynn, 488 U.S. 347 (1989). In Lynn, the Supreme Court held that

there is the potential for a chilling effect on Title I free speech rights under the

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C.

§ 411, where an elected official is discharged from his duties. This was found to

be the case where a union member, Edward Lynn, was elected to a 3-year term

as a business representative of his union. Lynn, 388 U.S. at 349. In his

capacity, he argued the union was overspending and urged the union’s general

president to place the union under a trusteeship, delegating to the trustee the

ability to supervise and direct the affairs of the union, including the ability to

suspend union officers, business managers, or business representatives. Id. at

350. After the trustee’s appointment at Lynn’s urging, the trustee

recommended a dues increase was needed, though Lynn stated to the trustee

that he would oppose any such increase unless the trustee committed to

spending cuts by the union. Id. The dues increase was defeated by secret ballot

following Lynn’s opposition and thereafter, the trustee removed Lynn from his

position, specifically because of his resistance to the dues increase. Id. The

Supreme Court noted removal of an officer under such circumstances, i.e. by

another official such as the union’s trustee, is likely to have a chilling effect on

Title I free speech rights under the LMRDA. The Supreme Court stated that

“not only is the fired official likely to be chilled in the exercise of his own free

speech rights, but so are the members who voted for him.” Id. at 355.

Moreover, such removal deprives the union members of being represented by

the leader of their choice. Id.

Here, however, the situation is distinguishable from Lynn. The Plaintiff

complains that his impeachment was rejected at an alleged June 7, 2021

meeting of the AMO but that decision could be overturned by the potential

outcome of the June 30, 2021 online vote. The Court agrees with the

Defendants that the fact that Murdock’s fate will be determined by a vote of

AMO’s members is a critical difference between Lynn and the matter now before

the Court. As noted by the Defendants, under the AMO constitution, if

Murdock’s impeachment is ratified or is rejected as a result of the June 30

vote, the union’s members will not have been deprived of the ability to choose

their leaders through voting—in fact it is the union’s members and not another

official who are doing the choosing. (ECF No. 43.)

Moreover, the Court finds the harm that the Plaintiff complains of to be

speculative should the June 30 vote go forward. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d

1163, 1176-77 (11th Cir. 2000). For instance, it is entirely possible that

Murdock could prevail in the June 30 vote and remain in his position as

Secretary-Treasurer. As the Court noted, in its order staying this matter, even

though Murdock paints what is happening with his union as biased and one-

sided, calling the vote “a rigged electronic referendum that is designed and

likely to overturn the June 7, 2021 membership vote,” the Court finds that

complaint is conclusory and without basis. Prior to the Court entering its stay,

Murdock similarly argued without any factual basis that union proceedings

would be futile, because a “‘kangaroo Trial Committee’” would deny his charges

against Doell. (ECF No. 34, at 3.) In its stay order, the Court noted that the fact

Murdock prevailed against Doell in the January 2019 election challenge cuts

against his assertion that the union’s proceedings are rigged or stacked against

him. (Id. at 3-4.) Other than stating an online vote is not authorized by the

union’s constitution, Murdock has not shown how this online vote is “rigged”

against him.

Further, Murdock complains that the he and his fellow union members

will be irreparably harmed if the vote is allowed to go forward because Murdock

argues the online vote is in violation of the AMO’s constitution requiring in-

person meetings. The Defendants argue, in turn, that Doell cancelled the

union’s June 7, 2021 meeting, just as he had all other meetings during the

pandemic due to health and safety concerns. (ECF No. 43, at 14.) The

Defendants note that Doell, as union president under AMO’s constitution, is

required to take measurers to “protect the interests and further the welfare of

this union and its members in all matters.” (Id.) Accordingly, the Defendants

argue that Doell was required to take member safety into account before

holding a meeting that could expose hundreds of union members and their

families to COVID-19. The Defendants state that, in crafting the June 30 vote,

they relied on Article XXVII of the AMO’s constitution, a savings clause, which

allows the union’s board to “suspend the operation of any invalid provision,

where that provision is declared invalid or inoperative by operation of law or

any Court of law” and “substitute a provision which meets the objection to its

invalidity . . . in accord with the intent and purpose of the invalid provision.”

(Id. at 15.) In Doell’s notice cancelling the June AMO meeting, which Murdock

provided as an attachment to his motion (ECF No. 40-1, at 66), Doell noted

that “many AMO members remain at work aboard vessels in what are referred

to commonly as ‘hot spots’” and that the U.S. Coast Guard stated in a May

2021 advisory that “‘COVID-19 . . . continues to have significant impacts on

the U.S. marine transportation system, the global shipping industry and on

mariners themselves.’” Doell further stated in his cancellation notice that “[w]e

do not want an AMO member who would be [at AMO’s headquarters] for a

membership meeting, or for other union business, falling ill while here and

bringing the coronavirus home to their families or to their vessels – their homes

away from home.” (Id. at 67.) With this in mind, it appears that certain

members of AMO’s executive board, including Doell, have therefore concluded

that AMO’s saving clause applies because “travel and quarantine restrictions

make membership meetings at National Headquarters in Dania Beach

inoperative or contrary to law for many AMO members and such conditions

hamper and discourage full access to and participation in membership

meetings.” (ECF No. 43, at 15.) Consistent with Article XXVII, the Defendants

state they crafted the June 30 vote to allow the union’s business to proceed

and to facilitate the “AMO’s constitutional democratic process.” (Id. at 20.)

As the Court noted in its order staying this matter, the Supreme Court

has adopted a general policy not to unduly harass legitimate unionism, nor to

unnecessarily interfere with the union’s interest in internal governance. See

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 109 (1959) (the union’s

right to adopt its own reasonable rules was designed “to assure that the

amendment would not unduly harass and obstruct legitimate unionism”); Wirtz

v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass’n, 389 U.S. 463, 471 (1968) (“The

legislative history shows that Congress weighed how best to legislate against

revealed abuses in union elections without departing needlessly from its long-

standing policy against unnecessary governmental intrusion into internal

union affairs”). Indeed, the interpretation of a union’s constitution by a “union

official or governing body will be accepted unless the interpretation is clearly

unreasonable.” Reich v. Int’l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emps., 32 F.3d 512,

915 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court does not find it unreasonable, given the

state of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global footprint of the AMO’s

membership, for the AMO’s constitution to have been interpreted to allow for

the suspension of in-person meetings and the adoption of alternative

procedures to effectuate the purpose of the constitution’s in-person meeting

requirement. With the above in mind, the Court finds Murdock has failed to

show he or his union would suffer irreparable harm absent the Court entering

a preliminary injunction.

3. Conclusion

As the Plaintiff has failed to show that he will be irreparably harmed

absent the Court entering a preliminary injunction enjoining the counting and

announcing of the results of the June 30 online election, the Court finds that a

preliminary injunction is not warranted. Following the announcement of the

June 30 election, the parties may seek further relief from the Court, as

necessary, including reopening these proceedings. The Court therefore denies

the Plaintiffs emergency motion.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on June 30, 2021.

[= N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge