finding plaintiff not provided full and fair hearing where one member of Trial Board admitted he “made up [his] mind” prior to hearing
How later courts described this case
- finding plaintiff not provided full and fair hearing where one member of Trial Board admitted he “made up [his] mind” prior to hearing
- “[S]ince an element of a full and fair hearing is that the Trial Body be impartial, the duty of disqualification because of prejudgment or bias would seem to rest, at least in part, with the members of the Trial Body.”
- “[W]e need go no further than to find evidence to support the charge that one member of the trial body had prejudged the case in order to conclude that the hearing violated the Act.”
- union disciplinary hearing required to be "full and fair" under 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (5) (C)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached in Judge Stahl’s opinion because it agrees that none of those who participated in the informal hearing may sit as members of the Trial Body. But I disagree with the statement that there is no “inherent impropriety” in a union officer sitting as a member of the Trial Body after he has participated in the informal hearing. In my view, it does not matter that “no element of bias or prejudgment” is specifically proven. The circumstances themselves create the inherent impropriety.
Accordingly, I join in the conclusion but disagree with the view which would require of an aggrieved party concrete proof of bias or prejudgment, because I think there' is inherent in any participation in the informal hearing a disqualification against acting as a member of the Trial Body.
ORDER OF THE COURT.
PER CURIAM.
It is hereby ordered That the opinion of this court, dated November 24, 1969, be and it is hereby amended and supplemented as follows: