Opinion

Keeffe Brothers, John H. Johnson v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592, John H. Johnson v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592

  • 562 F.2d 298
  • 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2267
  • 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11613
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Sep 12, 1977
Status
Published
Author
Field
On the bench
Winter, Russell, Field
Cited by
29 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.1%

finding a LMRDA violation where the union refused the plaintiff readmission to the union “to *1006 penalize plaintiff for his exercise of the right to speak and take part in union meetings as well as to exercise his right of free speech about union affairs in public”

How later courts described this case

  • finding a LMRDA violation where the union refused the plaintiff readmission to the union “to *1006 penalize plaintiff for his exercise of the right to speak and take part in union meetings as well as to exercise his right of free speech about union affairs in public”
  • finding a LMRDA violation where the union refused the plaintiff readmission to the union "to penalize plaintiff for his exercise of the right to speak and take part in union meetings as well as to exercise his right of free speech about union affairs in public"
  • court rejected union’s failure-to-exhaust argument where it was obvious that union acted to penalize member for exercise of right of free speech
  • a union may not discipline a member because he has made a false and libelous charge of robbery and embezzlement by a union officer

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge,

concurring specially:

I would be hard put to take issue with Judge Russell’s thorough review and conclusions in this case, but I am somewhat concerned about the apparent indifference of the district court to the exhaustion provision of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411 (a)(4).

While I agree that whether exhaustion is to be excused lies within the discretion of the trial court and does not present an issue for the jury, I think an explicit ruling should have been made by the district judge. “The Congressionally approved policy of first permitting unions to correct their own wrongs is rooted in the desire to stimulate labor organizations to take the initiative and independently to establish honest and democratic procedures,” 1 and the exhaustion provision should not be treated as a mere procedural detail. See Wiglesworth v. Teamsters Loc. Union No. 592, 552 F.2d 1027 (4 Cir. 1976).

. Detroy v. American Guild of Variety Artists, 286 F.2d 75, 79 (2 Cir. 1961).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.