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

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 12, 1977 · 562 F.2d 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464137

## Case

- **Full name:** KEEFFE BROTHERS, Appellants, John H. Johnson, Appellee, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 592; Appellee; John H. JOHNSON, Appellee, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 592, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 12, 1977
- **Citations:** 562 F.2d 298; 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2267; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11613
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Field
- **Judges:** Winter, Russell, Field
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464137

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464137. Public record. Not legal advice.