stating that Section 101(a)(5) claim is properly dismissed where “the alleged punishment did not result from an established union disciplinary process”
How later courts described this case
- stating that Section 101(a)(5) claim is properly dismissed where “the alleged punishment did not result from an established union disciplinary process”
- holding that retaliatory reassignment of plaintiff was not "discipline" because it "did not result from an established union disciplinary process"
- “The federal courts do not sit as a ‘super review’ board of internal union grievances unless there is evidence of impropriety in the proceedings.”
- “The federal courts do not sit as a ‘super review1 board of internal union grievances unless there is evidence of impropriety in the proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*480 CHARLES R. SIMPSON, III, District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion except for Section H.A.3., from which I respectfully dissent. In Corea v. Welo, 937 F.2d 1132, 1143 (6th Cir.1991), we determined that:
The primary purpose of 29 U.S.C. § 501 (a) is to ensure that union officials do not violate their fiduciary duties to the members of their organization by engaging in self-dealing or the misuse of union funds, which they hold in trust. However, the statute is not meant as a vehicle for judicial oversight of union activity, but only as a means of redressing unreasonable and arbitrary actions by union officials. The federal courts do not sit as a “super review” board of internal union grievances unless there is evidence of impropriety in the proceedings.
In essence, this action constitutes a dispute between Local 911 and its national organization over a jurisdictional assignment, namely the right to represent employees at a Meijer store in Bowling Green, Ohio. The loss of rights the local union faces is thus economic rather than the “invaluable and irreparable loss of democratic rights” this Circuit requires for a § 501 action. Corea, 937 F.2d at 1144 (citing Wade v. Teamsters Local 247, 527 F.Supp. 1169, 1178 (E.D.Mich.1981)). The majority’s reversal of the § 501 claim will require the district court to sit as a “super review board” to determine whether Local 911 should have been granted jurisdiction over the Meijer store. Such an exercise is unnecessary given the admittedly unlikely inferences the majority opinion requires and, more importantly, is contrary to Sixth Circuit precedent. For these reasons, I would affirm the district court’s dismissal of the § 501 claim.