Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mamula v. United Steelworkers of America

Lal

.

Supreme Court * the United States.

? OCTOBER TERM, 1962

"NICHOLAS MAMULA, Petitioner:

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, an unincor-”

porated Labor Union and I. W. ABEL, International

apE NENT: thereof, Respondents

3

-

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT AND APPENDIX.

ee ee ere a

* = / is

4

*

HARRY ALAN SHERMAN

Counsel for Petitioner _

‘Carlton House

550, Grant Street

a 19, sisieendeinuanes we

- smith eros. CO. INC., LAW PRINTERS, 434-436 Bi. VO OF ALLIES. PITTSBURGH 18 FA. -

\ Beer,

| | Otte Supcerne: Court

F %. | 19h,

| -

3 ward . ae

*.. ’ os ° : ; if I AVIS, CLERK

acl . 4 bd —— — —-— - . — a . " = G ~+—

> i

IN THE '

“Be

<<

. INDEX TO PETITION

Petition for Writ of Certiorari....../...... ‘egies ae

Citations’ of Opinions Below..... Sted ee pockvan 2

Jurisdiction aap <3 RRO eee prmaaerst 2°

Questions: Presented SeRiG a oh aa ook Bae a

\Statement of the Ee eee OE ore 4 ~

Redsons Reglied on for the Allowance of the Writ

.. Unless, reversed, and the decree of the Dis-

‘trict Court reinstated, the-opinion and order.

of the Circuit Court of Appeals negates a —

basic purpose of the rayoryge yg sae th

porting and Disclosure Act of 1959. .

Il. The

(a)

Court of Appeals has so far diintea :

from the mandate of the decisions of this

Court as to call for an exercise of this Court’s .

power of Oe Gare Fre

Under -the. decisions herein, petitioner’s

standing to assert rights granted by

ms OE P| ree ere pre we sais

at ee

_(e)

Ill. The

The Court of Appeals | Maniatis the

plain, clear and unequiyocal language of

the Act, and bases its opinion on excerpts

from the legislative history despite the

decisions of this Honorahle Court cau-

tioning. against judicial- avoidance of ——

statutory language, and the natural, nor-

‘mal implications arising therefrom...

‘The Court of Appeals ignored the mw’

ments of this Honorable Court in its

definitive decisions on the terms “elec-

tion” and: “nomination”...............

important questions of federal law here

11°:

. ee

—___ involved have not been,. bu’ should be, settled -

herein ....... ae ke Eee Cue pea

Conclusion

6.2767 0.2.0 6 at 280.8 SEK eT PF DOC BORA OD F

gos Se ee

‘Table of Citations. -

INDEX TO APPENDIX AL - PAGE

‘pinion of the United States: Court of “Appeals for

the en COOL. nk oc ccc wcoaeepcckcee sha ae |

~ Opinion of the United States District Court for the -

Western District of siesare.ceseices ; vale svesce

‘ TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASES _

Barrows v. ‘Jackiion, 346 U.S, 249, 255 ..... oe

‘Baskin v. Brown, 174 F2d 391 .....-.........----. 14

, Columbia Broadcasting System v. US., 316 US. 407,

wag EERIE oR A SEO rr Tt Ferrers: a 10

Commanwealth v. Young, 16 Pa. Super. 317... ie 2

- Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. S. 872, affd. 336 U.S. 933 . 15,

Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U. 1S.

ns Cs i eRe ae ae abies UY REET ERA 8 0-4 12

F.C. Cc. v. Sanders Bros. Radio Sta., 309 U. Ss. 470 . ‘ll

Helvering v. Gerhart, 304 U. 8. 405 ......... Saree: ae

Hodges v. U. S., 1 ii eer mnas |

Hughes v. Local 11, intl. Assn. of Bridges, etc., 287°

F2d 810 .......-.. ek ada a ae oe ones Rien toes 11

~ In re Neagle, 135 US.1'- arate ye ya. 12,

! In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532 ......... eet ente ae ae

John Hancock Ins. Co. v. Bartels, 308 U: S. 180 . 12

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugée Committee v. McGrath, nt

_ 3 ES ee rrr rey ren 10

incest’ v. Conimonwealth, 112 Pa. 607. 624 . pee . 13

Logan v. U.'S., 144 US. 263 4... eRe RES ne Re! 12

“Maggio v. Zeitz\333 U.S. 56. 2... 0... 12.

Motes v. U. S.,178 U.S. 458.200.0000... ceatexs ae

A > 7 ,

=

ba. 9 : . :

, ;

Table af'Citations: : a.

CASES, ee ss, PAGE

| McGowan Vv. Maryland, 366 US. 420, 430°....... z.. ©

N. A. A.C. P: v. Alabama, 357 U.S. OY apenas ;. 10

National Home, etc. v. Wood, 299 U.S. 211, 216..... 11 ,

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.510. ./...... 10°

Quong Ham Wah v. Jeffers, 342 US, 48, 52 ...:.... aM |

- Rakes v. U.S, 91208: G5 00.06. ccecc kaos ccees ee come

- Rice v. Ellmore, 165 F2d 387, cert. den: 333 U.S; 875 . 15

_ Smith v. Allwright, 321- oF Bap rae eo sath a 14

Southern Pacific Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167, 172 9°

Tileston v..Ullman, 318 U.S. 44°. :...:........265. oe

Truax v. Raich, 239 US: 33. 3s APP Senne Sf

United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 646, 648; 81 S.Cti .

<a Ree detints eked is 9

United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall: 322 ufos ee |

Wachter v. Pizgutt), 276 U.S, 13, 26-28... fovea. Ale

a 4 ; ga he Sos / ; Vid

f

’ : /-

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States |

OCTOBER TERM, 1962

NICHOLAS MAMULA, Petitioner 4

* . or |

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, an unincor- ~

porated Labor Union and I. W. ABEL, International

' Secretary-Treasurer thereof, Respondents —

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CBRTIORARI TO THE

_ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Fo the ‘Honorable, the Chief Justice of the United States 7

and the Associate Justices. he the eT Court of

the United States:

The petitioner, Nicholas Mamula, respectfully prays ~

that a writ of certiorari issue in-the above captioned case —

directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit to review and reverse its judgment in ap-

peal No. 13,782 filed June 5, 1962, wherein the said Court

of Appeals reversed the judgment and decree of the Dis-

trict Court of the United States for the Western District

’ of Pennsylvania and remanded with directions that the

*

t

complaint be dismissed. are fa See

a

Questions Presented. :

CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW.

The opinion and judgment of the Circuit Court-of

Appeals for the Third Circuit is printed in‘Appendix A—

hereto, infra pp. 17- and is not officially reported: The

‘ - opinion of the Distric® Court, is printed in Appendix A

hereto pp. 29-38, and is reported in 198 F. Supp. p. 652.

_ JURISDICTION

~ - The opinion “and judgment of the. Circuit Court. of

: ‘Appeals were entered on June 5, 1962. The jurisdiction

_-of this Court is invoked- under 28°U:S.C.A, Section 1254

(1), Ke o

Piano QUESTIONS PRESENTED Rete

1. _ Whether a union member who is denied recogni-

tion asa nominee for international union office has stand-

ing to assert a civil action in 4 Federal District Court

‘under Title I of the Labor-Managément Reporting and —

Disclosure Act of 1959, Sept. 14; 29 U.S. C.A., par. 401.

2. Has a. Federal District Court jurisdiction of a

- complaint brought by 4 union thember seeking, recogni-.,

tion of his status as a nominee for international union

office, before the election is held, under Titles I and IV

of the Labor-Management.Reporting ard Disclosure Act

of Sept. 14, 1959; 29 U.S.C.A., par. 401? ‘

3. Whether a Federal District Court which as-

sumes jurisdiction of a complaint by a union member —

before an election, and which specifically preserves all

rights a the plaintiff although denying a ne

= i

Statute Involved. '

4 -\ ois

injunction to postpone the election; loses jugisdictiori

of the cause by reason of Title IV of the LMRDA of 1959.

4.. Is the nomination process of a-union part of the’

election procedure so as to require secret ballot and fun-

damenta: democratic safeguards for the members therein

es as set out in Titles I and IV of the LMRDA of 1959? |

<— \

ee

-5. “Whether a union ‘constitution: which lacks: any.

provision for nomination of candida for international

office therein is inconsistent with the provisions of Titles

Land IV of the LMDRA of 1959.

are STATUTE INVOLVED |

The statutory provisions involved are Section 2, ss;

(b), (c), Sections 101(a) (1), (a) (4), Section 101 (bi,

‘Section’ 102 and Séction 103. of Title I, and Sections .

401(a), and 401(e) of Title ‘V.of the Act of September

_ 14; 1959; 29 U.S.C.A., par. 411(a) (1), » (a) (4) 401 (b),

_ par. 413, par. 481(a) and 481(e). They are printed in

Appendix B infra, pp. 39-43.

Se

.

~

Soa

.

| Statement of the Case.

tS ote ‘STATEMENT |

Petitioner, avmémber, and at all times pertinent, the

’ duly Nected president of Local 1211, United Steelworkers

of América, -was, with others, orally nominated for the

office of pe tebe e of . District 20 of that international’ ;

“unidn, at the regular. meetings of several local ynions in -

_ the said District. At the same meetings, attended by a-

“small fraction of .thfe membership, voice votes were taken —

as to the nominee preference of each local meeting. The

oral vote was protested. in vain by. petitioner’and others |

ee putting his name in nomination,

The international union ostentlintiag contains no

_ provision for nominations of international officers. (J oint ©

Appendix Vol. II pocket part) ; but the. method of nom-

ination is left to the local. unions. ( Joint Appendix Vol. |

OL, p. 321a, Pitf..Exhibit’12);

Local union constitutions provide for nomination to

. be made at-one monthly meeting, upen advance written

notice (Local constitution, Joint Appendix Vol. II, p.. ©

292a, par. 14) and election at the.following monthly

| meeting (Local constitution, Joint Appendix.’ ‘Vol. II, p.

293a, par. 4).

The International union recognized the nominees

} selected by oral votes aforesaid.

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the nominations

to the.union’s international executive board. |

' Petitioner then filed his complaint: (dint Kypendix

Vol. I, pp. 4a through 11a) in the District Court of the

United States ‘for the Western District of Pennsylvania, |

‘asking a restraining order or = ’ a in

advance 4 the etection..

i Statement of the Case.

Nenana filed. an “Answer ( JBint Appendix Vol.

I, pp. 85a through 92a).

\ After hearing the application fos preliminar; relief,

the:District Court denied an order restraining the hold-

ing of the election “without prejudice” to the-petitioner ©

( Appendix A. hereto, p. 29). |

The final hearing in the District Court was held

. after the election, wherein no oppositiomandidates were

entered to the recognized “nomihees;” and, thereafter,

_it entered an opinion and order declaring the -election |

‘ void ( Appendix A hereto appended, pp. 29-38).

| Upon appesi to the Court of Appeals for the Third

_ Circuit, the District Court’s order was reversed and the.

complaint of petitioner ordered dismissed (Appendix A:

pp. 17-28). : ‘ : ze

a

5 ‘ | :

? _ Reasons Relied on I? Allowance - the Writ.

REASONS RELIED ON FOR ALLOWANCE

oT i OF THE WRIT.

oo - Unless reversed, ang the decree of the District Court

reinstated, the opinion and order of the Circuit Court °

of Appeals. negates a basic purpose of the Labor-

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.

The Congressional “Declaration of Findings, Pur-

poses, and Policy”, set out in Section 2(a) of the Act

is appended hereto in Appendix B, p. 39. That it is the

intent of the Act to protect and expand union democ-

_racy in the “public interest” is patent. The District

Court opinion (Appendix A,.pp. 29-38, and order, p. 38 ©

therein;, declares that the election procedure for inter-

‘national union officers of respondent union were in fact

"incompatible with the Labor-Management Reporting

and Disclosure Act of 1959”; further, that, bécause the

- membership is so numerous and the meeting halls of the

locals @o inadequate, the membership (entitled by the

Act to nominate and vote by secret ballot for its officers }

had no notice of or opportunity to vote for nominees for

international union office where a fractional membership

only, on vocal vote, determined'such nominees at a sin- .

gle meeting. The District Judge held that the absence -

~ ,of union constitutional procedure for protecting the pri-_

' vacy of choice by the entire membership, coupled with

. the active interest and attendance of the representatives

of the international union at such local nominating

meetings, and the fact that no opposition actually ap-

peared on the election ballot, constitute a primary-sys-

tem “contrary to every known requirement of free elec-

tions in political life’. He found that the system in fact —

= | : fa 2 ; . 7

Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ.

“fosters aio promotes domination by the incumbent

| officers”. Somes j

The District Court declared that thisgcase “‘is tin

- damental to all members of the Steelworkers-—The issue

raised—goes to the heart of the constitution of the Steel- |

workers—This court concludes that plaintiff's funda-

mental rights under Section 101 have been violated and

were violated as of December 1, 1960, in that under the

Steelworkers constitution there was no effective way for

plaintiff to exercise an equal right and privilege within

such organization to nominate or to. be nominated a can-

didate for District Director; and further that the United

- Steelworkers has no reasonable rules arid regulations in

its constitution setting up nominating and election pro-

cedures with regard to International officers.” He de-

creed the election void (order, Appendix A, p. 38).

. ‘In its opinion, the Circuit Court of Appeals makes

“no observation wth regard to the findings or conclusions

- of the District Court, but, relying upon excerpts from

- the legislative history of the Act, concludes that peti-

tioner-had no standing to bring the action under Titles I

or IV of the Act, eventhough he sought ‘pre-election _ .

relief, and that the District Court had no jurisdiction

over the complaint. The petitioner’s rights as a member .

to contest the incompatibility of the union constitution *

and the union nominating procedures with the statute,

‘even. though they affected him personally; were held to

be inadequate to confer jurisdiction of the complaint on.

the District Court.‘ The opinion treats the petitioner as

being a “candidate” and, therefore, having no standing

oe invoke Title I in a pre- -election complaint; further, it

3 states, that he lacks. Sa ia to enforce the -rights of

others. .

aldiie

. ‘ s

0 . ° ‘

Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ.

_. To say that Mamula the member has a right to. ‘

nominate or be nominated under Title I, but that this’. _

right can not be enforced under nated Title is at the a

_ least illogical.

To say that. bute member‘can nominate (including

_ Mamula), but -that the candidate so nominated has no

standing to enforce his nomination or right of candi- ©

dacy, robs the law of mganing as well. one

The Court of Appeals has in effect negatived the:

congressional intent of Title I of the Act by declaring

that a Federal court has no jurisdiction to protect union

democracy before an election is Held; and that the mo-

_ ment a member is nominated for an office, or is a candi-

date therefor, he ceases to have “standing” as a member

to protect his rights under TitleI. ~ ,

Although at the very outset of thesBill of —?

Title I, Sec. 101 (a) (1) the Act declares: ;

. “Equal Rights.—Every member of a labor or-

ganization shall have. equal rights and -privileges

within sucht organization to nominate candidates,

to vote in elections or referendums of the labor or-.

ganization. . .”.

—yet, the Court of Appeals ie finds that “Title I

‘guarantees union members an equal opportunity to —

_ vote”, omitting reference.to and ignoring completely the

plain language “to nominate candidates” im the mandate

_of this* secticn. Furthermore, is “shall have equal

rights” equated with “equal opportunity”? Is this lat-

ter phrase of the Court of Appeals not a regression from

“the clear larguage of ' the Act? > :

Saeco h ee 9

_ Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the WAt.

_ The District Court read the plain, clear and unequi-

vocal language of Sec. 101(aj(1) with this Honorable

Court's’ mandate of United States b. Oregon, 366 U.S.

646, 648; 815 S. Ct. 1278, in ‘mind, and concluded that

the words “shall have equal rights and privileges—to |

nominate, to vote in élections—” meant exactly what ©

these words said, and not what a legislator historically

claimed to have’intended to secure passage of the Act.

Certiorari is urged to prevent frustration of this

legislation so important to the democratic process.

This Honorable Court has often declared: “Nor are

we so ready to frustrate the expressed will of Congress

or that of the state legislatures. Cf. Southern Pacific

' Co. v. Gallagher, 306 US. 167, 172; Barrows v. Jackson,

346 U.S. 249, 256, 257. |

II. The Court of Appeals has so far ‘ici from the

mandate of the decisions of this court-asto call for

~~ alt exercise of this Court’s power of supervision.

(a) ‘Under the decisions herein, petitioner’s.*

' standing to assert rights granted by Title I:

is clear.

The rights of petitioner as a member:and candidate

- are closely interwoven with the rights of others which

are by the decision of the Court of Appeals denied them

* in common.

While this Honorable Court has amie insisted

that parties reiy only on constitutional rights which are

personal to themselves” in seeking review of lower tourt

decisions; Tileston v. Ullman, 318-U‘S. 44; McGowan v.

Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 430; “Standing” to complain of.

e

ad

— 6

_personal interest in the petitioner are, of cou

_Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, supra, p.

10

Reasons: Relied on for Allowance of the Writ.

“constitutional viotations of rights of third parties.-is

‘. acknowledged, howéver, where the plaintiff himself is

injured by such violations; Barrows v. Jackson, supra.

In Joint Anti-Fascist Refugeé Committee v. McGrath,

_ 341 U.S..123, certiorari was granted herein “because of

the importance of the issues and their relation to the

Employees Loyalty Program”; p. 1p0.

In N.A.A. C.P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, the peti-

tioning corporation was granted certiorari becduse the

Alabama court decisions were construed to adversely -

affect the right of free association of members not ‘par-

ties of record.

In the Barrows case, this Court asserted its juris-

diction to prevent a State Court from denying protection

“to a private litigant (a Caucasian) who.was-sued for.

selling real estate to-a-Negro in “violation of a restric-

ive. covenant” in a deed, because of the importance and

relationship to fundamental. principles to which such

covenant is abhorrent.

In Pierce v: Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, set:

tioning schools were permitted to “assert in: defense of

their property rights the constitutional rights of the

parents and guardians” of students‘not parties to the

proceedings, in obtaining a grant of certiorari.

Other instances of similar allowance of certiorari

upon petitioners’ ‘assertion of a close ayd interwoven re-

lationship with fundamental rights of others who would

have direct “standing” under’ the general rule rboint

oint

141, 154-154; Columbia Broadcasting System v. U. 8.,316

U.S. 407, 422- 423; ‘Helvering y. Gerhart, 304 US. 405;

| Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ.

'- Truax v. Raich, 239 US. 33; U.S. v. Railroad Co., 17 |

Wall 322; Quong Ham Wah v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 52:

F.C-C. v. Sanders Bros. Radio Sta., 309 U.S. 470; Wach-

ter v. FMaemses, batts U.S. 13, 26-28.

(D) The Court ‘ ‘of Appeals aia the

' plain, clear and unequivocal language of

. the Act, and bases its opinion cn excerpts.

from the legislative history despite the de;

11

. cisions of this Honorable Court cautioning- 2 ‘\ eK

against judicial avoidance of statutory.

language, and the natural, normat:impli-

cations arising therefrom. — v

Resort to legislative. history. is unnecessar “when

a statute is clear-and unequivocal on its face; United

€: States v. Oregon, supra; me. Home, etc. W., Wooa, 299

US. 211, 216. |

The decision of the Court of r Appests is, moreover,

inconsistent and in conflict with the basis for its hold-

ing in “Hughes v.. Local 11 of Intl. Assn. of daa ete.,

287 F (2) 810, wherein it:

(a holds that. the legislative bctoee is not

controlling on who is deemed. tobe a _anemmber” of

a union, p. 817; :

"(br declares that vighte of a “member” under:

} Title I ofthe Labor-Management: Reporting and Dis-

closure Act of 1959, are by implication vested upon

a person not “admitted” as a member, but who has ©

“fulfilled all of the requirements for membership” ;

(ce) holds that a District Court has jurisdic-

tion of, a complaint which asserts right of member-

- 42

F : . “

Reasons Relied on for’ Allowance of the Writ.

‘ship in a union, although the statute confers no such

. right except by “implication. ’ * |

Yet here the Court of Appeals denies an admitted |

member rights which are ‘far more apparent in the plain

' language of the statute as well as by fair and logical

. + implication, arising therefrom, and orders dismissal] of |

3 "Mis completa for lack of jurisdiction undér the Act hased .

ee a

on legislative history..

This Honorable Court has granted iain to re-

solve conflicts resulting in lack of uniformity within a

circuit where the problem is of importance; John Han-

cock Inc. Co. v. Bartels, 308 U.S. 180; Dickinson v Petro- |

_leum .Conversion Py, 338 U.S. 507; Maggio v. ne,

333 U.S. 56. -

ie (¢) The Court of Appeals ignored the judg-

ments of this Honorable Court in its defini-

tive drcisions on the terms “election” and .

,. “nomination.”

The right to-have elections conducted fairly, includ- —

_ ing secrecy, is a necessary implication to the existence of

_ | a democratic society and representative. government.

All rights created or ‘qecured by the Constitution are:

not found in Acts of Congréss; In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1;

In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532; Motes v. U.S., 178 U.S. 458;

Logan -v. U.S. 144 U.S. 263; Hodges v. U.S., 203 USS. 1;

Rakes v. U.S., 212 USS. 55.

_ The implications of such terms as “representatives,”

’ “secret ballot” and “election” in a democracy are as

fundamental as the express language of the Constitution.

‘

é re

& : 13

Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ.

To say that an Act of Congress, itself the product :

and essence of the implications of these meaningful

terms, cannot be said to have intended the fu!! impact

of all implications therepf upon union election. proee-

eee insults logic. : 2

The-Court of Appeals ignores the normal and neces-

sary implications of Title I, Section 2(a), referring to

the rights of employees to “choose their own représenta-

tives,” and Section 101(a)(1), their vight “to nominate

candidates, to vote in elections—,” in the light of the

' specific and unequivoca! language of Section 401(e) re-

quiring “secret ballot,” right of candidacy, right to hold

office and right to proper notice. of elections; but more

important, the implications that Americans attach auto-

matically to all these terms, are — out 7 the decision

of the Court of Appeals.

- "The Pennsylvani& Supreme Court, in John Leonard ©

v. The Commonwealth ex rel. Lewis C: Cassidy, Attorney

General, 112 Pa. 607, pointedly wrote:

_ “What is an election law? Here again we must

bring to our aid the common and popular use of - ©

words. Our laws are intended for the people, who

are presumed to read and understand them. They

are not like the edicts of the Roman Emperor Calig-

ula, which, Dio Cassius says, were written in very

small characters and hung‘up so high that the people

could not read them. When laws are made by a ~

- popular government, that is to say, “a government

of the people, by the people and for the people,” we.

may safely 2 assume that words in a statute. or con-

stitution are used in the sense in which the people

who made the statute or constitution understood

them. So that when the people inserted in their con-

14

Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ.

stitution the wofl“Any election em it is fair to

assume that they meant any law relating to elec-

tions, — Under our frame of government a vast

system of political machinery has grown up by_ .

which elections have been for many years practi-

cally controlled. It is so far-reaching in its effects .

that the people have in many instances little to do.

at the polls beyond the tification of what had al-

ready been done by nominating conventions. — The

influence which thege primary elections have for

_good or evil upon the politics of the country is over-

shadowing. — The importance of the relation of the

primary to the’ general election must be apparent

to every one who does not shut his eyes, that he may

not see, and stop his ears that he may not hear.

Primary elections and nominating conventions have

now become a part of our great political system, and

are welded and riveted into I-90 firmly as,to be dif- _

“ficult of separation.” o

See,’ also, , Comnpongoeaith v. Young, 16 Pa. Super. 317.

This Honbrable Court has taken an equally strong

‘position with respect to the vital a of pri-

“maries to, elections. ; a

| In Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, this Court had

held that a’ resolution of the -Texas Democratic Party

_ barring Negroes from participating in the primary elec-

tions was unconstitutional on the theory tHat under the ~

Texts statute the primary constituted an integral part

, of the state’s electoral machinery. | \ ; *

' South Carolina tried to avoid the ‘Allwright detigion

by repealing all constitutional and statutery provisions

which mentioned primaries and by ormens, that the

|

}

'

\ °

\ .

‘

; | -- 35

Reasons Relied on for Allowance of the Writ. |

South Carolina Party was a private. organization, not |

part of ‘he electoral System, and hence not subject to the —

constitutional restrictions on the states. The Circuit.

@Court of Appeals held that denial of a Primary ballot to

Negroes violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend-

megts; Rice v. Ellmore, 165 F(2) ‘387 (4th Cife., 1947)

cert. den. 333 U.S. 875 (1948).

@

. Moréover, Negroes were held to have a right t to reg-

_ister-as members of the Democratic Party of North Caro-

- lina in Baskin v. Brown, ‘174 F2d 391 (4th Circ., (1949).

Likewise, the ingenious “Boswell”. Amendment to

the Alabama Constitution restricting registration to

* persons able to “understand and explain” any Article of -

the Federal Constitution was nullified by Davis.v. Schnell,

81 FS. 872, affd. 336 U.S. 933 (1949).

The Court of Appeals decision is an open sesame

handed .undemocratic, selfish or unprincipled union of-

ficers to perpetuate theniselves in office > by controlling .

-their nomination procedures.

The impact of unions on every aspect of American

society requires a liberal, rather than a narrow, construc-

tion of every law looking to preservation of the demo- .

cratic process within such mass.organizations.

. * oe *

16°

Conclusion.

Ill. The important questions. of federal law here in-

* volved have not been, but should be, settled herein.

Obviously, ‘the Guestiog here concern the appli- .

cability of an act of Congress which goes to the very core

of operation of all union organizations.

The apparent recognition of the individual membei’

and his rights within his union which Title, Section 2(a)

_ and Section 401(e) grant, is nine out by the decision of

the Court of Appeals. |

Within the United Steelworkers irae over 1,000, obo

members in alngost 3,000 locals are here being foreclosed

their rights to sue in a federal court under Section 102 of

Title I, by the decision of the Court of Appeals. Every

* member of. Ta local of every union in the country may

soon feel the impact of that decigion unless it is reversed

= | , :

mittedthat a writ of certiorari should herein be granted.

‘Respectfully, submitted,

HARRY Asn ati

me ; iF Co for Petitioner

SE ee fe od

Ee , See

Appendix A—Opinion of the Court.

APPENDIX A ; |

UNITED STAT e COURT OF APPEALS

° FoR e Tuirp CIRCUIT .

No. 13,782 i:

¢ NICHOLAS MAMULA

pies gsn STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AN UNIN-

RATED LABOR UNION AND I. W. ABEL, INTER-

Hes SECRETARY, TREASURER THEREOF,

. Hie | Appellants.

‘

ON - ApPEaL FROM THE UniTep STATES District Court. v

: FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA |

” ° -,

—— —

' .. him thereunder “were violated by defendants, United

a ‘ ~” Argued March 9, 1962 |

Before KALODNER, STALEY and HAsTiEz, Circuit Judges.- .

‘ dati a the Court

~ (Filed June 5, 1962)

By STALEY, Circuit Julge. . ° | is -

. The plaintiff, Nicholas Mamula, commenced this ac-

tion under the Labor-Management Reporting | and Dis-°

closure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C.A: £401 et

seq., alleging that certain of the rights guaranteed to

Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (“union”), and its

Secretary-Treasurer, I. W. Abel. At ‘all times relevant,

' plaintiff was president of Local Union 1211 of District 20

-of the union. The union is covigee into a number of geo-

-%

eee -

Append ‘4—Opinion of the Court.

graphically defined “districts”. Its constitution: provides

that each local shall have the right to nominate a candi-

date for district director, and® nomination by any five

‘locals within’a distriet shall entitle the nominee to be

‘placed vx the district ballot. The union’s constitution,

however, does not prescribe the procedure for selecting

nominees. This is left to the. locals.. ,

Nomination meétings were held by. locals in District

20 in November and December of 1960. Plaintiff’s‘name .

was not placed on. the ballot for district director, al-

‘though by letter his counsel requested the union'‘to do so.

Attached to the letter were affidavits éxecuted by mem-

' bers of six different locals within District.20. Each one

indicated that plaintiff's name had been placegh in nomi-

nation for district director at each of the respective lo-

cal’s nomination meeting. The record Srowed, however,

that plaintiff was defeated. “Before the actual election ~

for district director was held, plaintiff filéd.a complaint

in the district court, alleging that defendants had denied

him an opportunity to submit his name for candidacy to

the membership and that the union’s constitution and

bylaws fail to prescribe procedures to be followed ‘in

' selecting a nominee. This, he said, constituted a viola-

tion of Title I, $$ 101(aj (1) (2) (4) and 102, 29 U.S.C.A.

$$ 411(a) (1) (2) (4) and 412 of thé LMRDA, and re-

quested a temporary injunction or restraining order en-

_ joining the. eleetion of a district director, and that the

court direct the union to place his name on the distritt

. ballot. The district: court denied the request, and the

* election was held. The matter came on ‘for full-hearing,

and thereafter the.district court entered an order set-

ting the election aside, under Title I, § 101(a) (1) of the

“ .

£)

a 19°

; Appendix A—Opinion of the Court. ,

~ LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (¥).1 ‘Tt is from 59

order that defendants have annealed; More roxtionlas!

_the district court found that the’ union’s ‘constitution

was “lacking and deficient.in failing to ‘set forth nomi- —

nating procedures for its International officers in order

that members rights under Section 101 will be pro-

tected.” Some of the particular inadequacies. listed by

the district court were that the union hall, where voting

was conducted, had a capacity of 600, while Local 1211

had a membership in exces of 11,000. Further, that the

nomination and voting took place” at one meeting, al-

though at the time set for the meeting one-third of the

- membership was at work and unable to attend.

The defendants first’ contend tfat Title IV, s\ 401-

403 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.A. $$ 481-483, and - Title

I, governs the procedures for nominating: and electing

Officers and sets forth exclusive remedies for violation .

of these procedures, and that under Title IV the plaintiff

lacks standing to bring this action. A reading of Titles

I and:IV in-conjunction with the legislative history of . °

the LMRDA, and consideration of the pertinent deci-

‘ sions that have been rendered, compel us to conclade

that this contention 43 correct.

. “1. Section 101 in pertinent part reads as follows:

“(a){1) Equal rights—Every member of. a

labo~ orgahization shall have equal rights and privi-.

leges. within such organization to nominate candi-:

dates, to vote in elections or referendums of the la-_

“bor. organization, to attend membership meetings,~ .

_-and to participate in the deliberations and voting.

* . upon the business of such meetings, subject to’ rea-

‘sonable rules and regulations in such organization’ Ss

. constitution and sea e 29 U.S.C. A. § 411(a) (1).

Na of

Appendix A—Opinion of the Court.

Title I guarantees union members an equal oppor-

tunity to vote,-while Title IV prescribes the procedures

that are to be followed in nominating’ and electing union

officers. It also, just as clearly, prescribes the. remedies

available to a union member where these procedures are

* not followed. The present Title I was not in the LMRDA.

when it left Committee. Title I, frequently referred to as

the bill of rights section, was introduced as an amend- -

‘ment to the LMRDA by Senator McClellan who,. Secesha .

cau refered to $101(a} (1), saying:

“The select committee found time and,again vor

denial of the right to vete, the denial of the right tq .

, work, the denial of the right to have a voice, the-

denial of the basic human rights on which our very

freedom was founded.”* ,

The desire to protect, the fundamental right of a union

member to vote was again apparent: when Senator Mc-

Clellan told the Senate:

_“* * * (Q)bviously we give the union mem-

bers some rights in the bill, because we insert -in the ©

~ bill a criminal penalty in the case of those who vio- _

late the rights given the union members. I simply

propose that we @efine and.describe those rights,

‘which are basic, and which every citizen of the coun-

try is entitled to. I believe we shauld elucidate on

_ this ‘point.”"4 + aa

2. §S. 1655, ‘86th h Cong, 1st Sess. 1959.

3. 2 Legislative History of the Labor-Management }

| Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, p. 1103. U.S.Govt.

. Printing Office, 1959.

4. Id.atp.1106.° ~

‘ Appendia —— of the Court.

Earlier he referred to it in debate and’ said:

“If this bill should be enacted into law, it would

bring to the conduct of union affairs and to union ©

-Inembers the realty of some of the freedoms from

_oppression that we enjoy as citizens by virtue of the

’ ~ Constitution’ of the United States, which inciden-

' tally does not mae an exception for unicn mem-

bers. "5

- Before he offered the amendment containing the bill

. of rights section, Senator McClellan introduced: S. 1137."

‘The proposed bill contained a bill of rights provision -

_ , which expressly directed that nominations and elections

_; be conducted in accordance with -section 302 thereof.

- That ‘section, in turn, was in substance similar to the

r prdviaions of Title IV of the LMRDA.

On February 6, 1959, Senator Mundt ‘initroduced Ss.

1002; which was directed specitic ally at providing demo- °

cratic procedures in the-election of officers. That bill

_ contained. detailed provisions dealing with union nomi-

_ nations and elections, and was considered.by the Senate

‘side by side with the McClellan bill of rights amendment,

_ and was not viewed as being incompatible with it. The

Mundt bill did not pass the Senate. Thereafter, the Mc-

” Clellan amendment was replaced by the so-called Kuchel

substitute that passed the Senate.‘ Debate on the sub-

stitute made it clear that it was in the main a reenact-.

‘ ment of the McClellan amendnient, which is\now Title I.*

_ > &. 1 at-p, 1008... - )

‘ 6. S, 1137, 86th Cong., Ist Sess. 1959.

7. 2 Legislative History of the Labor- anagement

Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, p, 1239.

8. Id. at pp. 1229-1239.

22 | to -

Appendix A—Opinion of the Court.

Title IV, on the other hand, deals comprehensively

with the procedure for nominating and electing. uyion ©

officials. It would be inappropriate to set it out in exteriso

here, so we ‘shall. summarize its provisions. Section 401

prescribes the frequency of alections fof certain enumer-

ated officers, distinguishing between local ‘und inter-—

national officers, and requires use of a secret ballot. It’

goes‘on to require that balloting shall be by members in

good standing or at a.conyention of delegates selected

by ballot.” Further, a union is under a duty to comply

-with all. reasonable requests by candidates for union of-

.fite to distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate’s

expense campaign literature in aid of such person's can-

didacy to all members in good standing and. to refrain

' from discrimination in favor of or against any candidate

with respect to the'use of lists of members. Also, every

bona fide candidate ‘has the right, which he can exer-

cise once within a 30-day period prior to an election of a

' labor organization in which he is a candidate, to inspect

a list. containing the names and last known addresses of -

. all members of the labor organization. The union is

under an obligation to provide adequate safeguards fo

insure a fair election, including the right of any candi-. .

date to have an observer at the polls and at the counting

of ballcts.1° Reasonable opportunities must be give

«members to nominate, and every member in good stand-

ing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office,

‘and shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support.

the candidate or candidates of his choice without being

‘subject to oo or dincigtine, nae member is en-

1! 29 US.C.A. $481(a) & (b).

10. Id. at $481(c).

ent, * By : 23

Appendix A—Opinion of the Court.

titled to advance notice of an election. Detailed proce-

-dures are provided for retaining ballots and other rec- .

ords, and the election must be conducted in accordance

with the bylaws ‘and constitution of the union, except to

the extent that they. are inconsistent with Title. IV.1!

_ The credentials of delegates to a convention that elects

officers, as well as the minutes of the convention and |

other records of the convention pertaining to the elec-

tion of officers, shall be retained for one year.'* The_ :

items for. whiclunion funds ‘ may be spent in union élec-

tions is limited to providing notices and factual state-

ments of issues not involving candidates and other- ex-;

penses-necessary for the holding of an. election. Title IV.

further specifically sets forth in § 402, 29 U.S.C.A. § 482,

that violations of the provisions outlined above can only -

be enforced by the Secretary of Labor once an election

is held. The pertinent parts of the provisions read this —

way: | e

7 er member of a labor organization—

“(1) who has exhausted the remedies ‘etal

able under the constitution and bylaws of such or-

ganization and of any parent body, or

(2) who has invoked such available remedies

without obtaining a final decision within three cal-

endar months after their invocation, may file a

complaint with the Secretary within one: calendar |

month thereafter alleging the violation of any pro-

vision of section 401 (including violation of the con-

' stitution and bylaws,of the labor organization per-

perc, Ba to - election and removal of officers). The

“41. ¥d.at £481(e).

12. Id. at $481(f).

24

“Appendix — of the Court.

dusted décision shall be presumed’ valid pending

a final decision thereon (as hereinafter provided) ~

and in the interim the affairs of the organization

éhall be conducted by the officers elected or in such _

other manner as its constitution and bylaws: may

provide.” USCA. $482(a). ,

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of Labor to in-

_. vestigate complaints and to commence an action in an

appropriate federal court to set aside any election where

he has reason to believe that Title IV has been violated.

The court has power to set aside the election and direct

that a new one be held under supervision of the Secretary

of Labor. The Secretary, after conducting the election,

must certify to the court thenames of persons elected

and the court shall then enter a decree declaring that such.

persons have been elected. If the proceeding is for the .

remoyal of officers, the Secretary must certify the elec-

tion results and the court sKall enter an appropriate de- ,

cree declaring whether such officers have been removed, !

Title IV goes on in $403; 29 U.S.C.A. £483, to provide

that: “The remedy provided by this title for challenging -

an election already conducted shall be exclusive. " Fur-

-%

thermore, where an individual union member has stand-

ing to bring suit under Title IV, Congress clearly so in- -

‘dicated. Section 401(c) guarantees candidates for union-

office the right to inspect certain union membership lists,

and upon failure of union officials to make such lists

available, any bona fide. candidate has standing to bring

_ suit in a district court of the United States.

The bill introduced by Senater Kennedy, and khéwn

as the Kennedy-Ervin bill, contained the present rem-

13. Id. at $482(c).

os oo eee -

Appendix A—Opinion of the Court. ae:

\

edy.!! ThA committee report accompanying the bill

categoricaliy*stated that post election actions to enforce

2 oe ‘ . Cd oe e ° . es

the ARTA election. provisions could onty be

initiated in the.co rts: by the Secretary of: Labor.! > At

aa

‘the same time eS Kennédy-Ervin-bit-was under _

‘consideration, .an administration bill was introduced. !

That bill expressly provided for enforcement by both the ..

Secretary and individual ution members: The Kennedy-

_ Ervin bill,,and not the admihjstration bil was passed

by the.Senate. When the LM

A. reached the House,

Title IV was changed to include a provision that read as |

follows: ale ae

“:402(a). A-member of a labor organization

' “(1) who is aggrieved by any violation of sec- ~

_ tion’401, and

“(2) who ‘A) has exhausted the reasonable

_remedies availabie under the constitution and bylaws | |

of such organization and of any national @ inter- -

national labor organization with which such organ- _

ization is affiliated, or (B) has diligently pursued.

such available remedies without receiving a final .

decision within six calendar months after their be-

ing invoked, may bring a civil action against such

labor organization in any district court of the United,

States * * *.”1%

14. S. 1555, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 1959.

15. S. Rep. No. 187, 1 Legislative History of the

_ Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of.

’ 4959, pp. 397, 417.

16. S. 748, 86th Cong,, 1st Sess. 1959. _

as 17. 2 Legislative History-of the Labor-Management

Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, p. 1697. —

ae

26 | Sid

: Appendix A—Opinion of the Court.

That provision was ‘removed, however, hy the con- ©

ference committee, prompting Senator Kennedy t» say, ”

‘while reporting back to the Senate:

“The © proyisions réquiring fair and periodic

elections are taken from the Senate bill. The Lan-

drum-Griffin bill would have substituted a variety of

suits by individual union members for enforcement

by the Secretary. of Labor. The House conferees

receded from this position and the Senate provision ~

was restored. mas.

Several recent district court tiselions that have dis-

" cussed the interplay between Titles I and IV, and the ._

plaintiff's standing to bring this action, are in accord

with our conclusion. ‘They are Colpo v. Highway Truck

Drivers and Helpers, Local 107, 201 F. Supp. 307 (D. Del.

1961) ; Gammon vx. Internationa! Ass’n of Machinists, 199

F. Supp. 433 (N.D. Ga. 1961); Acevedo v. Bookbinders:

and Machine Operators Local 25, 196 F. Supp. 308 (S.D._

N.Y. 1961) ; Johnson v. San Diego Waiters & Bartenders

Union Local 500, 190 F. Supp. 444 .(S.D. Calif. 1961) ;

Myers v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 40

CCH Labor Cases ‘66,436 (E.D. Mich. 1960); Byrd v.

Archer, 38 CCH Labor Cases 66,083 (S.D. Calif. 1959)!"

18. Id. at p. 1433.

19. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor-

‘Management Reports of the Department of Labor in a

. letter to plaintiff's counsel said:

| “While individual union members may have the

right under state law to bring a private action to en-

force the constitution and bylaws of the organiza-

tion with respect to elections prior to the conduct

thereof, once the election has been held the remedy

provided by Section 402 becomes exclusiv@ to the

_ ‘Appendix A—Opinion’ of the Court.

Even if this were an action within the ambit of + 101

(a) (1) of Title I, 29 U.S.C.A. §.41i'a)§1), it is clear.

that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring it. The enforce-

ment provision for Title I is £102, 29 U.S.C.A. $412, which

provides that: “Any person whose rights secured by the

provisions ‘of this title have been infringed * * * may

bring a civil action in the district court of the United”

‘States for * * * xelief.* * *.” There is nothing inthe ©

record showing any of plaintiff's rights as a union mem-

ber set forth in Title I were violated by defendants. The’

facts point the other way, for he partieipated in th \meet-

ing, was its presiding officer, and had ample opportunity

to nominate candidates. There is nothing in the p Ovi-

sions of Title I or its legislative history-" that would

give plaintiff standing as a candidate to bring Ahis action.

That is borne out by the) district courts that have con-

sidered the question. Gammon v. Inter tional Ass'n of

Machinists, supra; Johnson v. San pees Waiters Union

duct of the election. * * 7 After the election has

been held, the member wotild have to follow-the pro-

- cedures prescribed by Section 402 i.e. he must first

invoke the remedies Available under the organiza-

tion’s constitution And bylaws and if he fails to

obtain satisfaction within the union he may then

complain to the Secretary within the time prescribed

by 402(a). * ” * But the Secretary cannot proceed

with any investigation of the election under Section

402 until such time as your clients see fit to file com-

plaints with him which meet the conditions set forth -

- in Section 402(a) of the Act.” ;

20. The legislative history on this point can be found

in 2 Legislative History of the Labor-Management Re-

porting and Disclosure Act of 1959, pp. 1232-1233; 105

Corig. Rec. 10095 (86th Cong., 1st Sess. 1959).

extent that such tom? al challénges the con-

28."

a ante ‘A—Opinion of the Court. | A

‘Local 500, supra; Byrd v. Asti, supra. Furthermore,

plaintiff does not have standing to enforce the rights of

- other union members. Johnson v. Stevenson, 170 F.2d

108 (C.A.5, 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 904 (1949). On

frequent occasions, the Supreme Court has held that an

individual does not have standing to litigate the rights of

another, E.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420.

" (1961) ; Cronin v. Adams, 192 U.S. 108 (1904).

The judgment of the district court will be reversed

and the caus@remanded with directions that the com-

plaint be dismissed.

A True Copy} r

" Teste:

Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals |

- for\thé Third Circuit. |

Appendix A—Opinion of District Court. a

« y yA ss ‘ ode | |

'./ APPENDIX A

Opinion of District Cou

Wiitson, J. |

Plaintiff, Nicholas’ ‘Mamula,/s a citizen- of Pennsyl-’ AL,

vania residing in Beaver County and at the time the suit

was filed was -President o Local Union 1211, District

*20 of the United Steelworkers of America, an unincor-

porated iabor union which is one of the defendants, the

other defendant-being its International Secretary-Treas-

urer, I. W. Abel. The jurisdiction of the court is based on

the Labor-Management Reporting aiid Disclosure Act of :

1959, 73 Stat, 519, 29 U.S:C.A. 40% It is well to note at, —

the outset that the case was mmenced by the filing of ©

a complaint seeking a te porary restraining order, On

January 3, 1961, when the complaint was filed, there was

pending an election for District Director of District 20

pursifant to the constitution of the International Union,

United Steelworkers of America, last revised and adopted

at the general meeting held September 23, 1960, ‘The

International Union is composed of some 38 Districts ©

situate in the United States and Canada. The constitu-

tion provides that each District elect a District Director

every 4 years anc the Directors are International offi-

‘cers. The election was to be held on February 14, 1961.

_ After hearing, this court denied the temporary re-

straining order but without prejudice, and subsequently

the case came on non-jury. The parties have been heard

evidence has been taken and counsel have wemtte?

their briefs.

i)

ae Appendix A—Opinion of senate ice

In his complaint plaintiff alleges that he was a mem-

ber in good standing of Local 1211 of the defendant, °

United Steelworkers of America (hereinafter called .

Steelworkers), and that he was qualified under its con-

stitution to be a candidate for the office of District Di-

rector of District 20. The complaint further says that

the defendant Steelworkers, by the provisions of its con-_

- stitution, particularly Article V, Sections.4 ard 5, has

chosen to permit the nomination for office of District .

Director by the vote of local unions within the District,

requiring, however, a minimum of nominations*by 5 .

local unions for a person to go on the District ballot.

The complaint further alleges that the constitution of —

“the defendant does not establish any procedure for the

conduct of nominatigns for the office of District Direc-

tor. Plaintiff alleges 4lso that he was nominated during

various meetings by various locals of District 20 forthe -

office of District Director. But says plaintiff, as per-

mitted by the constitution of the Steelworkers at the

meetings of the locals, his name was placed ‘in nomina-

tion and then according to the evidence, an immediate ™ .

viva voce vote was taken by the members present and, al-

though plaintiff was defeated, he claims, nevertheless,

that under the procedure he is still a nominee Of the

respective. locals and should’ have been placed on the

District ballot. At the trial the parties stipulated that:..

“* * * in United Steelworkers District 20,

which eontains 35 local unjons, Plaintiff's name

was placed in nomination at nomination meetings

_ of six locals,. Nos. 1211, 1082, 1268, 1211, [12127],

1261 and 3461, that at none of these was there any

separate meetings for the votirg on the choice of

the Local’s nominee, and that in.four of the six

ss.

’

»

‘those instructions were sent out November. 10; 1960.

| 31

Appendix A aan of nr, Court.

Locate there was no sécret ballot on, the choice of

‘the nominee. In addition, Plaintiff produced testi- _

“mony that at a nomination meeting of a seventh.” .

‘Local Union, No. 1236, Plairitiff's name was placed: ~

in nomination, and that ‘there was no separate meet-

ing for choice of nominee and_.no secret ballot. * * *”

It seems to ‘this court that the issue is squarely

raised in this case as to whether the absen - of any pro-

vision in the Steelworkers’ constitution, governing the

conduct of the nomination and election progedures for

‘Internationai officers renders the Steelworkers’ consti-

tition incompatible with the Labor-Management ‘Re-

porting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Defendants’ counsel]

concedes that the constitution does not contain any de-. . :

tailed provisions governing this subject. They also con-

cede that there is no uniform procedure ‘among the local

-_unions‘on this subject. Counsel even goes further and’

says that the provisions of the local union's constitution

_ and by-laws relating to nominations and elections of

local union officers and the governing provisions of Arti- .

cle VII, Section 8,.of the Steelworkers’ constitution on -

the subject are not by their terms applicable to the

nomination of International officers. The result, says de--

fendants’ counsel, is that each local union conducts its .

nomination meeting in ‘conformity with its’ own prac-

* tices, subject only to the notice requirements and pro-

cedures set forth’in Article. V, Sections 4 and 5.of the

Stcelworkers’ constitution and instructions sent out by,

the International Secretary-Treasurer. In this case

| *

Defendants contend that the statute does not pro-

vide or require that PT. be made by secret

-

’

: na a ox é 7

: ae z :

, é

‘ ° . .

; if

: .

° - - A °

©” 2 =S - ‘a

te

2 . . . . ‘

° ’ .

. ° ed . ;

: ’ % -

~ - °

.

_ Appendix A—Opinion of District Court.

ballot and that therefore the procedures adopted by the

locals,. specifically Local 1211, in the nomination of -a

candidate for District Direetor and his subsequent elec-

tion on February 14, 1961, were valid under the statute |

and under the constitutiof@of the Steelworkers and the

by-laws of Local 1211. I have concluded to the-contrary.

The Bill of Rights section of the Statute, 29 UsS.C.A.

411, section 101 of the Landrum-Griffin Act in part pro- "

vides: eure hy ee

_ “(a)(1) Equal rights. — Eyery member of .a’—

labor organization shall have equal rights and privi-

leges within such organization to nominate candi-

dates, to vote in elections or referendurcs of the ~

labor organization, to attend membership meetings, |

and to!participate’ in the deliberations and voting

- upon the business of such meetings, subject to rea-

sonable rule: and regulations in such organization’s

constitution and’bylaws. * * *” — os

It is plaintiff's rights under that particular section

which the @ourt believes have bgen violated. It is further _

concluded that the constitution of the Steelworkers is

lacking and deficient in failing to set forth nominating

‘procedures foi its International officers in order that

members rights under Section 101 will be protected-

The crux of the incompatability -of the Steelwork-

ers’ constitution with the statute is found in Sections 4

and 5 of Article V entitled “Nominations and Elections

-“of: International Officers, * * *”. The-first sentence in

. Section 4 says that.a local union shall have the right to ~

‘nominate a member for each office to be filled. Section

5 says no person, shall'be a candidate who.has not been

.

”

pon ee ser, en epee) pe 33

Appendix A—Opinion of District Court.

nominated by 40. or more locals but in the. case of neal

dates for District Director, nominations by 5 locals shall.

be sufficient. 7

The rales then direct a local union to chose from |

among its members but one person to be its nominee for

International office. In r’zality then, in electing Interna-

- tional officers, two. elections are held. The first election

is by the local union for its nominee for International

office. When these selections are made by the various

local unions and the name ,forwarded to the Interna-

tional: office, then Sections’6 through ° 12 inclusive, very

carefully and precisely lay down the rules for the con-

duct of. elections by each member of each local union

for the International office by secret ballot. Defendants’

‘counsel says that when a local union makes its choice of

a nominee for the District ballot, _ is merely a nomi- =

nation. I disagree.

Local 1211 furnish s a good example of the defi-

cient procedures and what happened there on December |

_ 1,°1960, appened in many of the other locals with re-

_ gard to the election under discussion. Local 1211 had

over 11, 000 qualified members, The International consti-

tution directed and local members Were. given at least

one weeks notice.of a nomination meeting. This notice

was however a posted notice at the union hall. Under

the evidence the practice is in all the locals of District .

20 to call a nomination meeting for a set time and place

in the regular union hall. At the meeting of December

1, 1960, complained of by the plaintiff, the local union

hall does not seat over five to six hundred of a total

. membership in excess of 11,000. The selection of the

Local 1211 nominee is done at one meeting. Some 300

a . he Ee

Appendix A—Opinion of District Court.

members were present in the union hall at the time of

the meeting. The plaintiff and the incumbent nominee

were nominated at-the meeting. An immediate vote was

taken at which the incumbent was the victor. During the

hours set for the meeting one-third of the membership |

was at work and unable'to attend. But in any event no —

‘- more than 600 could have attended as that was the limit:

+ of the union hall’s capacity.

aot Under the Bill of Rights, Section 101, each: tember

is entitled to equal rights and privileges to nominate

candidates, vote in elections, attend membership’ meet-

ings and to participate in deliberations in voting upon

, the business at such meetings subject to reasonable.

rules and regulations. In the election section of the stat-

ute, Sub-Chapter V (29 U.S.C.A. 481 (e)),

“* *-* a reasonable opportunity shall be given

for the nomination of candidates and every mem-

ber in good: standing shall be eligible to be a candi-

date and to hold office. * * *”

‘It is noticed that the fovegoing is merely a reiteration |

of what each member is assured in the Bill of —,

section. :

It is to be tee that under Local 1211 by tows, ia

choosing their own local officers, the members proceed |

much differently than in choosing International officers.

With respect to the norhination and election of Local

. 1211 officers, the steps set up in its by-laws are:

1. The’ nomination by petition requiring a mini-

_ mum of 25 signatures.

2. The list of nominees is posted in 1 thre local union

office at least 8 days | prior to election.

,"

Pad

:

Appendix A—Opinion of District Court. :

3. The Financial Secretary prepares an official

ballot showing the nominees names after. they have

. drawn for position on the ballot.

4. The election is.then held by secret ballot over a

2 day period between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 8:00

‘P.M.: The ballot box is situate in the union hall;"the

ballots are marked by each voting member and de-

posited in the ballot box prepared for that purpose.

Thus under Local 1211 procedure every one of the

11,000 members has a chanee to participate in. the nomi-

nation and vote in the election. The rules of Local. 121f

on this subject.appear to be reasonable rules and-reg rula-.

: tions and permitted under the statute.

<«

“A mere glance at the constitution of the Steel-

workers as compared with our Local 1211 shows that

there is a hiatus in the nomination procedures adopted

and used in the instant election which the defendants

nevertheless maintain are valid. The fact is and the evi-

dence shows that paid staff members from the Interna-

. tional headquarters -ppear at the union meetings when

International officers are nominated and direct that the.

procedure be conducted under the Steelworker’s consti-

tution. That procedure , however as has been demon-

strated is deficient as it provides no method nor manner

in which all members may participate in the nomination —

and selection of the union’s candidate for District Di-

rectors. ; i

In connection with this phase of the case, the defend-

ants rely upon a letter from the Secretary of Labor’s of- -

fice to the International, Exhibit G, but that letter did

not pass on the proposition at issue as the facts were not

» ®

36 ais : ‘

, Appendix A—Opinion of District Court.

shown as to whether actually every member had a rea-

sonable opportunity to participate in nominating Inter- .

national officers. The letter indicated that-the Landrum-

Griffin Act does not. require a secret ballot in nomina- .

tions. I.agree, I believe it will be found that nowhere in

deliberative assemblies, under any rules of order, are

nominations as generally known and understood, to be

| made by secret ballot. In practice and generally, a nomi-

‘nation need-not even ‘be seconded: See Roberts Rules of

Order, Section 66, page 263. The question might be

asked, what shall the procedure | be under the circum-

stances shown by. hese facts? I think the answer is sim-

ple. The plaintiff ‘would have no complaint whatsoever

had the constitution of the Steelworkers directed that in

nominating and choosing the Local 1211 candidate for |

District Director, it follow the procedure set forth in its

by-laws for the nomination and election of local officers.

The Steelworkers’ constitution not providing any specific

method and not directing that the. local follow its own

rules on the subject, there is a want of any orderly pro- ’

_ cedure whatsoever. The result is that each and every

member’s rights guaranteed him in the statute go unpro-

_ tected under the Steelworkers’ constitution and ‘proce-

dure.

Such a system, if it prevails, is contrary to every

_known requirement of free elections in political life. It is

noticed that the evidence is that at each one of the meet-

ings a member of. the International staff was present,

overseeing the nomination process. The system adopted

and used permits the domination of a small meeting by

the incumbents in office. The result of the District 20

election establishes the point just made. According to

mn

yo : : le 37

Appendix A—Opinion of District Court.

the Steelworkers’ report of the election held February .

14, 1961, the 50,000 members in District 20 divided into

35 locals voted on but one candidate and that was the in- -

cumbent. The ‘Office pays $16,000.00 per year. It seems

highly improbable that in a secret ballot subsequent to a

- nomination meeting every single one of the 35 locals of

District-20 would choose the same candidate to go on the.

District ballot. The,system used fosters and promotes

domination by incumbent officers. The eligible voters

may cast secret ballots at the election but such right is

-useless-when there is only one candidate to vote’ for ¢ on

the ballot. |

_ And finally, the point is rdised by the defendarts

that this is a complaint as to an election and that there-

fore the matter is governed by Sub-Chapter 5, Section

401 relating to elections. which does not permit a suit by

a member in the first instance. Under the election pro-

cedure the Secretary of Labor brings the action if he

finds a violation of the statute in the election procedures.

This court however takes the position that this case’is -

fundamental to all the members of the Steelworkers. It

is believed that Sub-Chapter 5 relates to.the complaint |

as to any particular procedure in any specified election:

The issue r2ised here however goes to the heart of the

constitution of the Steelworkers. This court concludes —

that a plaintiff's fundamental rights under Section 101

have been violated and were violated as of December 1,

1960, in that under the Steelworkers’ constitution there

was no effective way for plaintiff to exercise an equal

. right and privilege within such organization to nominate

or be nominated a candidate for District Director; and

further that the United Steel Workers has no reasonable

-

Appendix A—Opinion of District Court.

rules and regulations in its constitution setting up nomi-

nating and election procedures with regard to Inter-

. national officers.

The decisions of other District Courts cited by b>.

fendants are not in this court’s opinion decisive of the

‘ issues raised here. I have read those decisions and have

made no quarrel with them but believe they have no ap-

; plicability to the facts presented before me. An appropri-

ate order will be entered. ,

_-— ORDER /

AND Now, this 11th day of October,’ 1961, for the

reasons mentioned in the foregoing opirion, the consti-

tution of the United Steelworkers of America being in-

compatible as to the nomination and election of Inter-

national officers with the provisions of Section 101 of the

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29

U.S.C. 411, the election of Kay Kluz as District Director

of District 20 of the United Steelworkers of America

held February 14, 1961, is vacated and set aside and said

election declared null and void. :

/8/. JOSEPH P. WILLSON

United States District Judge

-cc to: HARRY ALAN SHERMAN, Esq. |

WILNER, WILNER &,KUHN, Esq.

¥

"© their officials adhere to the highest standards of respon-

39

—_— B. |

APPENDIX B- | ee

Sections of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure :

Act ‘of 1959 here involved. ,

DECLARATION OF FINDINGS, PURPQSES, AND

POLICY

. Sec. 2.(a) The Congress finds that, in the public

interest, it continues to be the responsibility of the

Federal Government. to protect employees’ rights to

orga’ Ze, . choose their own representatives, | ‘bargain

collectively, and otherwise engage in concerted activities

for their mutual aid or protection; that the relations -

between employers and labor organizations and the

millions of workers they répresent have a substantial

impact on the commerce of the Nation; and that in order

to accomplish the objective of a free flow of commerce

it is essential that labor organizations, employers, and

sibility and ethical conduct in administerinz the affairs

of their organizations, particularly as they affect labor- ©

management relations.

(b) The Congress further finds, from recent in-

vestigatidns in the labor and management fields, that

there have been a number of instances of breach of trust,”

corruption, disregard of the rights of individual em-

ployees, and other failures to observe high standards of

responsibility and ethical conduct which require further -

and supplementary legislation that will afford necessary.

_ protection ‘of the rights and interests of employees and

the public generally as they relate to the activities of

labor organizations, employers, labor relations consult-

ants; and their officers and representatives. °

Appendix B.

(c) The Congress, therefore, further finds and .

declares that the enactment of thjfs Act is necessary to

eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of

labor organizations, employers, labor relations consult-

ants, and their officers and representatives which distort

and defeat the policies of the Labor Management Rela-

tions Act, 1947, as amended, and the Railway Labor Act,

as amended, and have the tendency or necessary effect

of burdening or obstructing commerce by -(1) impairing

the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentali-

ties of commerce; (2) occurring in the current of com-

merce; (3) materially affecting, restraining, or control-

ling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or _pro-

cessed goods into or from the channels of commerce, or

the prices of such materials or goods.in commerce; or

(4) causing diminution of employment. and wages in ~—

such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the —

market for goods flowing into or from the channels of

commerce.

TITLE I—BILL OF RIGHTS

' Sec. 101. (a) (1) Equa Ricuts.—Every member of

a labor organization shall -have equal rights and privi- -

leges within such organization to nominate candidates,

to vote in elections or referendums Of the labor organi-

zation, to attend membership’ meetings, and to partici-

pate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of

such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regula-

tions in such organization's constitution and bylaws.

(4) PROTECTION OF THE-RIGHT To SueE.—No labor

. organization shall limit the right of any member thereof

to institute ‘an action’ in any court, or ina ‘proceeding

41

: Appendiz B. *

fore any administrative agency, irrespective of whether

or not the labor organization or its officers are named as

defendants or respondents in such action or proceeding,

or the right of any member of a Jabor organization to

appear as a witness in any judicial, administrative, or —

‘legislative proceeding; or to petition any legislature or/

to. communicate with any legislator: Provided, That any

such member may be required to exhaust reasonable

hearing procedures (but not to exceed a foyr-month

lapse of time) within such organization, before institut-

ing legal or administrative proceedings — such

_ organizations or any officer thereof.

Sec: 101 (b) Any provision of the:constitution and |

bylaws of any labor organization which is inconsistent

- with the provisions of this section shall be of no force

_ or effect.

“CIVIL ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 102. Any person whose rights secured by the

provisions of this title have been infringed by any viola-

" . tion of this title’ may bring a civil action in a district

court of the United States for such relief (including

injunctions) as may be appropriate. Any such action .

against a labor organization shall be brought in the

district court of the United States for the district where

the alleged violation occurred, or whére the principal . .

office of such labor organization is located.

42 | ,

Appendiz B.

RETENTION OF EXISTING RIGHTS

Sec. 103. Nothing contained in this title shall limit

the rights and remedies of any member of a labor organ-

ization under any State or Federal law or before any

court or other tribunal, or under the constitution and by-

laws of any labor organization.

TITLE IV—ELECTIONS

TERMS OF OFFICE: ELECTION PROCEDURES

Sec. 401.'(a) Every national or international labor

organization, except a federation of national or interna-

tional labor organizations, shall elect its officers not less |

often than once every five years either by secret ballot

among-the members in good standing or at a convention

of delegates chosen by secret ballot.

_ Sec, 401 (e) In any election required by this sec-

tion which is to be held by secret ballot a reasonable

opportunity shall be’ given for the nomination of candi-

detes and every member in good standing shall be

- eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to

‘section 504 and to reasonable qualifications uniformly

imposed) and shall have the right to vote for or other-

- wise suppart the candidate or candidates of his choice. .

without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper

interference or reprisal of any kind by such organization

or any member thereof. Not less than fifteen days prior _

to the election notice thereof shall be mailed to each

member at his last known home address. Each member

in good standing shall be entitled to one vote. No member

whose dues have been withheld by his employer for pay-

ment to such organization panes to his /vohuntary

a"

oN 4 eo

Appendix B. 7 3

authorization provided for in a collective bargaining :

agreement shall be declared ‘ineligible to vote or be a

‘candidate for office in such organization by reason of

alleged delay or default in-the \payment-of dues. The

’ yotes cast by members of each local labor organization

‘shall be counted, and the results published, separately.

The election officials designated in the.constitution and

_ bylaws or the secretary, if no other official is designated,

shall preserve for one year the ballots and all other —

records pertaining to the election. The election sh@ll be

conducted in accordance with the constitution and by-

laws of such organization insofar as they are not. incon-

sistent with the provisions of this title. |