Opinion — Wirtz v. Glass Bottle Blowers

" shee

Nisei Ne ~~

a “* :

SUPREME covRT OF OF THE UNITED STATES

| No. 57 Ocrom T TERM, 1967,

® i . ; ‘ a i —>—__—_. 3

7 Wirt: Se tary) apie

Ca tka ™ we ‘ titi 4 On Writ of Certiorari to

tm. ys: » *« | the-United States Court .

{ : Local 153, Glass Bottle Gake for. the Third |

Blowers Association, ete. — |

[January 15, 1968.] -

, Mr. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered | the opinion of the

Court.

Petitioner, the Secretary of Labor, filed this action

in- the District Court for,the Western District of Penn-.

-sylvania seeking a judgment declaring void the election

of officers conducted by respondent: Local Union on

October 18, 1963, and directing the conduct of a new

election under ‘the Secretary’s supervision.

Section 402 (b) of the Labor-Management Reportirig

and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U. S. C. § 482 (b), au-

thorizes the Secretary of Labor, upon complaint by a _

union. member who has exhausted his internal union.

. remedies, to file the suit when an investigation of the

» f _* eomplaint gives the Secretary probable cause to believe

| that the union election was not conducted in compliance

with the standards prescribed. in § 401 of the Act, 29

U.S. C. § 481. if e court finds that a violation of § 401

occurred which .“niay have affected the’ outcome of an

. election,” nt ‘shall declare the election, if any, to be void

‘ - and direct he conduct of a new election under supervi-

- sion of the Secretary.” * The alleged illegality in the

. 1 LMRDA § 462, 29 U.S.C. § 482:.

8) -* « “f€a) A member of a labor organization—

“(1) who has exhausted the remedies available under the consti-

~_. tution and bylaws of’such organization and of any parent body, or

“(2) who has invoked such available remedies without obtaining

a final decision within three calendar months after their invocation,

2 WIRTZ*v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN.

election was a violation -of the provision. of § 401 (e),

29 U. S.C. § 481 (e), that in a union election subject

to the Act every union member “in’ good standing shall

may file a complaint with the Secretary within one calendar month

thereafter alleging the violation of any provision of section 40]

(including violation of the constitution and bylaws of the labor orga-

nization pertaining to the election and removal of officers), The

challenged election shall be presumed valid pénding a final decision’

thereon (as hereinafter provided) and in the interim the affaira of

the: organization shall be conducted by the officers elected or in auch

other manner as its constitution and bylaws may provide,:

“(b) The Secretary shall investigate such complaint. afd, if he .

finds. probable cause .to believe that a violation @f this title has

occurred and has not been remedied, he shall, within sixty daya after

the filing of such complaint, bring a civil-action against the labor

organization as an entity in the district-court of the United States

in which such labor organization maintains its principal office to set;

aside the invalid election, if any, and ¢o direct the conduct of an

_ election or hearing’ and yote upon the removal of officers under the

supervision of the Secretary, and in accordance with the provisions

of this title and such rules and Tegulations as the Secretary may

'. prescribe. . ; .

-“(c) If, upon a preponderance of the evidence after a trial upon

the merits, the court finds— any

5 (2) that the violation of section 401 may have affected the out- |

come of an election, ex ae

“the court shall declare the election, if any, to be void and direct.

the conduct of a new election under ‘supervision of the Secretary .

tution and bylaws of the labor organization. . .

and, so far as lawful and practicable, in conformity with the conati-

“(d) An order directing an election, dismissing a complaint, or

designating elected officers of a labor organization shall be appeal-

able in the same manner as the final judgment in a civil action,

- but an order directing an election shall not be stayed pending

ap ” | ; ;

The complaining union member invoked his internal union remedies

on October 24, 1963, and not having received a final decision within

three calendar months, filed a timely complaint with the Secretary,

Bp

WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN. 3

~ be eligible to. be .a candidaté and to hold office (subject

_ + to... reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed) .. . .”

A Local bylaw provided that union members had to have

attended 75% of the Local’s regular meetings:in the two

_- years preceding the election to be eligible to stand for

office.’ The union member whose complaint invoked the

‘, Secretary's investigation had not been allowed to stand

_ for President at the 1963 election because he had attended

only 17-of the 24 regular monthly meetings, one short. of

the requisite 75%; under the bylaws, working on the

_. night shift was the only excusable absence and none of

his absences was for this reason. -

- The District Court held that the meeting-attendance -

requirement was an unreasonable restriction upon the

' eligibility of union members to be candidates ‘for office

and therefore violated § 401 (e),* but dismissed the suit

on the ground that it was not.established that the vio- -

lation “may have affected the outcome” of the election.

® Article IX, § 1, of the Internatiorial Constitution provided that:

“All candidates for office, before nomination, must have attended

75 per cent of the meetings for at least two years prior to the

election.” _ rae ae

Article 4, § 12, of the Local’s bylaws provided:

“No ‘member may be a candidate unless said member is in good

standing and has attended seventy-five per cent (75%) of the

regular local meetings since the last local election.”

And § 13 further provided: he

ent at such meetings, provided they notify the Secretary in writing

within seventy-two (72) hours following the meeting. . . .” .

unopposed and there were no candidates for Recording Secretary

and for three Trustee positions. These positions were filled by

appointment of members who could not have qualified as candidates

.. under the meeting-attendance requirement, . - +

:

t

J . @IRT2 v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN, -

244 F. Supp. 745. The Secretary appealed to the Court

of Appeals for.the Third Circuit. The appeal was pend-

ing when the Local conducted its next regular biennial

election in October 1965. The Court of Appeals held

that the Secretary’s challenge to. the. 1963 election was

mooted by the 1965 election, and therefore vacated the °

District Court judgment with the direction to dismiss

the case as moot. In Cansequence, the court did. not.

reach the merits of the question whether the unlawful

Ny meeting-attendance qualification may have affected the

outcome of the 1963 election. (372 F. 2d 86.* Because -

the question whether the intervening election mooted the -

Secretary’s action is important in the administration of

‘the LMRDA, we granted certiorari, 387 U. S. 904, and

set the case for oral argument with No. 58—Wirtz v.

Local 126, Laborers’ -Int’l Union, - post,-:at —-. We

reverse,

_- The holding of the Court of Appeals did not rest on any

explicit statutory provision that on the happening of

another unsupervised election the Secretary’s cause of

action should be deemed to have “ceased to exist.” Cali-

fornia v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 313.

Indeed a literal reading of § 402 ( b) would more reason-

‘ Pending decision on the appeal, the Court ‘of Appeals, on- the

Secretary’s application, remanded the case to the- District Court

_ to permit the Secretary to make a post-judgment. motion to have

the 1965 election declared invalid. The District Court denied the

motion. That denial was appealed to the Court of Appeals,

which: affirmed on the ground that “. . . absent a complaint by a

union member challenging the 1965 election, the Secretary had no

authority to sue to establish the invalidity of that election.” 372

F. 2d, at 88. Our decision makes unnecessary any consideration of

the correctness of that holding.

*The Court of Appeals adopted the holding ‘of the Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit in Wirtz v. Local 410 et al., JUOE,

. 366 F: 2d 438. The Court of ‘Appeals for the ‘Sixth Circuit in

No. 58, Wirtz v. Local 125, Laborers’ Int’l Union, post, also followed

_ the Second Circuit.

s

. &

WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN. 5

ably compel the contrary conclusion... For no exceptions

are admitted by the unambiguous wording that when *

“the violation of § 401. may have affected the outcome

_ of an election, the court shall declare the election, if any,

to be void and direct the conduct of a new election under

‘Supervision of the Secretary... .” (Emphasis supplied. )

Nonetheless, this does not end the inquiry. We have

cautioned against a literal reading of congressional labor

legislation; such legislation is often the product of con-

‘

flict and compromise between strongly held and opposed

_ views, and its proper. construction_ frequently requires

consideration of its wording against the background of its

legislative. history and in the light of the general objec-

tives Congress sought to achieve. See, e. g., National

Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 619.

The LMRDA is no exception.* | “

A reading of the legislative history of the LMRDA,

and of Title IV in particular, reveals nothing to indicate

any consideration of the possibility that another eléction .

might intervene before a final judicial decision of the

Secretary’s challenge to a particular election. The only

reasonable inference is that the possibility did not occur

to the Congress.’ We turn therefore to the question

® Archibald Cox, who actively participated in“shaping much of the*

LMRDA, has remarked:

“The legislation contains more than its share of problems for

judicial. interpretation ‘because much of the bill was written on the

floor of the Senate or House of Representatives and because Many

sections contain calculated ambiguities or political “compromises

- essential to secure a majority. Consequently, in resolving them the

_ courts would be well advised to seek out the underlying rationale

without placing great emphasis upon close construction of the

words.” Cox, Internal Affairs of Labor Unions Under the Labor’

Reform Act of 1959, 58 Mich. L. Rev. 819, 852 (1960).

* There are references to the desirability of expeditious determi- -

nations of the Secretary’s suits, but it is~clear from the contexts

in which they appear that the concern was to settle as quickly as

practicable the. cloud on the incumbents’ titles to office and not to

= 2

event of another unsupe

6 ' WIRTZ. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN.

whethef, in light of the objéctives Congress sought to

. achieve, the statute may properly be construed to termi-

nate the Secretary’s aoe action upon the fortuitous

ised election before final: judi-

cial decision of the suit. ao |

The LMRDA has. seven subdivisions dealing with

various facets both of internal union affairs and of labor-

management relations. The enactment) of the statute

was preceded by extensive congressional inquiries upon

which: Congress based the findings, purposes and policy

___expressed in § 2 of the Act, 29U. S.C. § 401.* Of special

significance in this case are the findings that “in the

public interest” remedial legislation was necessary to

avoid possible intervention of another election. See S. Rep. No. 187,

86th Cong., Ist Sess., 21, I Leg. Hist. 417; 104. Cong. Rec. 7954,

Leg: Hist. 699 (Dept. Labor 1964) (hereafter cited D. L. Leg.

Hist.) (Senator Kennedy); 104 Cong. Rec. 11003, D. L. Leg Hist.

710 (Senatgr Smith) ; ef. Cox, The Role of Law in Preserving Union »

Democracy, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 609, 631-634 (1959). The provision

of § 402 (d), 29 U. S.C. § 482 (d), that “an order’ directing an

election shall not be stayed pending appeal” is consistent with the

concern that challenges to incumbents’ titles to office be resolved

as quickly as possible.

®The background and legislative history of the 1959 Act are

discussed in Aaroh, The Labor-Management Reporting and. Dis-

closure Act of 1959, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 851 (1960); Cox, Internal

Affairs of Labor Unions, supra, n. 6; Levitan & Loewenberg, The

Politics and Provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act, in Regulating

Union Government 28 (Estey, Taft & Wagner eds. 1964); Rezler,

Union Elections: The Background of Title IV of LMRDA, in

Symposium on LMRDA 475 (Slovenko. ed. 1961). And see Cox, :

_. Preserving Union Democracy, supra, 7, at 628-634.

Although Senator Kennedy, a principal sponsor of the legislation, ©

counseled against mixing up the interests of providing for internal

union~democracy and of enacting measures concerned with relations

401-408, neither ‘the debates nor the Act itself reveal unwavering *

adherence to this principle. See, e. g., Cox, Internal Affairs of Labor

e ¢

—— Ee settee . - oa

WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN. | 7

further the objective “that labor organizations ... and

their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsi-

bility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of.

their organizations . . y wus § 401 (a), this

because Congress found, “from recent investigations in-

the labor and management fields, that there have been

a number of instances of breach of trust, corruption, dis-

regard of the rights of individual] ‘employees and other .

failures to observe high standards of responsibility and

ethical conduct... .” requiring “supplementary legisla-

tion 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 .. .

and their officers and representatives.” 29 U. S. C

§401(b). | } a

__Title IV’s special function in furthering the overall oe

goals of the LMRDA is to insure “free and democratic”

elections.” The legislative history. shows that Congress _

weighed how best to legislate against revealed abuses in. -

°“Tt needs no argument to “demonstrate the importance of free

and democratic union elections. ‘Under the N ational Labor Relations

and Railway Labor Acts the union which is the bargaining repre-

. Setitative has power, in conjunction with the employer, to fix a

man’s wages, hours, and conditions of employment. The individual ,

_ employee may not lawfully negotiate with his employer. He is

bound by the union contract. In practice, the union also has a

significant role in enforcing the grievance procetlure where a man’s |

contract rights are-enforced. The Government which gives unions .

this power has an objigation to insure that the officials who wield

it are responsive to the desires of the men and women whom they

represent. The best assurance which can be given is a legal guar-

anty of free and periodic elections. The responsiveness of union ©

officers to the will of the members depends upon the frequency, of

elections, and an honest count of the ballots. Guaranties of fair-

ness will preserve the confidence of the public and the members in

~ + the integrity of union elections.” 8. Rep. No: 187, supra, n. 7,

at 20; and H. R. Rep. No. 741, 86th Cong., Ist Sess., 15~16, I Leg.

Hist. No. 416, 773-774. See S. Rep. No. 187, supra, at 2-5; H. R.

Rep. No: 741, supra, at 1-7, I Leg. Hist. 398-401, 159-765.

y?

¢#

5* e " ‘

a :

.

< e soe i

SE ED ee SO ed ee ee ee Dit i Saas eign Sedgnllbisiciai SO ae yo ed ‘ Dei eg a Peer hte dee 2 yee EE pls nab t aimans ne?» oily

. - -

° ’ > e =

° . ‘ °

8 WIRTZ v. BOTTLE-BLOWERS ASSN.

union elections without d departing needlessly: ftom. its

. long-standing policy against. unnecessary governmental

intrusion into internal union affairs.° The extensive and: )

: vigorous debate over Title IV manifested a conflict over F

“4 the extent to which governmental intervention in this

e .~ most crucial aspect.of internal union affairs was necessary

‘

z

or desirable. In the end there emerged “a general con-

gressional policy to allow unions great latitude in resolv-

_ ~~ \ | * ing their own, internal conttoversies, and, where that

‘ oe fails, to utilize the agencies of Government most familiar

:

with union problems to aid in bringing about a: settle-

ment through discussion before resort to the courts.”

3 . * ‘\Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U. S. 134, -140. . | af

7 ‘But the freedom allowed unions to run their own elec-

: tions was reserved for those elections which conform to

ag the democratic principles written into §401. Inter- _

| "national union elections must be held not less often than

once every five years and "local union elections not less

7° often than ‘once every three years. Elections must be

- See 8. Rep. No. 187, supra, n..7, at 7, I Leg. Hist. 403:

A. - . “Tn acting on this bill [S. 1555] the committee followed three

ae ae, principles: 1. The committee recognized the desirability .mini-

Mum interference by Government in the internal affairs of any

ere organization... . [I]n establishing and enforcing statu-

tory standards great care should be taken not to undermine union

self-government or weaken unions in their role as collective- —

bargaining agents. “2. Given the maintentnce of minimum demo-

cratic safeguards and detailed essential. information about the union,

_ the individual members are fully competent. to, regulate union

- affairs... .. 3. Remedies for abuses should be direct... . [T]he

* legislation should provide an administrative or — remedy appro-

priate-for each specific: problem.”

. See also ibid.: “The bill reported by the committee, while it carries -

out all the major recommendations of the [McClellan] committee; -

does so within a general philosophy of legislative restraint.”

The election title of the Senate bill referred to in the Committee

‘Report was _— virtually as drafted by the Senate.

Fl

o

— ° .

< *

° .

_ . : - —

ee neeee Te pe Lb hid ini ts i Snel ain Bie PS -

- .

t-«

2,

‘by secret ballot among the members in good standing

°

* WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN. 9

except that international may elect their officers

at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot. 29

U. S. C. ‘$§481 (a), (b). Specific provisions insure

- equality of treatment in the mailing of campaign litera-

_ ture;. require adequate safeguards to insure a fair eléc-"

tion, including the right of any candidate to have ob- *

servers at the-polls and at the counting of ‘ballots;* * .

‘s

guarantee a “reasonable opportunity” for the nomination

of candidates, the right to vote without fear of reprisal,

and, pertinent to the case before us, the right of every

member in, good standing to be a candidate, subject”:

to “reasonable. qualifications uniformly imposed. ” 29

U. S. C: §§ 481 (c), (e). 2

Even when an election violates these standards, the .

stated commitment was to postpone, governmental inter-

vention until the union ‘was afforded the opportunity to

redress the violation. This is the effect of the require-

ment that a complaining union*member must first ex-

haust his internal union remedies before invoking the

aid of‘the Secretary. 29 U.S. C. §482(a). And if the

union denies the member relief and he makes a timely

complaint to the Secretary, the Secretary may. not ini-

tiate an action until his own. investigation confirms that ~~

‘a violation of § 401 probably infected the challenged

election. Moreover, the Secretary:may attempt to settle

the matter without any lawsuit; the objective is not a

lawsuit but to- “aid in bringing about a settlement’

. through discussion before resort to the courts.” Calhoon —

v. Harvey, supra. And if the Secretary must finally

initiate.an action, the election is presumed valid until

the court has adjudged it invalid. 29 U.S. C. § 482°(a).

Congress, has explicitly told us that. these provisions

were designed: to preserve a “maximum amount of in-

dependence and self-government by giving every inter-

9:

«

aS)

1° 10 WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN..

f °

national union the opportunity te correct improper local

elections.” S. Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., Ist- Sess., 21,

I Leg. Hist. 417: . -

But. it is incorrect to read. iets provisions circum-

‘scribing the time and basis for the Secretary’s interven- *

tion as somehow conditioning his. right to relief once

that intervention has been properly - -invoked. Such a..

construction would ignore’ the fact that Congress, al-

though committed to minimal intervéfition, was obviously —

equally committed to making that intervention, once

,warranted, effective in carrying out the basic aim of

"Title IV.™ Congress deliberately gave extMttsive enforce-

ment authority to the Secretary, having “decided °to ©

utilize the special: knowledge and discretion ‘of the Sec-

retary of Labor in order best to serve the public interest.”

Fanos 6260. teen tS bee

AE GS its et arm naergs

Calhoon v. Harvey, supra. In sb doing, Congress re- .

jected other proposals, among .them plans that would .

. have authorized suits by complaining members in their

own right.* And gress unequivocally declared that.

once the Secretary ¢ tablishes in 1 court that a violation |

11 See; e. g., 8. Rep. No. 187, supra, n. 7, at 34, I Leg. Hist. 430

“The committee bill places heavy reliance upon reporting nd

disclosure to, union members, the Government and the public to

. effect correction of abuses where they have occurred. However, the

bill also éndows the Secretary of Labor with broad. power to insure,

effectuation of its objecFives. eur

“He has power to— . : . (e) investigate vibhitiine of the election

provisions and bring egurt actions to overturn improperly held

’ elections and supervise conduct of new elections .

“The committee believes that the broad powers : gronted. to the ©

' “Secretary by this bill combined with full reporting and disclosure

~to union members’ and the public provides a most effective combi-

nation of devices by which abuses can be remedied.” (Emphasis |

added.)

328, 748, 86th, Cong., Ist Sess., I Leg. Hist. 84, 118-134; i. R.

8342, 86th Cong., Ist Sess., 1 Leg. Hist. 687, 727-729. See H. R.

' Conf. Rep. No. 1147, 86th Cong., Ist Sess., 35, I Leg. Hist. 939.

™

ww

_ Offer assurance that the officers who. achieved office as

_ Over potential rank and file challengers established and

_ No. 1417, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. These abuses were among

‘chose the alternative of ‘a supervised’ election as the —

” teet their own interests ‘through an unsupervised election. .

. ~ _ 6 We eB he Al tt i EAs ata

Seeds heh al -

rn °

os

WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS: ASSN. ae )

of §401 may have Afffected the outcome of ‘the chal-

lenged election, “thé court shall declare the election . |.

to be void 4nd direct the conduct of @ new election under:

supervision of the Secretary... .” 29 U.S. C. § 482 (e):

(Emphasis supplied.) _ - pared

We cannot agree that this statutory scheme is satisfied

by the happenstance intervention of an unsupervised

election. The notion that the unlawfulness infecting

the challenged election should be considered as washed

away by the following election disregards Congress’ evi-

dent conclusion that only a. supervised election could:

beneficiaries of violations of the ‘Act would not by some

means perpetuate their unlawful control in the succeed-

ing election. That conclusion was reached in light of

the abuses surfaced by the extensive congressional inquiry |

showing how incumbents’ use of their inherent advantage

perpetuated dynastic control of some unions. See S. Rep.

the “number of instances of breach of trust, ... [and]

disregard of the rights of individual employees , . .” .

upon which Congress rested its decision that the legis-

latioh was required in the public interest.** ? Congress

remedy for a § 401 violation in the belief that the pro-

tective presence of a neutral Secretar}. of Labor would:

best prevent the unfairness in the first election from in-

fecting, directly or indirectly, the remedial election. The :

choice also reflects a conclusion that union members made ,

aware of unlawful practices could not adequately pro-

It is clear, therefore, that the intervention of an election

18 See, supra, pp. 6-7. :

* 12 WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN.

‘in which ‘the outcome might be as much a product of

_ unlawful circumstances as the challenged election cannot

bring the. Secretary’s action to a halt. -Aborting the ex- ~

ojusive statutory remedy would immunize a proved vio-

lation from further attack and leave unvindicated the

interests protected by § 401. Title IV was not intended

‘to be so readily. frustrated.

Respondent argues that granting the Secretary re-

lief after a supervening election would terminate the

ee new | ' officers’? tenure prematurely on mere. suspicion.

But Congress, ,, when it settled on the remedy of a super- .

_ vised election, considered the risk of incumbents’ influ-

* 6nce to be substantial, not a miere suspicion. The only

assurance that the new officers doin fact hold office by

~ reason of a truly fair and a democratic vote is to.do what

the Act requires, rerun, the election under the Bagretecy' s

supervision. «

The Court of Appeals concluded that it aan serve

. “no practical purpose” ‘to void an old elvction once the

terms of office conferred have been terminated by a new.

election.. We have said enouth to demonstrate the fal-

’ lacy of this reasoning: First, it fails to consider the

incumbents’ possible influence on the new election. Sec-

. ond, it seems to view the Act as designed merely. to pro-

tect the right: of a union member to run for a particular

. Office in a particular election.. But the Act is not so

limited, for Congress emphatically asserted a.vital public °

interest in assuring-free and democratic union elections

that transcends the narrower interest of the complaining

union member..

_ We therefore hold that when the Secretary, of oem

proves the existence of a § 401 violation that may have -

affected the outcome of a challenged election, the fact

‘that the union has already conducted another unsuper-

_ vised election does not deprive the Secretary of his right:

_to a court order declaring the challenged election void’

©

, A . ‘ é > : -

. : . ‘ =

cece perneeniemeedl (se Salata, RAE I ET aa

WIRTZ v. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN. 13

and directing the conduct of a new election under his

supervision."* | | |

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and |

the case femanded to that court with direction to decide

' the merits of the Secretary’s appeal. :

It is so ordered.

“Mr. Justice MarsHALL took no part in the considera-_

tion or decision of this case. . :

** There is much disgussion in the briefs of possible alternatives

to our conclusion, such as expediting proceedings under § 402 to bring

‘about their final decision before the next regular election, or injunc-

tive relief against the conduct of that election pending final decision

in the Secretary’s suit. .That discussion, however, assumes a con-

struction of the statute contrary to that which we have reached

and therefore requires no comment.