PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 10/22/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
AIRCRAFT MECHANICS
FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION, an
Unincorporated Association and Labor
Organization,
No. 95-5273
Plaintiff,
and
KENYON WALLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, Local 514, Air Transport
Division, AFL-CIO,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 94-C-924-H)
Submitted on the briefs:
Joe L. White, Collinsville, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Steven R. Hickman of Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Defendant-Appellee.
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal, 1 we address whether a union violated the freedom of speech
and assembly provision of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
(LMRDA), see 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2), when it suspended one of its members for
assisting a rival union’s adversarial effort to prompt a representation election and
displace it as incumbent. After considering the pertinent statutory authority and
associated case law, we hold that the disciplinary action taken by the union was a
reasonable defense of its institutional integrity and, therefore, permissible under
§ 411(a)(2).
I
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. The Transport Workers Union of
America (TWU) is the certified bargaining representative for various mechanic
and maintenance employees of American Airlines. Defendant Local 514 is the
agent for TWU at the facility where plaintiff Kenyon Wallis is employed. While
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
a member of Local 514, plaintiff executed an election authorization card on
behalf of another union, which stated: “I authorize the Aircraft Mechanics
Fraternal Association [AMFA] to request the National Mediation Board to
conduct an investigation and a representation election and upon winning to
represent me as my agent in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended.” Appellant’s App. at 70, 71. Plaintiff also
distributed and encouraged fellow employees to execute such cards.
A shop steward eventually wrote out a complaint against plaintiff, who was
charged with violating union constitutional provisions which prohibit advocating
withdrawal from TWU or promoting a rival union (“dual unionism”). Following
notice and a hearing, the Local 514 Executive Board placed plaintiff in bad
standing for a period of three years. During this time, plaintiff is “ineligible to
attend Union meetings, to be a candidate for or hold any Union office or position,
or to vote in any Union election or referendum or otherwise participate in Union
affairs.” Appellee’s App. at 14. However, neither his employment nor his right
to fair representation by the union is affected. 2
2
The union argues that, given the absence of such consequences,
plaintiff has suffered no cognizable injury. This argument elevates the collateral
over the primary. As our later discussion of the LMRDA reflects, plaintiff’s
discipline, whatever its other, secondary consequences, involves the loss of the
very participatory rights the LMRDA was enacted to guarantee. This loss is
precisely what the Act’s civil enforcement mechanisms, see 29 U.S.C.
(continued...)
-3-
Alleging that the disciplinary proceedings and resulting sanction interfered
with his organizational rights, plaintiff Wallis 3 commenced this action for
injunctive relief against Local 514. 4 The parties stipulated to the material facts
and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the
union’s motion, stating:
The Court believes that this dispute is covered by the
[LMRDA]. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2), the right of free
speech of a member of a labor organization is limited to the extent
that the organization has adopted and enforces “reasonable rules as to
the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an
institution.” As a result, TWU had the right to discipline Plaintiff for
his conduct. See, e.g., Mayle v. Laborer’s Int’l Union of North
Amer., Local 1015, 866 F.2d 144, 146-47 (6th Cir. 1988)[holding
2
(...continued)
§§ 411(a)(5), 412, 529, are intended to redress. See, e.g., Finnegan v. Leu, 456
U.S. 431, 437-38 (1982); Gesink v. Grand Lodge, 831 F.2d 214, 217 (10th Cir.
1987); Franza v. International Bhd. Of Teamsters, 869 F.2d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1989).
3
Plaintiff’s counsel initially included AMFA on the pleadings, but
later conceded the organization could not “piggyback” on Wallis’s personal claim
and voluntarily dismissed it from the case. See Appellant’s App. at 99-100.
4
Local 514 argues plaintiff should have sued the international union, which is
the authorized bargaining representative. This argument misconceives the nature of
the action, which seeks redress not for the union’s conduct of bargaining or
representational duties, but for its imposition of a sanction for statutorily protected
activities. Accordingly, it is the local union imposing the challenged discipline that
is the proper defendant, although the international union may also be subject to suit
if it participated in, ratified, or exerted sufficient control over the local’s action.
See, e.g., Phelan v. Local 305 of the United Ass’n of Journeymen, & Apprentices of
Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus., 973 F.2d 1050, 1061-62 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
507 U.S. 972 (1993); Borowiec v. Local No. 1570, 889 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1989);
Chapa v. Local 18, 737 F.2d 929, 932 (11th Cir. 1984).
-4-
discipline for dual unionism permissible]; Ferguson v. International
Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 854 F.2d
1169, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1988)[same].
Appellant’s App. at 90-91.
II
As a matter of federal procedure, we review the district court’s summary
judgment determination de novo. See Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 793,
796 (10th Cir. 1995). More importantly, because the controlling issue is not the
sufficiency of the evidence adduced at the union hearing to establish plaintiff’s
charged conduct, but, rather, whether that undisputed conduct provided a
statutorily permissible basis for the resulting discipline, our consideration of the
underlying substance of this case is de novo as well. See Black v. Ryder/P.I.E.
Nationwide, Inc., 970 F.2d 1461, 1467-69 (6th Cir. 1992)(while “some evidence”
standard governs judicial review with respect to procedural adequacy of union
disciplinary proceeding, statutory authorization/prohibition of proceeding itself is
reviewed de novo); cf. Hill v. NTSB, 886 F.2d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir.
1989)(review of administrative fact findings limited by “substantial evidence”
standard, but interpretation of statutory provisions considered de novo). See
generally United States v. Diaz, 989 F.2d 391, 392 (10th Cir. 1993)(construction
of federal statutes is legal matter reviewed de novo on appeal).
-5-
We need also to clarify the breadth of our review here. Before plaintiff
turns to his argument on the merits under § 411(a)(2), he includes in his opening
brief a short summary of the role of the National Mediation Board in elections
and labor disputes under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which covers his
air-carrier employer, see 45 U.S.C. § 181. In this summary, plaintiff notes the
general importance of representational choice, quoting from unfair labor practice
provisions of the RLA, see 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Fourth), and the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), see 29 U.S.C. § 158(b). The immediate significance, if
any, of this background exposition is never made clear. Plaintiff does not
contend, for example, that the district court erred in relying on the LMRDA to
resolve the case, nor does he cite any authority for application of the quoted
NLRA and RLA provisions to the intra-union dispute at issue here. The union, on
the other hand, notes that (1) the NLRA does not apply to air carrier employment,
see Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 361 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 1087 (1984); Johnson v. Express One Int’l, Inc., 944 F.2d 247, 250 (5th
Cir. 1991), and (2) the cited RLA provision refers only to employer interference
in union affairs, not to internal union disciplinary proceedings. The latter
proceedings are precisely the subject of the LMRDA provision exclusively relied
on by the district court--as well as by all of the pertinent authorities we consider
below. Further, in his reply brief, plaintiff does not even mention the NLRA or
-6-
RLA provisions, much less respond to the union’s arguments regarding their
inapplicability. Under the circumstances, we shall consider only the question
expressly decided by the district court: whether plaintiff’s suspension violated
the speech and assembly guarantees of the LMRDA.
III
Section 411(a)(2) guarantees a union member “the right to meet and
assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or
opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon
candidates [for union office] . . . or upon any business properly before the
meeting.” However, these individual rights are expressly qualified by recognition
of an overarching interest in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the
union as the collective representative of all of its members: “Provided, That
nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to
adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member
toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that
would interfere with its performance of its legal and contractual obligations.” Id.
Following the structure of the statute, the Supreme Court has outlined a
two-step analysis for the resolution of § 411(a)(2) claims:
To determine whether a union rule is valid under the statute,
we first consider whether the rule interferes with an interest
protected by the first part of [§ 411(a)(2)]. If it does, we then
determine whether the rule is “reasonable” and thus sheltered by the
-7-
proviso to [§ 411(a)(2)]. . . . The critical question is whether a rule
that partially interferes with a protected interest is nevertheless
reasonably related to the protection of the organization as an
institution.
United Steelworkers v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 111-12 (1982). In conducting
this analysis, we are to “find guidance in the policies that underlie the LMRDA in
general and Title I [the “bill of rights” section including § 411(a)(2)] in
particular.” Id. at 111.
A
The Supreme Court has on numerous occasions consistently identified the
paramount purpose of § 411(a)(2), and the LMRDA generally, to be that of
assuring rank-and-file members’ democratic participation in intra-union affairs,
such as voting in union elections, standing for union office, and approving (or
challenging) official union policies and decisions. See, e.g., Reed v. United
Transp. Union, 488 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Sadlowski, 457 U.S. at 112 (majority
op.), 122-23 (White, J., dissenting); Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. at 435-37; Hall v.
Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 14 (1973). Members’ free speech rights are, accordingly, seen
as a necessary means for the “improvement or preservation of democracy within
the union.” Reed, 488 U.S at 326 (emphasis added); see also Sadlowski, 457 U.S.
at 112 (“democracy would be assured only if union members are free to discuss
union policies and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal”).
B
-8-
Unlike internal political struggle and critical debate, which may unsettle
current leadership but do not undermine the union as an institution, members’
advocacy of representation elections and promotion of rival organizations therein
obviously “threaten[] the continued existence of the union [itself],” Mayle, 866
F.2d at 147. Moreover, such “[d]ual unionism impairs the ability of a union to
carry out its collective bargaining responsibilities by diminishing its authority as
bargaining representative.” Local 1199, Drug, Hosp. & Health Care Employees
Union v. Retail, Wholesale & Dep’t Store Union, 671 F. Supp. 279, 286
(S.D.N.Y. 1987); see, e.g., Ferguson, 854 F.2d at 1172, 1174 (noting individual
members’ efforts on behalf of rival impaired union’s ability to negotiate with
employer on behalf of all members). A further threat to the union in such
circumstances has been articulated best in an analogous NLRA context, when a
(noncarrier) union has suspended or expelled a member for working to decertify it
as bargaining representative. In rejecting the member’s resultant unfair labor
practice charge under 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(a), which, like § 411(a)(2), qualifies
protections afforded against certain union practices with a specific proviso
preserving the union’s right “to prescribe its own rules with respect to acquisition
or retention of membership,” NLRA authorities note that:
In the case of a decertification petition, the employee seeks to attack
the very existence of the union as an institution. And unless the
union can expel the member who seeks its destruction, during the
pre-election campaign, the member could campaign against the union
-9-
while remaining a member and therefore privy to the union’s strategy
and tactics.
NLRB v. United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local No.
81, 915 F.2d 508, 511 n.2 (9th Cir. 1990)(internal quotations omitted); see also
NLRB v. International Molders & Allied Workers Union, Local No. 125, 442 F.2d
92, 94 (7th Cir. 1971).
In recognition of such institutional interests, the courts have generally held
that a union is entitled to protect itself by suspending or expelling a member who
has engaged in dual unionism. See, e.g., Catlett v. Local 7370 of the United
Paper Workers Int’l Union, 69 F.3d 254, 260 (8th Cir. 1995); Mayle, 866 F.2d at
146-47; Ferguson, 854 F.2d at 1175; Davis v. Ampthill Rayon Workers, Inc., 446
F. Supp. 681, 686-87 (E.D. Va. 1978), aff’d, 594 F.2d 856 (4th Cir. 1979)(Table);
Meader v. District Lodge # 4, Indus. Union of Marine & Shipbuilders Workers,
786 F. Supp. 95, 101-02 (D. Me. 1992). We note that this general agreement
breaks down when the union goes beyond such “defensive” measures as
suspension or expulsion and affirmatively punishes the offending
member--particularly one forced to remain in the union to preserve his or her
job--with financial penalties or adverse employment consequences. See, e.g.,
Airline Maintenance Lodge 702 v. Loudermilk, 444 F.2d 719, 723-24 (5th Cir.
1971); Ballas v. McKiernan, 315 N.E.2d 758, 761 (N.Y.), cert. denied, 419 U.S.
1034 (1974); see also Ferguson, 854 F.2d at 1175-76 (upholding imposition of
-10-
fines and distinguishing Loudermilk and Ballas on basis that “the union members
[in those cases] were employed under a union shop provision” and, thus, “would
have lost their jobs as well as their union membership had they refused to pay the
fines”). However, these considerations are not present here.
The facts of this case clearly implicate the union interests protected by the
proviso in § 411(a)(2), and place the case squarely within the body of “dual
unionism” precedent cited above. We emphasize that this charge extends beyond
the obviously improper maintenance of duplicitous union affiliations to include
the active promotion of a rival labor organization contrary to the interests of one’s
own union:
An authoritative glossary of labor law terminology defines “dual
unionism” as follows:
Secret or open efforts of union members to undermine
the union and substitute another union as representative
of employees. . . .
Labor Relations Reporter (BNA), LRX 226-27 (1987). Another
authority provides:
Dual unionism may . . . be used as a charge (usually a
punishable offense) leveled at a union member or officer
who seeks or accepts membership or position in a rival
union, or otherwise attempts to undermine a union by
helping its rival.
Roberts, Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations, 160-61 (3d ed.
1986).
Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union, 671 F. Supp. at
285-86 (citing, as example, NLRB v. Teamsters Local 815, 290 F.2d 99, 101 (2d
Cir. 1961), where member’s “dual union activity” consisted of being “active in
-11-
behalf of the rival union and sign[ing] a card authorizing [the rival union] to be
his exclusive bargaining representative”); see, e.g., Davis, 446 F. Supp. at 685
(sanctionable support of rival union consisted in distributing cards on its behalf to
prompt representation election); Meader, 786 F. Supp. at 100 (sanctionable
support of rival union consisted in collecting signatures and filing election
petition on behalf of rival). In requesting an election on behalf of AMFA to
unseat his own union as collective bargaining representative, expressly
authorizing AMFA, in advance, to serve as his representative, and further
promoting AMFA’s efforts in this regard by distributing and encouraging others
to sign its authorization cards, plaintiff undertook a course of action contrary to
the institutional interests of a union in which he voluntarily retained membership.
Accordingly, we hold that the union did not violate § 411(a)(2) by suspending
plaintiff’s participatory rights of membership.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
-12-