The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Richard Berg, Sheila Allen and Lloyd Wright, members of
Local 743 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the "Local"),
filed a two-count complaint against the Local and its Secretary
Treasurer, Diane Strickland. Count I alleges a violation of the union
members' equal right to vote as protected by Title I of the Labor and
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA") 29 U.S.C.A. §
101(a)(1). Count II alleges that Strickland breached her fiduciary duty
under state law.
All allegations emanate from a union election held in November 2001, in
which plaintiff Berg was a candidate for President of the Local. During
that election, Berg filed twelve pre-election protests with the local,
pursuant to the union's by-laws. After the election, Berg filed a
post-election protest with the union. Berg then filed a complaint with the
Secretary of Labor, who made a preliminary finding that there were two
violations of the LMRDA, but did not make a final determination, and did
not pursue legal action against the Local. Plaintiffs then filed this
action. Defendants have moved to dismiss, arguing: 1) that both counts of
complaint are preempted by Title IV of the LMRDA, depriving this
court of subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) that plaintiffs failed to
exhaust internal remedies. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
Berg was a candidate for president of Local 743 in its election held on
November 3, 2001. The election was conducted through ballots that were
mailed to the Local's 13, 576 members. Ballots mailed to incorrect
addresses were to be returned to one post office box, while ballots
returned by voting members went to another post office box. Based on his
campaigning experience, Berg alleges that the Local's mailing list had
more than 400 incorrect addresses. Each of the three plaintiffs did not
receive an initial ballot, and plaintiff Wright never received a
replacement ballot. However, there were no returned ballots in the post
office box designated for undeliverable mail. Plaintiffs infer that an
unauthorized member of the Local took the undelivered ballots from the
post office box, and may have fraudulently used the ballots in the
Plaintiffs allege that this conduct in the completed fall 2001 election
and the continued failure of the union to maintain an updated mailing
list, along with the Local's unwillingness to restructure its election
process for future elections, has had a chilling effect on future
political activities and has deprived some union members of their equal
right to vote as protected by "§ 101(a)(1) of Title I of the LMRDA.
Plaintiffs further allege that as secretary treasurer, Strickland had a
fiduciary duty to the Local's members, and that she breached this duty
when she failed to take safeguards to ensure that undelivered ballots
could not be fraudulently used.
In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs request: (1) a declaration that
their Title I rights were violated in the 2001 election; (2) a
declaration that defendants' conduct in the 2001 election had a chilling
effect on future political activities; (3) an order compelling defendants
to give plaintiffs access to election records; (4) an order requiring
defendants to maintain an updated and current membership list and to
provide safeguards for future elections; (5) an order requiring Strickland
to give a written accounting of what occurred to the ballots in the 2001
election; and (6) attorney fees and court costs.
Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, arguing that both counts of the complaint are
preempted by Title IV of the LMRDA. Plaintiffs argue that they have pled a
cognizable claim under Title I that is not preempted by Title IV.
Disputes often arise in this area because of the overlap between Title I
and Title IV of the LMRDA. Local No. 82. Furniture and Piano Moving,
Furniture Store Drivers, Helners, Warehousemen and Packers, et al. v.
Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 534 (1984).
Title I grants union members a "Bill of Rights" including equal
protection in the union's political processes. 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1)
Id. at 528. The general purpose of Title I's Bill of Rights is to ensure
a democratic process within the union. Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 435
(1982). On the other hand, Title IV specifically governs union
elections, and it "provides an elaborate post-election procedure aimed
solely at protecting union democracy through free and democratic
elections." Crowley, 467 U.S. at 528. Title IV requires elections by
secret ballot, requires certain nominating procedures, and regulates
various other aspects of elections for union officers. Calhoon v.
Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 140 (1964).
The enforcement measures for a Title I violation are set forth in
Section 412 of LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 412. if a union member's equal
protection right to participate in the union's political processes is
violated, the union member has a private right of action, and a federal
district court has jurisdiction to grant an "appropriate remedy".
29 U.S.C. § 412; 29 U.S.C. § 102; Crowley, 467 U.S. at 537.
Under Title IV, however, only the Secretary of Labor may bring a court
challenge if the Secretary determines that there has been a violation.
29 U.S.C. § 482. Any union member may initiate the process that
results in the Secretary's Title IV court challenge.
29 U.S.C. § 482(a). Importantly, the remedy provided by Title IV "for
challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive."
29 U.S.C. § 483.
Defendants, relying primarily on Crowley, assert that because the basic
thrust of plaintiffs' allegations relate to the completed election, the
complaint alleges a Title IV claim not within this court's jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs, also relying primarily on Crowley, assert that because they
request only declaratory and future relief, and do not seek to invalidate
the already completed election, they have stated a cognizable Title I
claim not preempted by Title IV.
As parties recognize, Crowley is the starting point for any analysis of
the overlap of Title I and Title IV. In Crowley, individual union members
brought suit arguing that their Title I rights to equal protection were
violated by the union when the members were denied admission to a union
meeting called to nominate candidates because the members could not
produce a computerized receipt showing that their union dues had been
paid. The members filed a protested with the union, which was denied.
Election ballots were distributed. The members then filed suit in federal
district court, after the ballots had been sent, but prior to the last
date on which the ballots could be returned for counting. The district
court entered a temporary restraining order, halting the election. After
lengthy but futile attempts to negotiate a settlement, the district court
ultimately held that Title I remedies were not foreclosed when Title I
violations occurred during the course of an election, and rejected the
union's argument that the members' exclusive ...