Olms interpretative Manual

SUIT TO CORRECT ABUSESDURINGTRUSTEESHIPNOWTERMINATED

357.005ILLEGALTRUSTEESHIP

TerminationofatrusteeshipshouldprecludeactionbytheSecretaryonly whererestorationofautonomycan beconsideredaremedyappropriatetothe violationthathas occurred.Where the violation is imposition of a trusteeship for an unauthorized purpose, restoration ofautonomy after the organization has achieved its unlawful purpose certainly could not beconsidereda sufficientremedy.ActionbytheSecretarydespiteterminationofthetrusteeshipmaybewarranted inorder to deprivethe international ofthe fruits of itsillegalact.

ELECTIONSand REMOVAL

(Pre-1974entriesnumbered400-469werewithdrawn;contentsincorporatedin29CFR452.)

470. 
     ProtestingElections:InGeneral
     
471. 
     WhoMay Sue;When Suit MaybeBrought
     
472. 
     InitiatingAvailableUnionRemedies
     
473. 
     UnionRemedies MustbeInvoked
     
474. 
     ComplainttoSecretary
     
475. 
     InvestigationbySecretary
     
476. 
     Suit by Secretary
     
477. 
     OutcomeMay Have Been Affected
     
478. 
     RerunElections
     

479-489(NumbersReserved)
490 RemovalofOfficers:InGeneral
491 (NumberReserved)
492 Adequacyof Removal Procedures
493 Complaint–WhereRemovalProceduresAdequatebutViolated

PROTESTINGELECTIONSINGENERAL:REMEDIESAVAILABLE

470.300 SECRETARY CAN SECURE INJUNCTION TO PROTECT COMPLAINANTActionbroughtbySecretaryof Laborundersection402(b)of LMRDAtosetasidean
electionheldbydefendantunion. Defendantuniontookdisciplinary stepsagainstcomplainantand
the Secretary moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant union from such conduct.Issuewaswhether,pendingadecisiononthemerits,defendantunionshouldbeallowedtofollowa course of conduct towards complainant which is incompatible with the rights, responsibilitiesandbenefitsnormally enjoyed as a result ofunion membership.

The union contended that section 402 of LMRDA spells out in detail the proceduresrequired in connection with setting aside an election of union officers, and stresses that there is noexpress grant of authority therein to give the relief now sought by the Secretary nor does the courthave jurisdiction to grant such relief. This omission, the union contended, demonstrated thatCongressintended thatredress must be sought byprivateaction brought underTitle 1ofthe Act.

Thecourt heldthat thefact thatLMRDAcontainsno expressor impliedauthority togranta preliminary injunction is not decisive. The court was satisfied that it had the authority to grantthereliefsoughtintheexerciseofitsequitable jurisdictionindependentofstatutoryenactment.

Thecourtstated:

Thepublicinterestisinvolvedaswellasprivaterights.Asaconditionprecedenttothebringingof an action by the Secretary of Labor to set aside an election of union officers a member mustsubmit a complaint. If by doing so he will be left unprotected while the issue raised by hiscomplaint and the ensuing litigation await final determination, it is entirely probable that potentialcomplainant will consider quiet acceptance of the situation the better part of wisdom rather thanhazard a possible loss of employment opportunities, discipline or other forms of discrimination. Ifthis should occur, the Secretary of Labor’s enforcement responsibilities would be thwarted and thepublicinterestharmed. Useof theinjunctive processis warrantedto protectthe generalwelfare.

TheSecretary’sapplicationforapreliminaryinjunctionwasgranted.

Wirtzv.Local1752,InternationalLongshoremen’sAssociation,56LRRM2303(D.Miss.1963).

(Revised:Jan.2021;Technical Revisions:Dec.2016)