Olms interpretative Manual

WHOMAYSUE -WHENSUITMAYBEBROUGHT

471.002PRE-ELECTIONSUITS

Theremedyprovidedin theAct forchallenging anelection alreadyconducted isexclusive.

However, existing rights and remedies to enforce the constitution and bylaws of labororganizations before an election has been held are unaffected by the election provisions. Section603 of the Act states that except where explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in the Act shalltake away anyright orbar anyremedy of any unionmemberunderotherFederallaworlaw ofany State.
29CFR 452.138(b)

5. 
   OTHERREMEDIESAVAILABLEBEFOREELECTION
   

Anelection,once ithasbeen heldcanbe challengedonlythroughthemethodsprovided insection 402 of the Act.However, any existing methods of enforcing the constitution and bylawsof a labor organization can be applied before an election is held.This includes any right orremedyavailableto theunion member underanyFederallawor law ofany State.

(TechnicalRevisions:Dec. 2016)

5. 
   INTERVENTIONBYUNIONMEMBERSINSECRETARY’SSUITSee ManualEntry 476.500.
   

471.100STATECOURT’SJURISDICTION

At the suit of candidates who were not allowed to have their names on the local union’sballot, the court granted an injunction restraining the holding of the election. The court said that ithad jurisdiction of the case because the suit was brought on the basis of the constitutions of theinternational and the local. The LMRDA was held not to have preempted the field becauseexistingrightsand remediesare preservedby theAct. Becauseoftheneed forspeed thereliefwasgranteddespitethefact that theplaintiffs had notexhaustedtheirinternalremedies.

The court rejected the argument that the injunction should not issue because the plaintiffshad the alternative of complaining to the Secretary of Labor after the election.The court said thattheright torun for officewas a valuable right that shouldbe protected by the court.

Beisov. Robilotto, 212N.Y.S.2d504, 506-07, 47 LRRM2590 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.1960).

(TechnicalRevisions:Dec. 2016 and Jan. 2021)

200. 
     NOPRE-ELECTIONSUIT UNDER TITLEIV
     

A candidate for union office whose name is not on the ballot, allegedly in violation of theAct, is not entitled to a restraining order enjoining a union from conducting the election.Noirreparable harm would be suffered by the candidate because an improperly run election can be setasideby suit ofthe Secretary of Labor afterthe election is held.

Rarickv. United Steelworkers, 190F.Supp. 158, 159, 46 LRRM2101 (W.D. Pa. 1960).See also
Meyerv.Bottone, 328A.2d 166,87 LRRM3228(Pa.1974).

(TechnicalRevisions:Dec. 2016 and Jan. 2021)

200. 
     DELEGATEELECTION
     

A union member brought a suit alleging in part that the General President had appointeddelegates whom Title IV of the Act requires be elected.The court declined to take jurisdiction ofthe case saying that this is a violation that can be the grounds for suit only by the Secretary ofLabor.

Penuelasv.Moreno, 198F. Supp. 441,449, 48 LRRM 300543(S.D. Cal. 1961).

(TechnicalRevisions:Dec. 2016)

471.210 PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO VOTE IN TITLE I DOES NOT AUTHORIZEFEDERALCOURTS TODISREGARDLIMITATIONSIMPOSED BY TITLEIV

In Calhoonv. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 57 LRRM 2561 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court heldthat union members could not bring in federal court claims regarding eligibility for union officeunder LMRDA Sections 101(a)(1) (which guarantees equal voting rights to union members) and102 (which authorizes federal courts to enforce rights guaranteed by section 101).The Court heldthat members must pursue such claims exclusively through the processes provided for in LMRDATitle IV, meaning a complaint with the Secretary of Labor after exhausting any available internalunionremedies.

In1984 theU.S. SupremeCourtdecided inLocal 82,Furniture & PianoMovingv.

Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 116 LRRM 2633 (1984), that the “relief (including injunctions) as may beappropriate” authorized by Title I did not permit courts to supervise a union officer election basedon claims of Title I violations.The Court in Crowleyfound that Congress clearly intended theSecretaryof Labor, notthe courts,tosupervise elections. However,the Court addedthat when
LMRDATitleIviolationswere“easilyremediableunderthatTitlewithoutsubstantiallydelayingor invalidating an ongoing election,” a court could order such a remedy.The example given bythe Supreme Court was a court order, during an ongoing election, for a union to provide ballots tounionmembers fromwhomtheunion had discriminatorily deniedballots.

The general standards followed by most courts applying Calhoonand Crowleywhendealing with claims of Title I violations involving elections is that when the claim involves anaspect of the election that is specifically prescribed by Title IV (e.g. rules of eligibility for office,distribution of campaign literature) or seeks a remedy that would delay or affect the validity of anelection, the court will require the claimant to use the processes of Title IV.The most commontype of LMRDA Title I claims, involving elections, in which courts will actually grant theclaimantaremedyareclaimsthattheuniondiscriminatorilydeniedtheclaimantaTitleIrightlikethe right to vote or right to nominate a candidate, and the union can extend that right to theclaimant without delaying the election.

(Revised:Dec. 2016 andJan. 2021)