Olms interpretative Manual

OUTCOMEMAYHAVEBEENAFFECTED

477.001LMRDA, SECTION402(c)

If,upon apreponderanceof theevidence after atrial uponthemerits, the courtfinds. . .

(2)that theviolation ofsection401may haveaffectedthe outcomeof an election,...

477.005“POSSIBLE”EFFECTONOUTCOMESUFFICIENT

Aninvestigationofacomplaint concerninga runoffelection(heldasaresult ofa tiein theregular election) for the office of business representative of a local union revealed that 58ineligible members were allowed to vote.The 58 voters involved either (1) had not paid theirdues or (2) had not paid or completed payment of mandatory readmission fees.The election wasdecided by19 votes.

On suit of the Secretary to set aside the runoff election the court held “that if the number ofineligiblevotescast issufficient tomake itmathematically possiblethatthe outcomeof the

election was affected, this fact alone conclusively establishes the Act’s requirement that theconductcomplainedofmayhaveaffectedthe outcomeoftheelection.”Theelectionwassetaside.


Wirtzv. Local Union No. 125, International Hod Carriers' Building and Common Laborers'Union,270 F. Supp. 12, 20, 62 LRRM 2141 (N.D. Oh. 1966).

(TechnicalRevisions:Dec. 2016)

RERUNELECTIONS

478.005SUPERVISED ELECTIONS- TERMOF OFFICE

Elections conducted under the enforcement provisions of section 402 of the LMRDA arefor the unexpired term of the contested election.Support for this position is found in section 403oftheLMRDAwhichprovidesinpertinentpartthatnolabororganizationshallberequiredbylawto conductelections ofofficerswithgreaterfrequency orin adifferentformor manner thanisrequired by its own constitution or bylaws, except as otherwise provided by Title IV; and insection 402 which provides that in the interim between challenge and voiding, the challengedelection shall be presumed valid and the affairs of the union shall be conducted by the electedofficers or in such othermanner as the union constitutionand bylaws may provide.

478.100INTERFERING WITHSUPERVISION

Inanactionof firstinstance,theUnited StateDistrictCourt,EasternDistrict ofNewYork,granted a permanent injunction restraining the officers, agents, employees and representatives of alocal union from interfering with or obstructing the supervision of the Secretary of Labor in theconductof an election ofunion officers by said union.

The original action had been instituted by the Secretary of Labor under section 402(b) ofLMRDA,praying foranorderof the Courtdirecting theconduct of anelection bythe unionunderthe supervision of the Secretary.The basis of the complaint was that the union had failed to electits officers within the past three years by secret ballot among the members in good standing, asrequiredbysection 401(b) of LMRDA.

Although the union admitted the violation by stipulation and consented to a judgmentallowing an election of officers to be conducted under the supervision of the Secretary, the unionsubsequently refused to allow the complainant in this case, who had been determined by theSecretarytobe amember ingoodstanding andeligible forunion office,tobe nominatedfor unionoffice.The union also sent out notice of nominations and elections without the approval of theSecretary.

Asa resultof theseactions on thepart ofthe union,the Secretaryappliedfor andobtaineda temporary order restraining the union, through its officers, agents, etc., from violating thestipulationandconsentjudgmentandfrominterferingwiththe supervisionoftheSecretaryin the

conductoftheelectioninquestion.Theorder waslatermadepermanent.


Wirtzv. Teamsters Warehousemen, Helpers and Production Workers Independent Local 424, No.63-C-819(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 1963) (unreported).

NOTE:
ItshouldbenotedthattheCourtdidnotquestiontheSecretary’sauthoritytodeterminewhichoftheunion memberswere eligibletovote andeligible tobenominated asan officer.

(TechnicalRevisions:Dec. 2016)

478.200CHALLENGEOFCOURT-CERTIFIEDELECTION

If the court has appointed someone to supervise the election and has accepted thecertification of the election by this party, the court has already determined, in effect, that anelectionoverwhich ithad jurisdictionhasbeen properlyconducted.Therefore,it wouldnot beappropriatetochallengethe proprietyoftheelection orthe court’s decisionthrough TitleIV.

(TechnicalRevisions: Jan. 2021)

478.300FUNCTION OFACONSENT DECREE

TheexclusiveremedyprovidedintheActforchallenginganelectionalreadyconducteddid not deprive the district court and an independent administrator that the court appointed tooversee a union, pursuant to consent decree entered in litigation to rid union of organized crimeinfluence,of jurisdictionto orderrerun electionfor union localofficers.

UnitedStatesv.Int’lBhd.ofTeamsters,Chauffeurs,Warehousemen&Helpers,782F.Supp.243(S.D.N.Y.1992)

(Jan.2021)