Conille v. Council 93, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty & Mun. Emp., 935 F.3d 1

Local 402 was an AFSCME local representing employees at Fernald; Fernald closed and Council 93 recommended deactivation in 2017. AFSCME President Saunders issued a deactivation order on or about May 30, 2017, ratified by the IEB in mid-June.
Local 402 (through President McKinnon and counsel Mark Stern) sent multiple communications objecting to deactivation, filed internal charges, and Stern sent letters (June 7 and June 12, 2017) reserving and exercising an appeal to the IEB if AFSCME deemed prior correspondence a deactivation notice.
Local 402 sued Council 93 and AFSCME alleging (1) unequal voting/representation under the LMRDA, (2) wrongful deactivation under the AFSCME constitution, and (3) retaliatory deactivation for Vice President Conille’s protected speech. The district court held for Local 402 on Count I but denied relief on Counts II and III.
The district court found Local 402 had not properly appealed the deactivation to the IEB; Local 402 appealed. The First Circuit considered whether the appeal was timely and whether Local 402 had exhausted (or effectively invoked) the internal appeal process.
The First Circuit concluded Local 402’s March 22, 2018 notice of appeal was timely (effective upon the district court’s May 15, 2018 disposition of an implicit Rule 52(b) motion) and that Stern’s June letters did, in fact, reserve and exercise an appeal to the IEB.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of federal appeal	Local 402's appeal was timely because its Rule 52(b)-type motion delayed the final judgment and its notice of appeal became effective when the district court issued findings	Council 93 contended the notice was untimely and jurisdiction was lacking	Held: Notice effective when district court disposed of Rule 52(b) motion (May 15, 2018); appeal is timely and jurisdiction exists
Whether Local 402 exhausted internal union remedies by appealing deactivation to the IEB	Local 402 argued Stern's June 7 and June 12 letters unambiguously reserved and exercised an appeal to the IEB	Council 93 argued Local 402 never affirmatively requested an IEB appeal and instead insisted the move was a merger/consolidation dispute	Held: Stern's letters, read in full, sufficiently reserved and exercised an IEB appeal; district court clearly erred in finding no appeal request
Appropriate remedy and effect on retaliation claim (Count III)	Local 402 sought enforcement of AFSCME procedures (rescission or internal hearing); Count III should remain viable pending internal appeal	Council 93 maintained deactivation was proper and Count III was disproven on the record	Held: Remanded to order defendants to rescind deactivation or proceed to hear the internal appeal; Count III vacated with instructions to dismiss without prejudice as unripe until internal appeal concludes

Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (notice of appeal requirement and timing)
Lydon v. Local 103, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 770 F.3d 48 (union constitution suits analyzed under Section 301)
Wooddell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 71, 502 U.S. 93 (union-contract claims and third-party beneficiary standing)
Clayton v. Int’l Union, UAW, 451 U.S. 679 (exhaustion of internal union remedies generally required unless futile)
Frazier-El v. United States, 204 F.3d 553 (alternative requests may be clear and effective)
Richard v. Reg’l Sch. Unit 57, 901 F.3d 52 (clearly-erroneous review standard for bench trial findings)