142 So. 3d 284
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant joined the Union in 1979 and later became Eagle Insulations’ supervisor in 1998, withdrawing from the Union as a result.
- In 2010, after Eagle lost ExxonMobil’s contract, defendant joined Brock Group, a non-union company, as a supervisor starting Sept. 7, 2010.
- ExxonMobil informed Eagle it would not bid the new contract; Brock was awarded it, with defendant moving to Brock.
- The Union charged defendant with six Constitution/Bylaws violations for working for Brock and recruiting other members to Brock.
- The Union held a disciplinary hearing in November 2010; defendant did not attend; the Board found him guilty and fined $7,500 based on dues lost and training expenses.
- The Union sued for breach of contract to collect the fine; defendant counterclaimed unfair labor practices; summary judgment granted to Union; later vacated attorney’s fees, with remand for full merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper given due process questions | Union argues no genuine issues; defendant failed to attend hearing. | Defendant contends due process issues preclude summary judgment. | Remand for complete due process evaluation; summary judgment inappropriate at this stage. |
| Whether defendant remained a union member with withdrawal status at the time of alleged violations | Withdrawal status does not strip membership; Constitution applies to all members. | Member’s withdrawal or non-membership excludes Union jurisdiction. | Remand to determine actual membership status on record. |
| Whether there was ‘some evidence’ supporting charges (subsections e and i) at the hearing | Minutes support violations based on recruiting and signaling to Brock. | Evidence insufficient to prove specific violations; no five members shown defecting. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; need fuller evidentiary record. |
| Whether the $7,500 damages/fine was reasonable given evidence | Fine based on dues lost and training expenses. | Damages not supported by evidence; five members not shown to have defected. | Damages issue unresolved; remand to determine actual damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union v. Jouandot, 921 So.2d 1054 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2006) (union fines require due process and reasonable fines; damages must be proved)
- Goodman v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 742 F.2d 780 (3d Cir. 1984) (full and fair hearing standard; merits not always addressed in LMRA context)
- Hardeman v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO, 401 U.S. 233 (1981) (full and fair hearing requires some evidence at hearing)
- NLRB v. The Boeing Co., 412 U.S. 67 (1983) (reasonableness of union fines governed by contract/obligations)