Rudish v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 234
558 F. App'x 725
8th Cir.2014Background
- John Rudish, a member of International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 234, was expelled after a union disciplinary hearing on charges brought by another union member.
- Rudish sued IUOE and Local 234 under 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5) (LMRDA), claiming denial of (1) written specific charges, (2) reasonable time to prepare, and (3) a full and fair hearing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the union defendants, finding the record supported the disciplinary decision.
- The only record of the union hearing before the court was a one-page set of minutes (submitted by Rudish): each side had five minutes; the charging member cited an existing order of protection; Rudish’s defense included testimony about prior conduct and a recording of the business agent asking Rudish not to call at night; the alleged victim was present but did not testify.
- On appeal, the court reviewed the record de novo and focused on whether the union’s decision was supported by “some evidence” (the Hardeman standard) and whether material factual disputes existed about whether Rudish received a full and fair hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rudish received a “full and fair hearing” under 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5) | Rudish: hearing lacked adequate evidence; minutes show no direct proof of threatening Duehr; proceeding was short and prejudiced by unresolved related criminal charge | Union: hearing was adequate and the decision was supported by some evidence (district court found no triable issue) | Reversed district court on this claim; remanded for determination on an adequate factual record whether there was “some evidence” supporting expulsion |
| Whether the record contained “some evidence” to support the disciplinary decision | Rudish: record contains only indirect, non-probative statements (order of protection, past behavior, a request not to call), insufficient to meet Hardeman’s “some evidence” test | Union: (implicitly) the hearing evidence justified expulsion; district court concluded evidence sufficed | Court found disputed material facts and held it must be determined on adequate fact record whether “some evidence” existed; cannot affirm at summary judgment based on the present record |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Hardeman, 401 U.S. 233 (1971) (establishes “some evidence” requirement for union disciplinary decisions under LMRDA)
- Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review—de novo review and drawing inferences for nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Whisenhunt v. Sw. Bell Tel., 573 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2009) (summary-judgment movant bears burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Mayle v. Laborer’s Int’l Union of N. Am., Local 1015, 866 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1988) (example of abundant evidence supporting union charge where member admitted conduct)
- Eisman v. Baltimore Reg’l Joint Bd., 496 F.2d 1313 (4th Cir. 1974) (procedure for further proceedings when union hearing fails to meet statutory protections)