Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local
126 A.3d 1252
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2015Background
- Raymond Kavanagh, long-time member of Sheet Metal Workers Local 22, became owner of a non‑signatory company in 1997; Local 22 charged him in July 2011 with violating its constitution for conduct related to that status.
- Kavanagh submitted a written resignation in August 2011; Local 22 notified him of an October 2011 disciplinary trial, which he did not attend.
- A Local 22 trial committee found Kavanagh violated six provisions of the union constitution and imposed fines totaling $115,000.
- Local 22 sued in state court to confirm/enforce the internal judgment; the Law Division granted summary judgment to the union and confirmed the fines.
- On appeal, Kavanagh challenged (1) whether the union retained jurisdiction after his resignation, (2) his right to outside counsel at the union hearing, and (3) the reasonableness/size of the fines. The Appellate Division affirmed liability and procedure but remanded to determine whether the fines were unreasonably large.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Local 22 had jurisdiction to discipline Kavanagh after his resignation | Union: member bound by constitution; Article 18 authorizes disciplining former members for pre‑resignation violations | Kavanagh: resignation effective on receipt; therefore not subject to discipline | Court: Jurisdiction retained because violation occurred before resignation and constitution permits disciplining former members |
| Whether Kavanagh was entitled to be represented by outside (non‑union) counsel at the internal hearing | Union: constitution limits representation to union members to preserve control over proceedings | Kavanagh: due process required right to outside counsel | Court: No right to outside counsel; member bound by contractual procedural limits (may use a union member as representative); member could consult an attorney beforehand |
| Whether the fines ($115,000) were unreasonably large and enforceable | Union: constitution authorizes fines; courts should defer unless fines are arbitrary or unreasonably large | Kavanagh: fine excessive and not adequately tied to conduct or calculable harm | Court: Remanded — affirmed that court must review fine for arbitrariness/unreasonable size and apply specified factors to assess reasonableness |
| Standard and scope of judicial review when enforcing union disciplinary judgments | Union: courts enforce internal rules where proceedings are regular and parties had chance to be heard | Kavanagh: urged broader review of internal proceedings and remedies exhaustion | Court: Review limited — courts ensure proceedings were regular, fair, and had evidentiary foundation but generally do not retry merits; remand only to assess reasonableness of fine |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Jersey Newspaper Guild v. Rakos, 110 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 1970) (union bylaws are a contract and courts may enforce internal discipline if procedures were followed)
- NLRB v. Allis-Chambers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967) (courts’ role is to enforce contractual procedures and avoid second‑guessing internal union decisions)
- Cornelio v. Metro. Dist. Council, 243 F. Supp. 126 (E.D. Pa. 1965) (upholding prohibition on outside counsel at union disciplinary hearings)
- Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 986 v. Smith, 602 N.E.2d 782 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (articulating multi‑factor test for whether union fines are unreasonably large)