*1 LAMB, Floyd Appellants, H. MILLER, President, United Workers,

Mine et al.

No. 80-1511. States Court

District Columbia Circuit.

Argued 1981. July

Rehearing Aug. Denied C., Levy, Washington,

Paul Alan D. with whom B. Alan Kli- Morrison James R. maski, C., Washington, D. were on the brief appellants. Marks, Katharyn M. Wash- C., ington, appearance, D. an entered for appellants. Groner, Washington, C.,

Isaac N. D. Mitchell, whom Harrison Combs and Peter C., Washington, brief, D. appellees. ROBB, Before Judge, Circuit SWY *,

GERT Judge, Senior Circuit and GINS BURG, Judge. Circuit Opinion for the filed by Court Senior Judge Circuit SWYGERT.

SWYGERT, Judge: Senior Circuit separate This action arises from sus- pensions Floyd and removals of H. Lamb representative from the from Dis- trict 6 International Executive Board of the United Mine Workers of America (IEB).1 declared the disciplinary * Circuit, sitting by designation Of the Seventh The IEB consists of the Union’s International pursuant 291(a) (1976). President, Vice-President, Secretary-Treasurer, U.S.C. § argument, Judge Swygert time of oral service; judge circuit active he assumed sen- ior status on *2 four-year beginning of his January Lamb were the result term in actions During few requiring office, his first comply with union rules months in failure to Lamb covering submitted expenses, vouchers his expenditure for of union him to account the for which he was reimbursed. He did duties.2 performance the of his funds in complete again expense submit vouchers complaint in his Lamb contended 23,1979, though until even October Janu- then-president, and its the Union ary February and 1978 he received a total assigned grounds $1,300 meeting advances. in cash At a reason merely pretextual that the true 1978, August 11, on Miller directed Lamb to actions was Lamb’s continued vocal expenses, including properly document opposition leadership to Miller’s of the Un- advances, and warned him that he faced complaint alleged that ion. The suspension failed to comply by if he rights Miller and the IEB had violated his meeting. next IEB When Lamb did not Labor-Management under Title I of the Re- any turn in at the IEB meeting vouchers on 1959, porting Disclosure Act of August 28, Miller announced he was sus- granted The 411.3 district court U.S.C. § pending Lamb for Af- “insubordination.”5 judgment for defendants. Lamb discussion, during ter some which Lamb (D.D.C.1980). explained that he did not think he needed reverse, for factual We there is a sufficient to submit since he paid the vouchers had dispute relating to of Presi- the motivation expenses union out of pocket his own in an removing and the IEB in Lamb dent Miller advances, greater amount than the cash require a full trial. suspension by a sustained vote 18 to 6. Lamb had still failed to Because briefly The be summarized facts comply,6 Miller removed him from office on parties violated agree all that Lamb The IEB unanimously ap- November 9. accounting respect rules with the Union’s proved action at its Miller’s on only and cash The expenses advances.4 November which Lamb attended. that concerns us here is whether special Lamb won the violations were the cause of Lamb’s called to those fill the for District 6 on vacancy merely pretext dismissal a it. again suspended

1979. Miller him April Rep- approved suspen- an International The IEB the second elected sion on Miller removed Lamb from by members of District resentative alleged Representative that defendants’ actions had chilled his and one International from each rights of the Union’s First under Title I. districts. Amendment agrees comply he 4. While Lamb Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- argues that the Act, rules were unclear requires seq., closure 29 U.S.C. §§ 401 et that he did at the time and not know he was organizations labor to maintain violating them. filing through of their funds reports salaries, covering detailed provides meeting, and other at the IEB “You disbursements. The Act 5. Miller told Lamb penalties require- time, my judgment, get various ample violation of these had those addition, subject ments. up specifically the union is to an records You were di- to date. injunction Hodgson to maintain such records. rected. remarks Lamb in [made The other v. United Mine Workers explaining earlier failure to submit The union there- relevant to an are not act insubor- vouchers] provides fore in its constitution and its rules it, you you to do dination. I directed didn’t procedures expenditures for the why you.” suspending I do it. And that am funds, may comply of union so that the union reporting requirements. with its incomplete 6. Lamb had submitted some docu- mentation on October which Miller told him joined plaintiff complaint Lamb was as days inadequate. in the three later member, Bumbico, Anthony a union who again on 1979. A week October other finally later, expenses justify submitted union officers had failed to their use approved of the union’s card.7 that were Union. credit vouchers 29, 1979, IEB upheld On October

Lamb’s removal from office. Labor-Management Title I of the

Reporting and Disclosure Act was intended democracy create effective within labor court, defend- granting district unions and to make previously accountable summary judgment, held motion for ants’ pervad untouchable union leaders.8 “The genuine that of material fact exist- no issue ing premise ... is that there should be full and the concerning ed the motives of Miller participation and active of the rank-and-file court dismissing IEB in Lamb. The stated the affairs of union.” American presented any evidence that Lamb had not Wittstein, Federation of Musicians v. 379 that his dismissal support contention 171, 182-83, politically poli- motivated. It held the U.S. 85 S.Ct. cy disagreements between Lamb and Miller (1964). L.Ed.2d 214 Title I of Act They are a unique “were not unusual. Rights” a “Bill establishes of that part day-to-day operation of the un- of the ensures, for example, a union member’s ion.” Lamb v. right speech right of free to sue or participate in legal proceedings otherwise A union.9 union official not be exercising rights. While there is dismissed for these substantial evidence in the record of Lamb’s violations of Union's accounting rules, presented enough evi- When there possible impermissible dence of motives to the reason for removal from office was withstand a judgment. motion permissible and some evidence that rea organizer Lamb was an in 1974 of the Min- impermissible, son question wheth Committee, er’s Action publicly op- which protected er activities were a cause posed many of the Miller administration’s removal must be resolved a trier of fact. supported actions. He candidacy America, v. Bradford Textile Workers of Patterson, Leroy who ran Miller in (4th Local 563 F.2d Cir. previous International Pres- 1977). The motivation the dismissal is early ident. opposed 1978 he during the question thus a of fact. See Price v. United process ratification the contract that had Mine Workers of negotiated been during (D.D.C.1974), opin aff’d without spoke summer 1978 he out in favor of the ion, (D.C.Cir.1975). In this

campaign to recall President Miller. Miller case, might Miller and the IEB have re knew opposition activity. about this inadequate moved Lamb for August when they might but also have dis first Miller told violating Lamb he was opposition. missed him for his continued Miller policies. Summary their press is im clippings concerning the latter’s dispute dissidence and when such said that he of material fact would toler- ate challenges authority. such to his exists.10 We judg- therefore reverse the See, g„ 411(a)(2), 411(a)(4). §§ e. 29 U.S.C. Defendants state these contentions of incorrect, is, disparate course, are but that treatment Assoc, precisely type of factual Employees Government National summary judgment. that cannot be resolved (D.C.Cir.1978). Campbell, v. 593 F.2d S.Rep. Cong., (1959), No. 86th 1st Sess. 1959, p. Cong. U.S.Code & Admin.News ment of the district court and remand this OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION the merits. case for a trial on Reversed and Remanded. Petitioner, INC., REHEARING ON PETITION FOR COMMERCE COMMIS- INTERSTATE

PER CURIAM. States of SION petition appellants’ On consideration rehearing, it is Railroads, et of American Association Association, Inc., al., Aluminum the afore- ORDERED the Court petition rehearing is denied. said ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL *4 O’Donnell, Ritz v. (D.C.Cir. INC., Petitioner, 1977), controversy. does not control this majority Ritz affirmed a plain- for the union because the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMIS- tiff “failed to make even a minimal show- SION and United States ing disciplinary proceedings retaliatory

instituted as a measure.” 566 Atchison, Topeka Railway and Santa Fe Here, F.2d appellant at 736. Lamb made Co., Scrap Iron Institute of showing by adducing the requisite threshold Steel, Inc., Corporation National Steel some evidence that the union made it diffi- (79-1582) Paper Institute, American Inc. cult for him supply (79-1590), the financial account- ing it demanded. For the union 81-1051, 79-1393, 79-1395, 79-1582, Nos. respond asking to Lamb’s letter 79-1583, 79-1590, 79-1611, 79-1620, 79- 79-1860, specific charges, dates of airline ticket and 79- 79-1970 attempt

and union officials made no to as- sist Lamb in compiling other information United States Court needed to meet the union’s directive. Ac- District of Columbia Circuit. cordingly, we adhere to our determination Argued April summary adjudication appropri- is not ate in this ease.