*2 CLARK, Before CHARLES RONEY HENDERSON, Judges. Circuit RONEY, Judge: agent, apparently A local union’s business international union’s from the direction binding president, signed local, though even ment on behalf unanimously de- had clined prior participate on two occasions project, despite presence in the of a provision parent union’s constitution bargaining agreements that collective must approved majority be by a the affected local. The issue in this case is whether respective unions’ actions created causes of action on behalf of two individual the local and against members international Labor Management section 301 of the 185; Relations sections § U.S.C.A. Labor-Management and 102 Act, 29 Reporting and Disclosure U.S.C.A. respeсtive 411(a)(1), unions’ §§ representation. project agreement. The full except court denied all relief local under its against as text of the was as follows: only nominal representation, but awarded that all This office has been informed of the two damages in favor except engineers crafts operating reverse the district local members. We with signed Rеd project agreement court’s denial of a fair claim at Olinkraft Company Rock Construction union, parent remand the case *3 Monroe, You Louisiana. Paper Company, damages for an award of nominal and costs hereby agreement are the sign directed to action, in under this cause of and affirm all job. and to supply men to this respects. other manager signed July On business International of Local 406 of the Union agreement on behalf of the local. Engineers, (the local), Operating AFL-CIO constitution, incorpo- The international’s representative is the exclusive Article pertinent part into Y of the rated and maintain all persons operate who col- by-laws, provided proposed equipmеnt engineer’s covered craft by the “shall not be bargaining agreements lective Northeast Louisi- agreement between the presented executed until have Chapter ana of the Associated General Con- meeting following membership next Building tractors of America and agreement and proposed negotiation of the Council, of which the Constructiоn Trades membership.” approved by have been dispute local was member. The here a proviso permitting There was an additional project agree- arose out of the aof delegate this au- the local ment between Redrock Construction Co. thority, but the district court found expansion and the Trades Council for the neither the local nor the international manufacturing a Redrock was not facility. delegation claimed that such party a to the craft between the challenged made. That not on finding is Trades Council and the contractors associa- appeal. separate agreement tion. a Consequently, covering particular job necessary. this Two local members who nevеr worked however, project agreement, The Redrock under involved in that were special contained standards less $50,000 com- award dispute seek an favorable to the than the same employees damages. Their pensatory exemplary engineers standards contained in the craft manager’s assent request the business agreement. Although the two be project agreement voided was wage contained the same rates fringe upon completion rendered moot of the Red- contributions, benefit the Redrock job. rock ment time and one-half rates for overtime, while the craft con- Management Section SOI: Labor tained double rates for overtime work. In Relations Act addition, under employees sought Plaintiff to invoke the agreement, operating engineers could be jurisdiction upon district court’s first based among pieces equipment shifted various 301(a) Management section throughout of the Labor working day, while under agreement, 185(a). the craft Relations That only one such move U.S.C.A. § could during day. provides, be ordered the course of a 22,1976, membership, The local on June contracts between Suits for violation of again July 6,1976, unanimously rejected organization rep- employer and a labor the proposed project agreement. resenting employees industry in an af- fecting chap- as defined in this commerce July On the local’s business ter, organiza- or between such labor manager pres- receivеd a from the tions, district may brought be Operat- ident of the International Union of (the having juris- ing Engineers, AFL-CIO internation- court of the United States al), respect to ordering manager sign parties, the business diction of the without Thus, several cases relationships. er controversy or without re- the amount juris not confer 301 did parties. found that section citizenship gard to merely an dispute bеcause the diction by the that violation
Plaintiffs contended
involve
and did
intraunion matter
con-
of the international’s
respective unions
Stell
peace.
threat
of contract
amounted to a breach
stitution
ing v.
IBEW
301(a). Sec-
of section
purview
denied, 442
1978), cert.
1382-84
a violation of a
requires
“expressly
tion 301
employed as
may
it
be
contract before
lаbor
International Brotherhood
(1979); Trail v.
Glover,
Mumford
jurisdiction device.”
Teamsters,
1974). The issue
Hospital
Union
DC,
National
may
members
individual union
of whether
National Un
& Health
Employees
Care
jurisdictional
as a
basis
use section 301
Employees,
Care
Health
Hospital
ion of
&
unions is a
sue their local or international
(D.C.Cir. 1976);
1205, 1207-08
this Circuit.
impression
first
matter of
*4
1241, 1242-44
UMW, 493 F.2d
v.
Smith
language
As the
in section
Em
Restaurant
(10th
&
1974); Hotel
Cir.
on wheth
clear,
depends
jurisdiction
makes
705,
Svacek, 431 F.2d
400 v.
ployees Local
employer
an
er there is a contract between
cases have
Other
two
organization or between
and a labor
contradictory con
apparently
reached the
While the suit need
organizations.
labor
jurisdic
section 301
clusion that there
employer
an
necessarily be between
not
found
tion,
cases the courts
but in these
labor or
or between
organization
a labor
peace
on industrial
genuine impact
that a
Evening News Associ
v.
ganizations, Smith
alleged.
adequately
200-201,
267,
ation,
195,
S.Ct.
1234,
Corp.,
Abrams
Carrier
(1962),
upon
the contract
270,
denied,
(2d
1970), cert.
401 U.S.
1247-49
be between
is based must
which the suit
1009,
(1971);
1253,
S.Ct.
Amalgamated
such
Associa
parties. See
886,
914-17
IBEW,
Parks v.
Street,
Railway
Electric
& Motor
tion of
976,
Cir.),
denied,
83 S.Ct.
372 U.S.
Lockridge,
Employees
Coach
657,
1111,
(1963); cf. Local
be a collective
v. United Brotherhood
rejected
approach, stating,
Carpenters
“It is
& Joiners
Court
Joiners,
Carpenters
&
enough
clearly
this is
(same).
(1st
1974)
organizations
and labor
employers
between
maintenance of labor
significant
to the
So,
circuits have
while those other
Id.,
them.”
82 S.Ct. at
peace between
involving
reached different results in cases
cоnstitu
jurisdiction
parent
based
by the issue of
tions,
only
Other circuits confronted
of result and
the conflict is
one
the union constitution
whether violation of
We
analysis.
not one
method of
jurisdiction
provides a basis for section 301
cited above and hold
follow the decisions
Lion
lan-
Dry
conferring jurisdiction
have derived from the
Goods
purposes
that for
guage,
alleged
frоm their conclusion
violation
under section
regulate
peace
the LMRA is not to
or
purpose of
create a threat
must
affairs,
requirement
impact upon
labor-em
strictly
significant
intraunion
have a
necessary
to be a “contract”
relations.
It is therefore
ployer
that for an
present
contro
meaning of section
it must
whether
within the
to determine
requirement.
labor-employ-
versy
on external
meets that
have some effect
agent, by signing the agree-
The business
employees
argue
here
a dis-
authorization,
respective
sparked
unions’
consequences
ment without
impact
employees
on labor-
pute solely
activities had a substantial
between the
no
relations,
since without a cоn-
has
management
respective
There
unions.
tract,
un-
Redrock,
would have
operating engineers
no
suggestion
the construction
to commence
job.
been sent to the
Had
agreed
ions
already
that had
way
nonunion
company
been forced to secure
job,
work
on the Olinkraft
balking local mem-
replacements
for the
prompted
president
the international’s
unions,
bers,
who had
likely
it is
the other
We do
urge
agreement.
ratification of the
already assented to the
scenario
decide whether such a
job.
walked off the
agreement, would have
bring the matter
have been
sufficient
Furthermore,
employees argue,
since
bargaining,
within
context of collective
dispute
the essence of the
hеre arose from
strictly intraunion
and out of the realm of
agree
to the dou-
employer’s
refusal
squabble.
in-
rate which had been
ble time overtime
controversy
We conclude the
corporated
engineers’
into the
craft
impact on exter
significant
does not have a
ment,
labor-management
relations are di-
and there
relationships
labor-employer
nal
rectly implicated. Had Redrock not at-
jurisdiction
fore cannot form the basis
tempted
to undercut the craft
prop
under section 301.
area,
key
the overtime
element of the
under that section.
erly
jurisdiction
denied
diffused,
dispute
according
would have been
plaintiffs.
Management
Labor
101 and 102:
Sections
*5
rejected.
Plaintiffs’
must be
contentiоns
Act
Reporting and Disclosure
Their
arguments
consequences
that the
question
plaintiffs
The next
is whether
had a
respective unions’ acts
substantial
alleged
have
a sufficient violation of section
impact upon labor-management
relations
101(a)(1)
Labor-Management Report-
reasoning
are misdirected. This line of
Act,
ing and
Disclosure
U.S.C.A.
virtually every
agree-
include
411(a)(1), to confer jurisdiction under sec-
§
ment within the ambit of
since
section
Act,
tion
102 of the
29 U.S.C.A. §
activity
all union
will
ultimately practically
101(a)(1) provides,
Section
labor-management
have
in the
impact
some
organization
Every
of a labor
member
question
arena. The
is not whether
equal rights
privileges
shall have
impact
union activities have sufficient
nominatе
organization
within such
employer relationships
peace
industrial
candidates,
or referen-
to vote
elections
agreement
alleged
but whether the
and its
to attend
organization,
dums of the labor
violation have
that effect. The
meetings,
participate
and to
allegedly violated here
the internation-
voting upon the
in the deliberations and
constitution,
agreement,
al’s
not the craft
subject to rea-
meetings,
business of such
which did not even
apply to
in such or-
regulations
sonable rules and
job, or the other unions’ contracts. The
ganization’s
bylaws.
constitution
alleged
signing
violation was not the
of a
Plaintiffs claim their equal rights to vote
contract
inconsistent with the craft
were denied
virtue of the business
ment
but rather the
of a contract
agent’s patent
of the two referen-
disregard
approved by
procedures prescribed
da in which the proposed
by the international’s constitution. With
rejected. The word
unanimously
respect
alleged
to that
and that
101(a)(1)
“referendum” in section
has been
violation, plaintiffs have not shown there
guarantee
“to
sufficiently
held to be
broad
any
peace
real threat
or
right to vote on a
to all union members a
any significant
impact
relationship
on the
enjoy.”
of them
any
with the
indica- union contract which
employer,
nor is there
that,
of Team-
Brotherhood
tion in the record
aside from mere Trail v. International
sters,
speculation,
showing
such a
could be made.
The held Court Calhоon Harvey, 379 85 S.Ct. U.S. that district court concluded The (1964), however that a cause of plaintiff employees had stated guarantee rights” “equal section its local under action 101(a)(1) only unequal forbids treatment as nominal fair awarded representation and Thus, between members of a union. plain for each damages thereunder $1 issue under is not whether plain finding tiff. The district сourt’s properly the members treated or fair were compensable tiffs are unable to show ly, equally. but whether were treated they dis damages has not been appealed. Blackman, Lux v. See breached trict the local properly court held IBEW Local Case v. under these its duty (D.Alas.1977), F.Supp. aff’d sub facts. We affirm nominal award Stelling nom. v. IBEW Local locаl. against the costs damages and 1978), denied, plaintiffs also court held (1979); S.Ct. 2890 damages were punitive not entitled to un- Abel, Aikens v. F.Supp. (W.D. duty of fair der of its the local’s breach Pa.1974). representation. After the district decision, argu- before oral rendered its but allegation There here that is no case, Supreme ment Court held in this two union members have damages punitive improрer an award against, discriminated or representa- a union’s breach of right a to vote that privilege been denied tion employee’s grievance. processing It is un the union has to others. Foust, IBEW v. 99 S.Ct. local members voted disputed Although Foust in- (1979). L.Ed.2d 698 unanimously Redroek reject a claim under Railway volved Labor was a denial of project agreement. If there applicable the decision is equally vote, right the business because case arising like the under the one wishes, agent’s abrogation of the members’ National Labor Relations Act. See equally. member that denial affected each n.8; n.8, at 46 at 2125 Ford Motor *6 out singled Plaintiffs themselves were Huffman, Co. 73 v. S.Ct. U.S. treatment, is disparate for nor there (1953). Accordingly, the dis- L.Ed. 1048 hint that other mеmbers received bet union punitive damages trict court’s denial of is exercising ter treatment union affirmed. in section re Nothing franchise. a labor to submit quires union Fair International Representation: membership prior to the the The district court held that interna- Indepen ratification. Confederated See duty representation tional owed no fair Co., 465 dent Unions v. Rockwell-Standard to employees, the and the interna- (3d F.2d Cir. Cleveland judgment. for summary tional’s motion Federa Orchestra Committee v. Cleveland We portion reverse that of the district Musicians, tion of Local “ holding. court’s ‘[Tjhere 1962). was no Cir. respect right unequal with to treatment authority granted In return for the broad the vote was not to vote and the fact that a union as the mеmbers’ exclusive collective translated into consistent therewith action bargaining agent, the union must “serve give not in itself a cause of does and of the interests of all members without hostili- plaintiffs against the the Interna action to ty or . any, discrimination toward ” tional, v. and Union.’ Vincent complete good exercise its discretion with IBEW, 1980). faith and . . avoid ar- honesty, . a cаuse of action Plaintiffs not stated Sipes, bitrary conduct.” Vaca U.S. 101(a)(1). 903, 910, under Furthermore, VI of the Moore, Article in (1967) (citing Humphrey formally invests S.Ct. ternational’s constitution (1964)). duty “only is violated The union’s supervisory the president international’s when toward a member of the conduct and their powers over locals [its] the various is dis bargaining arbitrary, collective unit agents. presumably act The president in bad faith.” Vaca v. criminatory, or sent the ing he power when Sipes, at at S.Ct. 916. See hereby directed “You are reading, Steel, Inc., also Freeman v. O’Neal supply men to sign to and to 1980); Cox v. H. C. job.” The district court found Sons, 138, 142 (5th Masland & signed local’s agent business The at the of the international. direction concluding
After the local had also court the international determined breached of fair duty its local in equally fault with at finding the local plaintiffs (a ap- has not representa duty local’s breach of its court pealed), the district considered the holdings, we these tion. On the basis of liability: international’s caused the conclude that international Although defendant International the Redrock sign business manager appear equally to be fault —hav- liable to the is therefore ing authority exceeded its own in order- to the remand dis membership. local’s We ing plaintiff to award nominal contract — trict court with directions has the Court not asserted and is unable the internation damages and costs federally cognizable find cause of al. exclusive being bargain- action. Not PART; AFFIRMED IN REVERSED ing agent, duty thе International owes no AND PART. REMANDED IN representation. fair . (citations omitted). though Even the inter- CLARK, Judge, con- CHARLES employees’ national was not the exclusive part: dissenting in curring part bargaining agent, question is whether Roney writes except I Judge concur all nevertheless international owed a under the paragraph the fourth final membership to the not to cause the 102: Lаbor Man- heading 101 and “Sections local to fair representa- breach its Disclosure Act.” agement Reporting and local, tion. respect With the district the international Plaintiffs asserted noted, facts of this “The ease of their president local treated the members duty” breach of this paradigm the members of unequally vis-a-vis representation. directing its the other business by locals While the international was not formally rejected manager to sign a contract designated employees’ union. claim agent, president’s the international di *7 made this discrimination rective of supplanting had effect reject- practiced locals which other vested in the local’s authority business man ed contracts that it the inequal- crеated ager to assent to the mem 101(a)(1). which ity violated section In the contexts, bership’s behalf. In other inter I proof contrary, absence of national unions have been held liable for plaintiffs find that have stated a cause of the acts negotiating of a local in collective action under section. agreements, when the resulting rights. violated local members’ Paper Myers Corp., Gilman (5th Cir.), rehearing, F.2d 837 modified on dismissed, (1977); Sagers
Yellow Freight System,