Case Information
*3 trusteeship over Local 115 in the absence
MсKEE, Circuit Judge. of any colorable emergency, in violation These consolidated appeals arise of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
from the imposition of an emergency A few days after the complaint was *4 filed, the temporary trustee appointed by interlocutory appeal pursuant to § Hoffa scheduled hearings as required by 1292(b): “Whether Plaintiffs have the IBT’s Constitution. At the conclusion standing to recover for any damages on of the hearings, an internal union hearing behalf of the Local Union 115 for the time p a n e l i s s u e d a R e p o r t a n d period between the November 15, 1999 Recommendation finding that there was emergency imposition and the General sufficient reason for the imposition and President’s May 31, 2001 decision issued continuation of the trusteeship. Hoffa after the hearing.” adopted the panel’s Report and For the reasons that follow, we will Recommendation and continued affirm the district court’s grant of trusteeship on May 31, 2000. On June 13, summary judgment on Count Two in favor 2001, Hoffa dissolved the trusteeship of Hoffa and against the Morris Plaintiffs. when newly-eleсted officers of the Local However, we will vacate the district were installed. court’s entry of judgment under Rule
In the meantime, Hoffa filed a 54(b) on Count One and direct the district motion for summary judgment, which the court to enter summary judgment in favor district court granted in substantial part. of Hoffa and against the Morris Plaintiffs In its summary judgment opinion, the on their challenge to the prehearing district court indicated that its disposition emergency trusteeship. As we will of Hoffa’s summary judgment motion explain, based upon this holding, we need might warrant the entry of final judgment not reach the issue of standing that the under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Accordingly, district court certified for interlocutory both sides filed Rule 54(b) motions. appeal.
Hoffa also filed a motion for interlocutory I. BACKGROUND appeal of a number of issues under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Thereafter, the district The IBT is an unincorporated court entered Rule 54(b) final judgment association that is a labor organization on Count Two (the free speech claim) in within the meaning of § 2(5) of the favor of Hoffa and against the Morris National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), plaintiffs; entered Rule 54(b) final 29 U.S.C. § 152(b). Local 115 is a judgment on Count One with respect to Pеnnsylvania unincorporated association the maintenance of the post-hearing and a labor organization under the NLRA. trusteeship in favor of Hoffa and against It is also a subordinate body of the IBT the Morris plaintiffs, and entered Rule within the meaning of § 304 of the 54(b) final judgment on Count One with LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 464.
respect to the pre-hearing emergency John P. Morris was the elected trusteeship in favor of Hoffa but against Secretary-Treasurer and principal officer Morris only. The district court also of Local 115. Elmore Mack and Harold certified the following question of law for Fisher were elected trustees of the local. *5 All three were members of the Executive Over the ensuing months, Smith and Board of Local 115 and constituted the McNamara allegedly met with IBT majority of that Board under the representatives and agitated for a trusteeship, with Smith complaining to Local’s bylaws. McNamara that the IBT was not moving The IBT Constitution governs the fast enough. Morris claimed that Smith relationship between the IBT and had been given target dates of April 1999 subordinate Local unions such as Local and then July 1999, for creating a 115. James P. Hoffa was installed as trusteeship.
General President of the IBT in mid- Hoffa and the IBT had received March, 1999, following a history of numerous complaints about the abuses that turmoil that culminated in a contentious apparently characterized Local 115's 1998 election that was conducted under leadership, and these allegations prompted government supervision. Morris alleges an investigation of the local. According to that Hoffa initiated a campaign to oust Hoffa, information developed during that Morris, as well as those in Local 115 who investigation revealed a “pretty had been loyal to Morris, as soon as Hoffa frightening portrayal” of Local 115: took over. We had these stories about On February 28, 1999, Brian Kada, beatings. Smith said he was a member of Local 115, had a beaten up in a stairwell, that conversation with Michael T. Breslin, Johnny Morris carries a gun, Frank McGuire and Billy Anderson during the local was buying guns. which Kada told them that Hoffa had They had stun guns, they informed James E. Smith, Jr., a Morris had pеpper spray, unusual foe, that Local 115 would be put under purchases for a local union, trusteeship. It is alleged that Kada also and things that are improper said that Morris would be out of office as far as I know, as far as I and that Hoffa wanted Morris’s seats on believe and we got that the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, information and we acted on the Joint Council 53 and the Pennsylvania it. Conference of Teamsters. Morris claimed that Smith would run Local 115 in return
for Smith’s assistance in ousting Morris. App. at 53. According to Morris, Gerald The investigation lead Hoffa to the
McNamara had been communicating with conclusion that it was necessary to impose Hoffa as early as March 15, 1999. an emergency trusteeship over Local 115. McNamara was dissatisfied with Morris Accordingly, on November 14, 1999, and was waiting to hear if Hoffa was Hoffa appointed Edward F. Keyser, Jr., going to place Local 115 in trusteeship. *6 Temporary Trustee over the affairs of the local. On November 22, 1999, Trustee Local 115, effective November 15, 1999. Keyser issued a Notice of Trusteeship That same day (November 14), Hoffa Hearing pursuant to the IBT Constitution, issued a Notice to the Officers and scheduling formal hearings on the need for Members of Local 115, informing them of a trusteeship for Thursday, December 9, the reasons for the trusteeship. 1999, and Saturday, December 11, 1999. [3]
The Notice specified sixteen reasons that included both general and A. The Trusteeship Hearing . specific instances of violence and According to Hoffa, a large intimidation under Morris’s leadership conference room and a smaller office were dating back to 1955 and increasing in made available to Morris’s counsel and recent years. The intimidation included witnesses throughout the course of the charges that Morris and his business ensuing hearings. Both rooms were agents threatened and assaulted disloyal adjacent to the membership hearing room, members of Local 115, and that Morris and they allowed Morris an opportunity had purchased materials such as stun guns for consultation and preparation. Hoffa to wage war against disloyal union claimed that the hearing panel kept the members. Financial abuses were also record open after the close of testimony so noted, including a charge that Morris that the parties or any member could directed union members to perform submit additional written testimony. "extensive renovations and repairs on [his] house" while still on the time clock for Trustee Keyser presented sixteen their employers; that Morris required witnesses, including an IBT auditor and stewards to collect cash gifts for himself in forensic auditors. Morris and his the form of annual “Christmas gifts,” and supporters presented twenty-five that he retaliated against members whose witnesses. Hoffa claims that Christmas spirit did not embrace approximately sixty members presented extortionate gift giving. The fiscal abuses information during open microphone also included charges that Morris had sessions that provided an opportunity for altered Local 115's Health and Welfare any member who wanted to address the Plan to suit his personal needs, and that he panel to do so. Members also presented used union funds to benefit family written statements, either directly to the members. panel, or through the Trustee, and then accompanying letters of appointment resulted in Keyser being given authority over all of the affairs of Local 115. It also resulted in the ouster of Morris, Mack and Fisher from their elected positions with The November 14th notice and Morris’s request. Ultimately, they were February 28 through March 3, 2000. continued through January 19-21 and rescheduled for January 5-7, 2000, and The hearings were postponed at *7 turned them over to the panel. The Morris also apparently harassed, proceedings were transcribed and threatened and cursed any witness who videotaped and both sides presented opposed him, and he interrupted and extensive briefs and proposed findings and talked over anyone trying to make a conclusions of law. statement against him. In addition, former Business Agent Johnson sat next to Morris Morris argues that the IBT caused during the hearings and fulfilled the role more than 100 police officers to be placed of one of the “tough guys” that Morris outside the offices where the hearings reportedly always had with him. While were held. The police included SWAT sitting next to Morris, Johnson also team members in riot gear with face threatened and cursed witnesses and the masks. People entering the offices had to investigating panel. walk a “gauntlet” of masked police officers, be searched, and pass through a The hearing panel’s Report and metal detector. Morris claims that the Recommendation found overwhelming IBT orchestrated this scene even though evidence to support the imposition and there was no indication of potential continuation of the trusteeship. The panel violence from Morris’s supporters. concluded that lifting the trusteeship Morris also claims that he was unable to would result in substantial damage to obtain any evidence to contradict the Local 115 and its members because Morris evidence offered by Hoffa and the IBT had created a climate of fear and because the emergency Trustee had sole intimidation thаt was irreparably possession and control of the books and destroying the rights of the membership. records of Local 115. Morris alleges that B. The IBT’s Findings . he did not know in advance whom the Trustee would call as witnesses or what Hoffa accepted the panel’s testimony the witnesses would provide. recommendation and continued trusteeship. In doing so he wrote:
Ironically, Morris apparently demonstrated his propensity for During the eleven days of intimidation during the hearings. At one hearings, the longest point, he became enraged at Local 115 running hearing ever President Smith. While Smith was conducted by the [IBT], testifying, Morris gestured as if he were n u m e r o u s m e m b e r s loading and firing a shotgun at Smith’s appeared to testify about the head. This caused the hearing to adjourn events in the Local. Much for the day. The following day when the of that testimony revealed a hearing resumed, Morris denied making persistent pattern of abuse the gesture even though his actions had of power and suppression of been captured on videotape. membership rights. Quite
si mp ly, the evidence *8 established that supporters improve real estate, to purchase printing of the John Morris equipment, buses, a snowplow and administration received vehicles that had no benefit to the special benefit s and members. Testimony from IBT auditor attention and those members William Evans and forensic auditors who spoke or acted in a Robert Walker and Joseph Wahl manner viewed as being established that Morris purposefully failed hostile to the administration to maintain required accounting records in were abused, intimidated, order to hide much of his financial retaliated against and even mismanagement. In addition, Morris physically and economically falsified bank documents, commingled endangered. money from various Local 115 Funds and
failed to file necessary tax documents. Morris improperly used his App. at 10. authority to maintain control of Local 115. Hoffa found evidence of several He placed members and their relatives in violent, verbal and physical attacks by jobs and demanded loyalty in return for Morris and other Local 115 officials keеping their jobs. The members so against staff as well as union members. placed were reportedly fired if Morris Morris had conducted abusive inquisitions thought that they were disloyal to him. In and threatened union stewards. For addition, Morris arranged late night example, union member Kada had been meetings where union members were “sucker-punched” in the face by Business abused, threatened and, in one instance, Agent “Jocko” Johnson on union property assaulted. Hoffa concluded that the during a union meeting, in full view of officers of Local 115 did not properly Morris. Morris had then pushed Kada and represent these members. [5] baited Kada to push him back. [4] Morris that Morris neither refuted nor
evidence of financial malpractice by of Local 115's money to purchase and explained. Morris used millions of dollars The record contained substantial within Local 115, and much of this a complete breakdown of democratic rule evidence was almost entirely unrefuted. Morris did not deny requiring union The trustee’s evidence established
members to do personal work for him or his relatives while they were “on the The evidence also demonstrated *9 imposed. [7] In essence, the plaintiffs
that Morris had violated the IBT alleged that Hoffa imposed the trusteeship Constitution and federal law by because they opposed him in the 1996 and consistently refusing to provide union 1998 IBT presidential elections. They members with copies of their collective claimed that Hoffa was attempting to bargaining agreements. [6] suppress such opposition in the future. [8] As summarized above, Count One alleged The evidence confirmed that that the trusteeship violated Title III of the Morris had used the guise of “Christmas LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 462, 464, and the gifts” to extort money from members at some of the higher paying union shops as
Hoffa had previously heard. Documents [7] Originally, Kenneth Woodring, a established that Morris had been union officer affected by the imposition of embezzling money from the Union since the trusteeship, was a plaintiff. However, 1981 when he awarded himself a raise he moved to dismiss all of his claims without the required Executive Board against Hoffa and the IBT pursuant to approval. At the end of 1989, Morris Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).
further enriched himself by causing the
Union to take out an insurance policy on Morris claimed that Hoffa, an attorney, who until 1993 was never his life under false pretenses. affiliated with the IBT, left the practice of Hoffa concluded that this evidence law in that year to become the demonstrated that a trusteeship was administrative assistant to the President of absolutely necessary. Teamsters Joint Council 43 for the sole purpose of running for the office of the II. DISTRICT COURT General President of the IBT. Hoffa PROCEEDINGS made his first unsuccessful attempt at the As noted above, the Morris IBT’s Presidency in 1996. Morris Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the district supported a slate opposed to Hoffa during court against Hoffa and the IBT 1996 election. challenging the imposition of During the 1998 elections, Morris emergency trusteeship days after it was once again supported a slate opposed to
Hoffa. Morris alleged that on May 3, 1998, William Walker, Sr., a retired Teamster and a Hoffa supporter, attended investigating claims of dictatorial control a Hoffa campaign fundraiser in Essington, of Local 115.
Pennsylvania. Walker asked Hoffa what Members who attempted to he intended to do about Morris if Hoffa participate in the preparation of propоsals was elected. According to Morris, prior to contract negotiations were told to Hoffa’s reply was: “He’s the first f....r to “shut up.” go when I get in.” *10 IBT Constitution; Count Two alleged that interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § Hoffa violated plaintiffs’ right to free 1292(b). Morris filed a motion for final speech as guaranteed by Title I of the judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) the same LMRDA, specifically, 29 U.S.C. §§ day.
411(a)(2), and § 29; and Count Three alleged that Hoffa breached the contract IBT Constitution, by between the Local and the IBT, i.e., the the absence of any colorable emergency. Count Three further alleged that this also emergency trusteeship over Local 115 in violated the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 185. injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs sought various forms of imposing the court granted Morris’ motion for over Local 115 and ordering Hoffa and with a good faith belief that an emergency to its duly elected officers. The district and the IBT from exercising trusteeship the IBT to return control over Local 115 preliminary injunction, enjoining Hoffa court concluded that the information available to Hoffa and the IBT was insufficient to provide Hoffa and the IBT On December 28, 1999, the district
Hoffa filed an answer and a
existed sufficient to warrant the imposition
counterclaim. In his counterclaim, he
of an emergency trusteeship.
Morris v.
requested judicial confirmation of the
Hoffa
,
on the propriety of a trusteeship.
Morris v.
Hoffa
,
Whether Plaintiffs have standing to recover any Local Union 115 for the damages on behalf of the . Id legislation insure union democracy.” recommended omitted). at 767 (citation and internal quotations [12] that any corrective time period between the Congress enacted Title III of the N o v e m b er 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 LMRDA to address problems related to emergency imposition and imposition of trusteeships over local the General President’s May unions. Id . [13] In doing so, Congress was 31, 2000 decision issued concerned with past abuses related to after the hearing. imposition of trusteeships, but it was also
aware that “trusteeships are effective
devices for maintaining order within labor
Morris v. Hoffa
,
Both the Morris Plaintiffs and Hoffa filed timely appeals.
III. DISCUSSION [12] The Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor A. The LMRDA Management Field that was responsible The LMRDA “was enacted [in for investigating abuses in organized labor 1959] in response to the perceived abuses and recommending remedial legislation is that plagued labor relations and often referred to as the “McClellan undermined public confidence in the labor Committee,” after Senator McClellan, the movement.” Becker v. Industrial Union of Committee’s chair.
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of The legislative history of Title III is recited in detail in our opinion in Ross v.
*12 control device.” Id . agreements or other duties o f a b a r g a i n i n g The LMRDA mandates that any representative, restoring trusteeship that is imposed conform to the democratic procedures, or constitution and bylaws of the union, and otherwise carrying out the the purposes for which the trusteeship is legitimate objects of such imposed must be legitimate. Id . More labor organization. particularly, § 302 of Title III of the LMRDA provides:
Trusteeships
shall be
29 U.S.C. § 462. Given the countless
e s t a b l i s h e d a n d
circumstances that might give rise to a
administered by a labor
trusteeship, “Congress specifically
o r g a n i z a ti o n o v e r a
declined to attempt to detail all of the
subordinate body only in
legitimate reasons for which a trusteeship
accordance with
th e
might be imposed, leaving for the courts
constitution and bylaws of
the development of common law limiting
the organization which has
principles.”
Becker
,
the subordinate body and Congress also recognized that f or t h e p urpose o f second guessing the judgments correcting corruption or culminating in trusteeships could be both financial malpractice, difficult and impractical. Accordingly, a assuring the performance of presumption of validity attaches to c o l l e ct i v e b a rgainin g trusteeships that are imposed for limited
duration and in a manner consistent with
the procedural mandates of the LMRDA.
It has been noted that “[w]hile
Id
. at 768 (“Recognizing the delicate
trusteeships are normally used by national
judgments which international officers are
unions
to prevent or eliminate
called upon to make in imposing a
malpractices in subordinate organizations
trusteeship and conscious of the relative
and as a
tool of efficient union
inexpertness of outsiders, the [LMRDA’s]
administration, they can be, and have
guideline for evaluating a trusteeship
been, used as a tool by which national
supplies a presumption of validity, limited
officers suppress local autonomy over
in duration, when certain procedural
union activities.”
J.D. Jolly v. Gorman
,
requirements are met.”) (citation omitted).
organization in conformity trusteeship.” Id . (citations omitted). “The w i t h t h e p r o cedural notice should also provide the date, time, r e q u i r e m e n t s o f i t s and location of the hearing and indicate constitution and bylaws and that the local will have the opportunity to authorized or ratified after respond to the charges.” Id . (citation a fair hearing either before omitted). Courts do not, however, require the executive board or any particular form of notice as long as the before such other body as notice, together with any written may be provided in communications supplementing it, inform a c c o r d a n c e w i t h i t s those concerned of the date and time of constitution or bylaws shall the hearing. Id .
be presumed valid for a period of eighteen months from establishment and shall not such period except upon clear and convincing proof be subject to attack during that the trusteeship was established or maintained in the date of its accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the international’s witnesses and present at the hearing, and “[t]he local must be impose the trusteeship must present sufficient evidence to justify a trusteeship omitted). rebuttal evidence.” . at 769 (citations Id [16] The international union seeking to good faith for a purpose B. The Morris/Mack/Fischer Appeal allowable under section 462 (No. 02-1401) of this title.
The Morris Plaintiffs argue that the IBT failed to conduct the fair hearing 29 U.S.C. § 464(c) (italics added). required to ratify and continue the an opportunity to defend. F.2d at 768. , 900 Becker “[T]he notice should set out in writing the factual basis for alleged [15] A “fair hearing” requires notice and illegal retaliation for the exercise of their trusteeship is little more than Hoffa’s trusteeship. They also claim that the speech. We will discuss each claim violations of law or the union’s
constitution that justify imposition of a Lack of counsel does not make a trusteeship hearing unfair because there is
*14 separately. maintenance of trusteeship.
(I). Did The IBT Conduct a Fair The court viewed Count One as
Hearing
asserting two separate claims – a pre-
hearing emergency trusteeship claim and
to Ratify and Continue the
a post-hearing maintenance trusteeship
Trusteeship (Count One)?
claim.
court denied summary judgment to Hoffa
on the pre-hearing emergency trusteeship
The district court concluded that
claim because it believed a genuine issue
the Morris Plaintiffs failed to establish a
of matеrial fact existed as to whether the
genuine issue of material fact as to the
emergency
trusteeship was
initially
unfairness of the hearing. Accordingly,
imposed in accordance with the IBT
the district court held that the post-hearing
constitution.
trusteeship even where improper purposes Local 115, in exchange for are alleged. Similarly, they do not which Smith, as ultimate attempt to refute the hearing panel’s successor to Morris, would factual findings that there were numerous permit Hoffa to control proper purposes for ratifying and Local 115's seats on the continuing the trusteeship. [18] Rather, as Philadelphia Regional Port we distill their argument, they appear to be Authority, the Joint Council claiming that there are genuine issues of and the Pennsylvania material fact as to whether Hoffa and the Conference.
ITB conducted a fair hearing to ratify and
continue the trusteeship. Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-1401), at 14-15. Initially, they claim that the hearing They then argue that the district court
was unfair because its outcome was held, in its preliminary injunction hearing, predetermined. According to Mack and that Morris was likely to establish at trial Fischer: that the information available to Hoffa It is uncontroverted . . . that when he imposed the emergency as of February 23, 1999, an trusteeship was not sufficient to provide a agreement existed among good faith belief in the existence of an supporters of James E. emergency. See 1999 WL 1285820 at Smith, Jr., and Hoffa. *10. Thus, they claim that an inference Hoffa would use his can be drawn that Hoffa “would contrоl authority as general the process of the hearing to ensure his president of the IBT to desired outcome.” Appellants’ Br. (No. impose a trusteeship upon 02-1401), at 15. Accordingly, they
maintain that the district court’s failure to of the trusteeship included: “refusal to The reasons for the continuation [18] Id. constitutes reversible error.” at 16. “submit this dispute to a factfinder We disagree. provide members of the Local with copies At the outset, the district court’s of their collective bargaining agreements; grant of preliminary injunctive relief intimidation and physical attacks on enjoining the imposition of the emergency members; financial abuse. . . missing trusteeship was not a merits disposition. assets; extortion of Christmas cash gifts;
compelling members of the Local to do
work that benefitted Morris and his We exercise plenary review of the relatives personally; and engineering of district court’s grant of summary the termination of jobs of Local members judgment. Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc. who were perceived as disloyal.” 2001 v. American States Life Ins. Co. , 10 F.3d WL 1231741 at *7. 144, 146 (3d Cir. 1993).
“[A] decision on a preliminary injunction further establishes that is, in effect, only a prediction about the Hoffa and the IBT merits of the case.” United States v. Local conspired with James Smith 560, IBT , 974 F.2d 315, 330 (3d Cir. to create an excuse to 1992). Therefore, “a trial court, in institute a trusteeship. In deciding whether to grant permanent exchange for his assistance relief, is not bound by its decision or the in ousting Morris, Smith appellate court’s decision about was promised control over preliminary relief.” Id . Rather, the trial Local 115, and sure enough, court “is free to reconsider the merits of that is exactly what the case.” Id. Consequently, the district happened.
court’s grant of preliminary injunctive
relief does not suggest a genuine issue of
material fact sufficient to preclude the Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-1401), at 23. grant of summary judgment. However, this claim ignores the fact that Smith was elected by secret ballot of the Moreover, Mack and Fischer do not membership in an open and fair election. contest the district court’s holding that the As noted above, Local 115 conducted existence of a single proper purpose for elections for officers while this litigation the imposition of a trusteeship establishes was pending. A majority of the voting the validity of the trusteeship, even where members, not Hoffa, chose Smith to be improper motives may exist. Thus, even if president of thе Local. And, Hoffa alleges we assume arguendo that a Hoffa-Morris without contradiction that he played no vendetta motivated Hoffa’s efforts to oust role in the election. Hoffa’s Br. at 23. Morris, Mack and Fischer from Local 115, Accordingly, we fail to see how an we are still left with the district court’s allegation that Hoffa promised Smith the conclusion that the hearing panel found presidency could defeat Hoffa’s motion numerous proper justifications for for summary judgment. While Mack and imposing the trusteeship. Reasons, by the Fischer assert this “uncontroverted” way, which Mack and Fischer do not even agreement that Hoffa would make Smith begin to dispute. the head of Local 115 in exchange for Moreover, the record does not Smith’s cooperation in ousting Morris, support any connection between the they concede that there is no record alleged Morris-Hoffa vendetta, evidence that any such deal existed. imposition of a trusteeship and the Rather, their assertion rests on a rather allegation that Hoffa rewarded Smith with ethereal inference. See Appellants’ Br. the presidency of Local 115. In their (02-1401), at 7 n.3 (“Whether or not Hoffa brief, Mack and Fischer argue that: actually promised Smith control over Local 115, as Brian Kada suggested [in
the evidentiary record the Breslin Declaration], is not established *17 on the record below; however it is 02-1401), at 17-18.
reasonable to infer that Smith received However, Mack and Fischer have such a promise ”). (Emphasis added). waived their right to make these two
In any event, the Morris Plaintiffs
arguments on appeal because they did not
appear to retreat from their claim that the
raise them in the district court. Rather, as
outc o me o f a n y h e a ri n g w as
the district court explained, the challenge
predetermined and instead now present
to the fairness of the hearing was based on
two reasons for concluding that the
a claim that “(1) heavy police presence
hearing was unfair. First, they claim that
inhibited
members
from testifying;
[21]
and
they were unable to present an effective
(2) [Morris, Mack and Fischer] were not
case and cross-examine witnesses because
allowed to have the assistance of counsel
they did not have full access to Local
during the hearing.”
[22]
the books and records were in the custody and cоntrol of the Trustee after the face masks. Persons entering the union imposition of the emergency trusteeship. hall had to walk a gauntlet of dozens of Thus, they could not know which masked officers lined up in two columns, witnesses the Trustee would call each day being searched and passing through a at the hearing. Second, they argue that medical detectors.” Id. (citation and the police presence outside the union hall internal quotations omitted). Mack and where the hearing was held was “ per se Fischer argue that the IBT caused this intimidation, even for Teamsters,” that heavy police presence even though there biased the panel members by sending “a was no indication for a potential for very clear message” to the panel that the charges had merit. [20] Appellants’ Br. (No. violence by Morris’s supporters. Appellants’ Br. (N002-1401) at 17-18. *18 at *6 (emphasis added). As a general to express at meetings of the rule, “absent compelling circumstances an labor organization his appellate court will not consider issues views, upon candidates in that are raised for the first time on appeal.” an election of a labor Patterson v. Cuyler , 729 F.2d 925, 929 organization or upon any (3d Cir. 1984), overruled on other business properly before the grounds recognized in Carter v. Rafferty , meeting, subject to the 826 F.2d 1299 (3d Cir. 19987). Here, organization’s established Mack and Fischer do not suggest any such and reasonable rule s compelling circumstances and we can pertaining to the conduct of think of none. meetings: Provided , That nothing herein shall be (ii). IBT’s Retaliation for Engaging in construed to impair the right Protected Speech. of a labor organization to In Count Two of their complaint, a d o p t a n d e n f o r c e the Morris Plaintiffs alleged that Hoffa reasonable rules as to the violated their rights to free speech under responsibility of every the Title I of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § m e m b e r t o w a r d t h e 411(a)(2), and disciplined them for the o r g a n i z a ti o n a s a n exercise of those rights in violation of 29 institution and to his U.S.C. § 529. refraining from conduct that would interfere with its Section 101(a)(2) of Title I of the performance of its legal or LMRDA provides: contractual obligations. Every member of any labor
organization shall have the
right to meet and assemble 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2). Section 102 of freely with other members; Title I, 29 U.S.C. § 412, provides that any and to express any views, person whose rights have been infringed arguments, or opinions; and by a violation of § 101 may bring an
action in the district court seeking such relief as may be appropriate. Section 609 counsel who participated in the hearing. of Title VI of the LMRDA prohibits Hoffa’s Appendix, at 103-105. certain kinds of discipline of a union Title I of the LMRDA is referred member. It provides: to as the “Member’s Bill of Rights.” See It shall be unlawful for any Farrell v. International Brotherhood of labor organization, or any Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & officer, agent, shop steward, Helpers of America (Airline Division) , 888 or other representative of a F.2d 459, 461 (6th Cir. 1989).
labor organization, or any as a political reprisal against employee thereof to fine, the members of Local 115 suspend, expel or otherwise for their vigorous electoral discipline any of its opposition to Hoffa's members for exercising any candidacy for General right to which he is entitled President and his policies." under the provision of this (Compl. ¶ 58 (emphasis chapter. The provisions of added)). Plaintiffs further section 412 of this title shall allege that "Defendants be applicable in imposed the trusteeship enforcement of this section. a g a i n s t L o c a l 1 1 5
specifically to suppress the o p p o s i t i o n p o l i c i e s , 29 U.S.C. § 529. electoral activities and dissent of Plaintiff Morris In their appeal from the grant of and the Plaintiff elected summary judgment on Count Two, the members of the Local 115 Morris Plaintiffs argue that the district Executive Board, to the court erred by holding that “ as a matter of policies and administration law , a determination that a presumption of Defendant Hoffa and the of validity attached to the continuation of IBT" (Compl. ¶ 59 a trusteeship pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § (emphasis added)); that 464(c), precludes the violation of an "Defendants have imposed individual union member’s rights under 29 the trusteeship against U.S.C. §§ 411 and 529.” Appellants’ Br. Local 115 to undermine the (02-1401), at 1 (emphasis in original). credibility of the expected However, that is not what the trial testimony of Plaintiffs district court held. Rather, the district Morris, Woodring and other court held that the Morris Plaintiffs’ members of Local 115 ..." nominal Title I claims were really a (Compl. ¶ 60 (emphasis challenge to the validity of the trusteeship a d d e d ) ) ; a n d t h a t that must therefore be brought under Title "Defendants have imposed III. The district court correctly the trusteeship upon Local characterized the Title I claims as follows: 115 in order to retaliate against the members of
Plaintiffs allege that Local 115 and its elected "Defendants' imposition of a officers, the Plaintiffs, for purported 'emergency' their past and current trusteeship over Local 115 political opposition to the was carried out in bad faith, policies and administration *20 of Defendant Hoffa." Consequently, the district court granted (Compl. ¶ 61 (emphasis summary judgment to Hoffa on the Count added).) Plaintiffs expressly Two claim.
cast their Title I claim as For reasons not apparent to us, the one "challenging th e Morris Plaintiffs do not address the district unlawful imposition of a court’s rationale for granting summary trusteeship, not the job judgment to Hoffa on their Title I claim. terminations of Plaintiffs." In fact, they do not even mention that the (Pls.' Mem. at 44- 45.) district court dismissed their Title I claim
as nothing more than a Title III attack on
the validity of the trusteeship. Instead,
2001 WL 1231741 at *10 (italics in
they argue that their removal as officials
original). The district court held that the
of Local 115 for engaging in protected
claim was, in reality, “just another way of
free speech constitutes retaliatory
saying that the trusteeship was invalid
discipline in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 529.
because it was imposed for an improper
See
Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-1401), at 21
motive.”
Id.
The court then relied upon
(“[R]emoval from
union office
for the
the reasoning in
Farrell v. International
exercise of protected speech. . .constitutes
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
improper retaliatory discipline in violation
Warehousemen & Helpers of America
of 29 U.S.C. § 529.”) (emphasis added).
(Airline Division)
,
assume that they were disciplined for claimed that the international union’s In Farrell , flight attendants doing so, their claim can still not survive Sheridan v. United our holding in Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of imposition of a trusteeship immediately
after they created their own local violated
their Title I right to vote in local elections.
appellants with their appropriate remedy.
However, they did not challenge the
A determination of the validity vel non of
validity of the trusteeship under Title III.
the
trusteeship must precede any
The court of appeals found that the flight
determination of the appellants’ rights to
attendants could not claim violation of
hold local elections. If the trusteeship is a
their Title I rights by means of a
fraud, the statute provides a mechanism to
trusteeship without first addressing the
prove it and thereafter recover their Title
validity of the trusteeship under in an
III rights. But, let them not put the cart
action under Title III. The court wrote:
before the horse.”
America, Local No. 626
,
The union member is free to Union 1058 , 410 F.2d 32, 35 (3d Cir. express views, arguments or 1969), Harrison v. Local 54 , 518 F.2d at opinions on matters of 1281, and, most recently, in Ruocchio v. union business even if the United Transportation Union, Local 60 , expressions are libelous or 181 F.3d 376, 381 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999). malicious without fear of Moreover, because Sheridan is the law of discipline. Conversely, the this circuit it controls our analysis LMRDA does not provide notwithstanding any conflicting authority relief to a union officer for from other Circuit Courts of Appeals. See suspension as an officer, nor Reich v. D.M. Sabia Co ., 90 F.32d 854, for loss of income resulting 855, n.2 (3rd Cir. 1996) (“ It is the tradition therefrom. Nor does the Act of this court that a holding of a panel in a p r o v i d e r e l i ef f r o m reported opinion is binding on subsequent wrongful termination from panels.).
employment.
What
is
Nonetheless, a caveat is in order.
protected is the union-
In
Finnegan v. Leu
,
language of §§ 411(a)(1) and (2) as well
аs Title I’s legislative history established
However, about seven years after Moreover, the district court did not grant Finnegan , the Court held in Sheet Metal summary judgment to Hoffa on Count Workers’ International Association v. Two on the basis of Sheridan . Rather, as Lynn , 488 U.S. 347 (1989), that the noted above, Hoffa was granted summary removal of an elected business agent did judgment because the district court held violate Title I’s free speech provisions. that plaintiffs’ nominal Title I action was The Court distinguished between the really a Title III challenge to the removal of an appointed business agent, as imposition of the trusteeship. The Morris occurred in Finnegan , and the removal of Plaintiffs do not even discuss that issue. an elected business agent. The Court They do not even mention the Court’s noted that when an elected official is decision in Sheet Metal Workers . removed from office, the membership is Therefore, we need not inquire into the deprived of its representativе of choice. impact, if any, that Sheet Metal Workers Id . at 355. “[T]he potential chilling effect has on the continued validity of our on Title I free speech rights is more holding in Sheridan. [25] pronounced when elected officials are
discharged. Not only is the fired official likely to be chilled in the exercise of his own free speech rights, but so are the retaliatory removal of an elected official Accordingly, the Court held that the . Id members who voted for him.” during a Title III trusteeship. Id . at 356 (“[W]e find nothing in the language of the was not precluded from bringing a Title I action because he had been removed Court also held that the removed official can be actionable under Title I. The LMRDA or its legislative history to trusteeship is imposed.’). rights to fall by the wayside whenever a suggest that Congress intended Title I Employees and Restaurant Employees of a union flowing from the termination of damages under Title III of the LMRDA by 2001), precludes the recovery of personal his/her appointed employment. “Relief under [Title III] must be sought on behalf of the local union organization and the an appointed full-time salaried employee entire union membership must reap the , 266 F.3d 236, 257 (3d Cir. Int’l Union Ross the district court, on the basis of , benefits.” supra , As noted in n.15, Id. a union member, hе could not pursue a found that because Morris was no longer Ross v. Hotel Our decision in damages claim on behalf of the Local for
However, for reasons that are not any damages the Local suffered as a result apparent to us, the Morris Plaintiffs (who of the imposition of the pre-hearing were elected officials of Local 115) do not emergency trusteeship. The district court rely upon Sheet Metal Workers to support further held that Ross precluded Mack and their argument that their removal from Fischer, who unlike Morris, were still elected office was improper retaliation in union members, from asserting a claim for violation of their Title I free speech rights.
personal damages under Title III. 2002 *23 B. The Hoffa § 1292(b) Interlocutory evidence creates a genuine Appeal issue of material fact under Rule 56 as to whether Hoffa
(No. 02-2214) . imposed the emergency trusteeship in accordance with the IBT constitution. If We have already noted that the Plaintiffs establish at trial district court viewed the Count One that Defendants' imposition challenge to the imposition of the o f t h e e m e r g e n c y trusteeship as two separate claims – a trusteeship suffered from “pre-hearing emergency trusteeship” claim this procedural deficiency, and a “post-hearing maintenance Plaintiffs would then have trusteeship” claim – and granted summary the opportunity to proceed judgment to Hoffa on the post-hearing on the damages claim for claim while denying summary judgment the period between the on the pre-hearing claim. The district defective imposition of the court explained: emergency trusteeship on This Court has previously November 15, 1999, and Hoffa's May 31, 2000 c o n c l u d e d , a t t h e decision, based on the post preliminary injunctio n stage, that the evidence hoc hearing, to continue the trusteeship. Accordingly, demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the Court denies the motion the information available to for summary judgment as to the emergency trusteeship Hoffa at the time he decided to impose the emergency period from November 15, 1999 to May 31, 2000. trusteeship was insufficient to provide him with a good
faith belief in the existence 2001 WL 1231741 at *4. The district
of an emergency. This
court then limited any recovery to the damages suffered by Local 115. The court explained: WL 15900 at *6. However, it alsо held that Ross did not address the issue of Plaintiffs have not yet Mack’s and Fischer’s standing to recover specified the nature of the damages on behalf of Local 115 from the compensatory damages imposition of the pre-hearing emergency sought under Title III. trusteeship. Id. Consequently, it certified Plaintiffs may not, however, that issue for interlocutory appeal. Id. collect any personal
damages for lost wages, loss
of position, or any other individual damages on this claim. The potential damage portion of the Title III local union itself. See Ross is limited to damages to the recovery on a Title III claim v. Hotel Employees & Plaintiffs' entitlement the local union. such damages on behalf of , [266 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2001)]. The Court does Union Restaurant Employees Int'l not reach the question of [26] to discharged. Not only is the fired official at 355; “the potential chilling effect of Title I free speech rights is more likely to be chilled in the exercise of his own free speech rights, but so are the example, Mack and Fischer say the members who voted for him.” Appellees’ Br. (O2-2214), at 13. As another question of whether the manner in which Hoffa imposed the emergency trusteeship “resulted in a chilling effect on the pronounced when elected officials are membership of Local 115, and the extent of the damages sustained by
membership of Local 115 as a result thereof, is a question that is best left in the *25 continued following a fair hearing.
Id. at*4 n.5. Section 304(c) of Title III of the LMRDA provides, in relevant part:
At some point after a status
conference and filing of memoranda,
In any proceeding pursuant
Morris conceded that he was no longer a
to this section a
trusteeship
member of Local 115. Accordingly, as
established by a
labor
we have noted, the district court found that
organization
in conformity
since “[t]he parties agree that because
w i t h
t h e proced u r a l
Plaintiff Morris is no longer a member of
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f
i t s
the Local, he lacks standing to pursue a
constitution and bylaws and
claim with respect
to
temporary
authorized or
ratified after a
trusteeship because such damages claim
fair hearing
either before
would be limited to damages on behalf of
the executive board or
the Local.”
Therefore, Local 115 could not have
29 U.S.C. § 464(c) (italics added).
suffered any damages from the imposition
“Because the Act provides that a
of the emergency trusteeship that was
trusteeship may be ‘authorized or
ratified
after a fair hearing,’. . ., a hearing meeting
the requirements of the Act need not
Id
. at 15 n.8. However, they never made
always precede the imposition of a
this damages allegation in the district
trusteeship.”
Becker
, 900 F.2d at 769
court, and it has therefore been waived.
(citing 29 U.S.C. § 464(c) (italics in
*26
original). Accordingly, “[p]ost hoc
In opposing Hoffa’s appeal, Mack
ratification of a trusteeship is consistent
and Fischer ignore the fact that the plain
with the Act so long as the union’s
language of § 464(c) validates the pre-
constitution provides for such a process,
hearing emergency trusteeship absent
the ratification hearing otherwise meets
sufficient evidence to overcome the
the requirements of the Act, and the
presumption of validity. Instead, they
hearing follows the imposition of a
argue that we cannot reach the validity of
trusteeship with reasonable promptness.”
the pre-hearing
trusteeship without
Id
. (citations omitted).
improperly expanding
the question
certified for interlocutory appeal beyond
The district court found that “the
the issue of standing. We disagree.
post-hearing
trusteeship meets
requirements of § 464(c) and is entitled to
“Although the scope of review on
the statutory presumption of validity.”
an interlocutory appeal is generally
2001 WL 1231741 at *6.
That
constrained to the questions certified for
presumption was not rebutted. The plain
review by the district court,
we may
language of § 464(c) therefore compels a
consider any grounds justifying reversal
.”
finding that the emergency trusteeship was
Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg & Zackin,
valid. Section 464(c) expressly requires
P.A.
,
on its handling of this complex and hotly
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, we
will affirm the district court’s grant of
final judgment under Rule 54(b) on Count
Two to Hoffa and against the Morris
Plaintiffs, However, we will vacate the
district court’s Rule 54(b) final judgments
on Count One and remand with directions
that the district court enter summary
judgment on Count One in favor of Hoffa
and against the Morris Plaintiffs. We will
also remand for disposition of Count
Three of the complaint. [28]
contested dispute, and on the precision
and thoroughness of nearly all of its legal
analysis. We disagree only with the
court’s decision to split Count One into
two separate claims. In Count Three, the Morris
Plaintiffs alleged that Hoffa and the IBT
violated the IBT Constitution by imposing
the emergency trusteeship over Local 115
in the absence of any colorable
emergency, in violation of the LMRDA,
29 U.S.C. § 185. In Count One, they
challenged the imposition of
emergency trusteeship on the grounds that
it violated both Title III of the LMRDA
and the IBT Constitution. In discussing
Count One in its summary judgment
remains of the Count Three claim given
opinion, the district court noted that, “[t]he
our holding that summary judgment
provisions
in
the IBT constitution
should be granted to Hoffa and against the
governing trusteeships closely track those
Morris Plaintiffs on the Count One claim.
in the LMRDA.”
Notes
[4] Morris’s demeanor was often clock.” Rather, he insisted that his position beyond bounds attributable to normal on the Joint Council entitled him to such anger. He allegedly reinforced the services. In fact as noted above, it was intimidation by carrying a gun in the corroborated by Morris’s own conduct office in violation of the IBT Constitution. during the very hearings that were
[11] The district court denied Hoffa’s Hotel Employees and Restaurant motion for § 1292(b) certification as to all Employees International Union , 266 F.3d other issues. Id. 236, 245-249 (3d Cir. 2001).
[15] “Under the common law prior to
no right to representation by counsel at
the passage of the LMRDA, a trusteeship
such a hearing.
See, e.g., Transport
imposed upon a subordinate body was
Workers Union of Phila. Local v.
invalid unless the subordinate body was
Transport Workers Union of Amer., AFL-
granted a fair hearing.”
J.D. Jolly v.
CIO
, 2000 WL 1521507 at *2 (E.D.Pa.
Gorman
,
[21] The district court held that the
[20] Plaintiffs claim that the IBT’s
presence of policе security at the site of
website reported: “Outside the hall, more
the hearing did not by itself render the
than 100 law enforcement officers were on
hearing unfair.
[22] The district court held that there is 1401), at 9 (citation omitted). They also say: “The IBT brought in these police no right to counsel at a trusteeship officers, including armed police and hearing. 2001 WL 1231741 at *6, and SWAT team officers assisted by that is not contested on appeal. sharpshooters, canine officers and officers Furthermore, it appears from mounted on horseback. The police transcripts of the hearing that Morris, officers were clad in black riot gear, with Mack and Fischer were represented by
[26] Mack and Fischer appear to hands of the finder of fact.” Id . at 15. concede that they have yet to identify the Admittedly, Mack and Fischer do nature of the damages they seek on behalf make an allegation of appropriate Title III of Local 115. They argue that because damages in a fоotnote in their brief. Ross was decided during the pendency of There they state: the summary judgment proceedings, the “nature and quantum of damages is not Title III damages in the case part of the record on the motion for at bar involve, inter alia, summary judgment.” Appellees’ Br. (No. transfer of at least one union 02-2214), at 13. Nonetheless, they assert shop organized by Local that “the court [of appeals] can reasonably 115 to Teamsters Local 500, infer the nature, if not the quantum, of the Local of emergency damages to Local 115 and its membership trustee Edward J. Keyser, generally.” Id . Jr., in exchange for his However, it is not our function to support. The membership “infer the nature” of their damages. fees of the transferred union Moreover, when Mack and Fischer do shop are significant enough refer to their damages, it is clear that they to justify the continued are claiming personal Title I damages, not existence of Local 500, Title III damages to the local. For which was suffering a example, they quote the following from significant decline. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Assn. , 488 U.S.