we're here in an very unusual situation in that there was a first summary judgment motion that was heard wherein the court stated that he felt there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on behalf of the section one zero one  claims that were brought by ms alvarez and mr osbourne raising the issues of their rights under the labor management reporting disclosure act having been violated in that decision he then had indicated that he felt the trusteeship that was imposed upon the hollywood sound union was not paid only unreasonable but that notwithstanding that he still felt that there were title one rights that had been violated and he then indicated that he did not believe the rights under six zero nine of the act were infringed upon at least as of that point in time as of the summer of two thousand and sixteen we were proceeding to a trial on one issue single claim of a mob for retaliation for exercising member rights granted by the l m r we we have a single claim that's brought under title one with separate claims that are brought for violation of due process and bias issues that implicate section six o nine as well and in regards to that we have alleged that there's a violation of one zero one eight two which has to do with speech and assembly we also allege a violation of one zero one eight five which has to do with the violation of the due process rights of the members that was to issue segue into the second issue which is based upon the constitution and bylaws of not only the international but obviously the united states as well you have certain principles of due process that have to be met that in this particular case we're never satisfied we have an international president who has a concert attorney try to i'm i'm looking for the answer the same question judge callahan is posed and i'm trying to figure out exactly what the statutory basis for each claim is now and moved into the due process claims i'm still focusing now on what i'll call retaliation although that term is not used in the statute what is is there more than one statutory basis for what i've called the retaliation claim and if so what is it absolutely it's section one zero one which talks about the equal rights and that you cannot even though i respectfully disagree you cannot retaliate against a person for exercising their l m r d a right which is under one o one of the act in addition to that when you get to section six zero nine of the act it also talks about you cannot retaliate against an individual who is a member for exercising their rights in this particular case it's a two prong violation and the court said yes you have a one zero one but you don't have a six zero nine and i respectfully disagree because we presented to the court what happened to mr brant a gentleman who should be receiving his fifty year pin not even getting his fifty year pen because he was suspended from membership for one year and as a consequence even though he had been reelected and he's one of the few individuals in the i e t f see who had been reelected unanimously by his membership ropey tiddly for defending the hollywood sound union defending their jurisdiction and defending the right of members of the hollywood sound union to work outside of the state of california across the united states and across the world and because of his dissent and the dissent of mi rouse what happen is the international president came in here and said after conducting a trusteeship hearing that was not specific it only dealt with one issue he then filed charges against mr osbourne to remove him from office and then he realized that the trusteeship decision which had not yet even issued that was not fact pacific was insufficient so the international president himself then added to the charges and he then said well you didn't do this in the case involving case jesse you didn't do this involving the case of mark webber and the mark webber cases as the court is aware is a situation where one back in two thousand and eight the boom man and his mixer in this case mark webber the mixer went to louisiana had worked on a show from hollywood under the basic agreement and found a producer on bad lieutenant who wanted to hire them again but the louisiana local said no still i understand all that but ok is there any genuine dispute that mr osborne encourage members of the local six ninety five not to pay work assessments to other locals and if so what evidence in the record creates a genuine dispute about this fact and i'm just going to sort of ask if there's no genuine dispute why does have that title do we call it so you're what do we call it we call it by a we call it international or i membership because there is a genuine dispute and the dispute had to do with just lady where the court said that based upon the evidence involving the testimony of josh levy there was an issue that could be decided one way or the other not to pay them he said let me get it and invoice this is the same issue because if you look at one zero one one zero one three says you can only have fees and assessments there were approved by the members and we know that there has been and additional record that has presented about what did or did not happen at the appeal sharing but i text to our response and that ancillary record is a statement from shondra miller in louisiana who said jack now after she has been tossed out while i was the secretary treasurer we were treating people differently we were ripping up invoices for some we were charging others and we were not uniform in what we were doing which is precisely why mr osbourne and miss alvarez said give us an invoice show us what their risk and international president lobe in case involving kate jesse back in two thousand and nine involving arizona where he said first although ultimately he sends her a letter and says don't play games six months before when mr osbourne says where's the paid the local after being told to give the invoice felt he didn't have to do that anymore so six months later a similar situation the local in louisiana said you have to sign a dude's check off form which is almost the issue in jansen janice that was just before the united states supreme court they said you have to file this dues check off and she says i'm not obligated to sign a dues check off you can have your dues just tell me how much i'm doing but let me explain to you why there would be a reason to ask for an invoice individuals in the sound union come in with their box rentals and different equipment they they come in with their mixing mortons they come in with their microphones and all the different assortment of items for which producers pay them a box rental that's not a salary so what some of these locals were doing is saying oh we want fees and assessments based upon not just your salary upon all your backups runnels upon any additional perdiem we're going to get and mr osbourne said tell us what enjoy sex about this my theory might not be perfect but i can hear you really well sorry i've been accused since high school of always forgetting where the acoustics are so in that particular situation he said give us the when the invoice was given take jesse paid mr hanson paid yes let's say i'm not i'm just saying this hypothetically if i were to include if i were to conclude that there is no genuine dispute that mr warren encouraged members not to pay work assessments is that that's the other side when absolutely not because the court had indicated the issue is whether or not there was retaliation for the dissent that mr osbourne and ms had expressed and based upon the overwhelming x records but let's say you you know you commit a crime or you do you know you violate the constitution or whatever the fact that you also don't like it does that first amendment does that trump then that you actually violated  part of what the rules are it's not always because i would flee you know then you could always say well yeah i violated the rules but i violated them because i don't like them so then it's our retaliation always because that's what i'm trying to know in this particular situation i know under various issues about the first amendment there's a concern where you can say oh there's always an exception to the first amendment right i understand that but what we're dealing with is a situation that's very explicit that talks about when you can charge individuals and the right of the union in order to uphold what congress passed the right to insist that the fees and assessments be approved by the membership asking if if it weren't for the fact that article seven of the constitution says the international president can give a directive he has to give a directive that places mr osbourne mr alvarez the entire the trusteeship imposed by the international union on local six ninety five in february two thousand and fourteen was entirely lawful appellants have abandoned any claim to the contrary when we look at the an easy case for both of you let's focus on it might be a harder case for us or it anyway for i can speak for myself that in mr loeb's definition here great that except for the plaintiffs and two other individuals all of their employees return to work at local six ninety five why doesn't that create an issue of fact about the motives as to the plaintiffs that is is the testimony quoted from president loeb's death  opposition i think is a little bit misleading in the way that it's quoted the counsel asked in his deposition whether or not all the rest of the officers were returned to an advisory board president loeb answered there was no advisory board and then she went on to ask him but weren't all of the other officers asked to return and he said they may have been asked for advice but there was no advisory board i don't know the exact details distinct difference between the employees of the local and the elected officers that were serving on the board all of the elected officers were removed pursuant to the trusteeship part and parcel with the trusteeship in addition the employee had i'm sorry the local had employees some of which were also officers but when the question is about employees it's a different answer to a different question but it sounds like everybody else was allowed to come back in some fashion and and the earlier testimony doesn't really limit itself to advisory board i mean how can we say based on this record there's not a disputed fact with regard to whether these individuals are treated differently than other individuals i would ask your hon to review the record at three four nine four two three four nine six which is the testimony of president law no of local six ninety five who was there on the ground actually participating president lowe was not one of the appointed answer that question first did that imposing a trusteeship require the suspension from membership of anybody no your honor ok with regard to that issue i would first make the point that the pilots have waived that question they do not present as an issue to this court whether or not osbourne suspension from membership violates one a one hundred two their third issue refers to the due process concern under one zero one five but they do not raise a claim that his suspension violated one a one hundred two but with regard to the space suspension the elem argued a does give a right to free speech and assembly over matters of union concern but the second provision of that law also balances that right with the right of the union to enforce reasonable rules to protect the integrity of the union to place responsibilities on the members of that union to comply with those reasonable rules to allow the one you get is alleged that the whole reason for the suspension was to make him ineligible to be to stand for election when the trusteeship was ended and new officers were elected that's the allegation this makes it all star part of the same package i'm not hearing from you an answer that kind of satisfies my concern about that allegation the record reflects that the international brought charges against ozzie byrne with regard to his membership because there was direct evidence that he willfully disregarded the international constitution section one thousand articles one thousand section twenty six work assessments they had direct evidence to that effect was it to speak of did he disappear in the hearing there is no direct evidence that he disputed it but either way under international brotherhood of boilermakers versus hardiman local ten fifty two versus l a district council of carpenters which is a case decided by this court neither this court nor the district court sits in place of the tribunal that's been appointed by the union based on its reasonable rules the union's interpretation of it's reasonable rules including appointing a hearing officer and having a hearing to decide the merits of such an issue are required the court is required to give deference and to allow the union to interpret its constitution in a reasonable way absent bad faith or or any other sort if there is a showing of her and you say if there is a showing of bad faith and bad faith means that the international officers acted in a way that's contrary to the union's self interest then in those circumstances the district court could look further and not provide deference to the union's interpretation of its reasonable rules but there has been no showing of bad faith here and  members are afforded a full and fair hearing but the international the union only need provide quote some evidence in order to be able to pursue such charges so not only have opponents waved a one i wanted to claim as to but there is nothing in the record that provides any factual basis for a causal connection between his claimed protected activity and the suspension particularly where the tribunals based on direct evidence found that he deliberately violated the international constitution how long was the trusteeship in place and how were officers of local six ninety five put in place after the trustee ship and didn't can you please point to the evidence that's in the record on that issue the trusteeship went from february of two thousand and fourteen to january two thousand and fifteen and there was a democratic election held and members in good standing of local six ninety five were made aware of the fact the election was going to take place and they were allowed to vote in that election with regard to the be it not for mr osborne mr osbourne was not permitted to vote if it was during was during the year that he was suspended for one year yes and not permitted to stand for office so other members could not vote for him that is correct what about the woman in this case she also lost her in flame and besides her feet and officers correct correct under finnigan view lou her employment status is subject to a different standard and was permitted for the local to i'm sorry for the she has never suffered if she was exercising her her rights under one zero one eight two can you still do it under under finnegan v lu and it provides also under sheet metal workers it provides that there one i wanted to protect the right to a members for a member to have the right to free speech but it doesn't similarly protect employees or appointed members of stated that they were concerned about her ability to continue representing the members and not be distracted by the situation with osbourne as they have a very close intimate relationship the site for the trusteeship being lifted is  in the m s j order at forty five and also described in three seven five one alvarez's status as a member has never been affected at no time has it been affected the only thing that occurred with respect to her is that her employment was separated again under finnigan view lou it's a different standard the importance i think of article nineteen section twenty six work assessments cannot be understated as a matter of principle the international president and the international union have to uphold the constitution and apply it fairly but with respect to the work assessments the purpose behind those work assessments are to protect areas of the country where there might not be as much work as for example here in hollywood so if a member of the hollywood local local six ninety five is over working on a production in the jurisdiction of another local take for seventy eight for example who has jurisdiction in louisiana southern mississippi and mobile alabama if local six hundred five members performing work in that area based on the work assessment provision in the constitution that member pays work assessments to local for seventy eight and that's because local for seventy eight is representing that individual during that time frame they may be filing a gr behalf of the worker they are continuing to service and enforce the collective bargaining agreement with the employer covering that area and they're expected to continue to maintain that collective bargaining agreement for that area and it goes without saying that if  hollywood member is working in southern mississippi more than likely a southern mississippi employee has been displaced and but for the work assessment provision of the constitution local for seventy eight would not be receiving invoice or whatever if there's a tribal issue one that then do we have to reverse the summary judgment no your honor there is no tribal issue us about fact but more importantly the second element of their goal i asked you on a hypothetical there is in fact your the response wasn't you know there's not a tribal issues the fact was if there is a tribal issue then to summary judgment have to be reversed on that level it is no the answer to your question is still no because the second element of their claim requires  nexus it requires but for it requires a causal connection between their claim to protected activity and the action taken and in this circumstance they have provided no evidence to establish a causal connection particularly where they violated the international constitution providing grounds well ok but if if there is a tribal issue about if they were advocating for a change in pain those dues as opposed to telling people not to member for violating the union's reasonable rule ok but if they're not telling people don't pay the dues then if have if then how what rules have they file ated if they're just saying i think there should be a change let's see about getting a change what rules violated then they can't talk about that they use the i believe that the precedent i cited earlier with regards to whether makers versus hard and local ten fifty two versus l a district council of carpenters establish that this court nor the district court evaluates the facts heard pursuant to the union's reasonable interpretation of its const violation and from what you're saying is they have everything they say if you interpret that as a violation of your constitution that's the end of the story you're on what the right court have to say anything if the court finds bad fa are specific exceptions bad faith if the court identifies bad faith which is defined in teamsters joint council number forty two vs international board of teamsters by the ninth circuit that means that there is evidence that the union officials are acting contrary to the union's best interest if the court identifies bad faith than the court will not necessarily defer to the decisions of the union or decide but i guess what i'm asking you if a person is just saying i think o should be changed is that a violation of the constitution no your honor  thank you thank you just to go back to the last issue about the dues again mr osbourne and ms alvarez told people you have a dues obligation we won an invoice the language of shondra miller the individual who was involved in the louisiana local an acer twenty eight specifically said here's what i witnessed on almost a weekly basis data being manipulated in the membership database invoices being voided or certain members being hand picked to not be invoiced at all non actions being taken allowing certain people to work out of their home jurisdiction without having to pay their fair share of work dues reinstatement procedures and fees being way for a select few residential addresses being changed for some to be able to apply rules for certain people as local hire versus distant hires while other members were being scorn for doing the same she was the secretary treasurer of the louisiana local and i submit that shows precisely why mr osbourne said give us an invoice are you charging this person for working are you increasing it because of their box runnels or what and president loeb when entrusting that situation two thousand night involving kate jesse said yes give an invoice he never issued a directive after that saying mr osbourne ms alvarez your wrong stop you don't have a right to ask any more so i submit to you since we even had members in texas who were be dealt with in louisiana in an unfair manner that mr osbourne and ms alvarez were correct in their assumptions as to what they were requesting counsel has certainly raised the local ten fifty two decision i submit on this record that's before this court there's bad faith there's ample bad faith here one especially since mr loeb admitted this is the constitution and bylaws and it says there has to be a fair hearing but he ignored the fair hearing because the fair hearing had to be in front of the local union that was still in effect president loke said well the reason why i f charges against mr us burn was there was no local so i were lying under my powers under article seven but when we quoted his deposition in the record he specifically said as of the date i filed the charges there was a local union and i knew the person under this constitution i had to serve was miss l ross but you know what when the it says that in the situation of globe he countered that he acted as the accuser the prosecutor the grand jury the judge the jury to get rid of mr osbourne and to get rid of in this particular situation if you look merely at the headings in the briefs we've certainly talked about not only their rights as title one as aleck to the officials but more importantly as members of the union far beyond simply being advisory members because that occurred and i would simply like as a final note to state it's been an honor representing for the thirty five years previously the sound union but more importantly a man of conscious and intellectual discipline that was mr osborne and ms who were there to present their members and the fact that mr loeb took them out is outrageous please return this case thank you thank you if i fear argument this matter