UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LOCAL 333 OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION;

CLIFTON G. GROSS, individually and

in the capacity of Vice President of

International Longshoremen’s

Association,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

DOUGLAS F. WAGNER, JR.,

individually and in the capacity of

President of International

Longshoremen’s Association,

Plaintiff,

v.  No. 01-1638 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S

ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO; RICHARD P.

HUGHES, JR., individually and in the

capacity of General International

Vice President, International

Longshoremen’s Association;

HORACE T. ALSTON, individually and

in the capacity of International Vice

President, International

Longshoremen’s Association;

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S

ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2066, AFLCIO; STEAMSHIP TRADE

ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees. 
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Benson E. Legg, District Judge.

(CA-99-2653-L)

Argued: December 6, 2001

Decided: January 10, 2002

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Joel Allen Smith, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A.,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Ernest Lewis Mathews, Jr.,

GLEASON & MATHEWS, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Travis M. Mastroddi, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. James R.

Rosenberg, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, P.A., Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees Alston, Hughes, and Local 2066; Gil A.

Abramson, HOGAN & HARTSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Trade Association. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

This case involves a dispute between a local labor union and its

parent organization. The International Longshoremen’s Association,

2 LOCAL 333 v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOC.
Local 333, AFL-CIO (Local 333), which serves the Port of Baltimore,

declined to load and unload certain kinds of cargo which were

reserved to it under a collective bargaining agreement (the Cargo

Agreement) with the Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore,

Incorporated (the STA), a multi-employer association that negotiates

and administers collective bargaining agreements on behalf of its

employer members—stevedores, freight forwarders, and steamship

lines. As a result, these cargos were being handled by non-union labor

or diverted to other ports. 

In response, Local 333’s parent organization, the International

Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO (the ILA), chartered a new

local, Local 2066, to recapture the lost work. After it was unable to

overturn the ILA’s decision to charter Local 2066 through internal

union procedures, Local 333 filed this action on August 31, 1999

against the ILA in the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland.*

On September 16, 1999, Local 333 filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, asking the district

court to enjoin Local 2066 from bargaining until the legality of its

creation could be adjudicated. The following day, the district court

denied Local 333’s motion for a temporary restraining order. After a

hearing, Local 333’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Local 333 appealed to this court on an interlocutory basis, and, on

June 6, 2000, this court affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Local 333, AFL-CIO

v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO, No. 99-2548, 2000 WL

724168 (4th Cir. June 6, 2000) (unpublished).

*The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Local 333 and Clifton Gross, its president and member. Plaintiff Douglas Wagner, Jr. was president of Local

333 when the action originated. Wagner has since left office and has not

joined in this appeal. Gross was an original plaintiff in the lawsuit as a

member and vice-president of Local 333. The defendants are the ILA,

Local 2066, the STA, Richard Hughes, an elected officer of the ILA, and

Horace Alston, a member of Local 333 and an elected officer of the ILA.

For ease of reference, we will refer to the plaintiffs as Local 333 and the

defendants as the ILA. 

LOCAL 333 v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOC. 3
While the appeal to this court was pending, Local 333 filed an

amended complaint. Distilled to its essence, Local 333’s amended

complaint asserts three categories of claims: (1) claims brought under

§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to

enforce provisions of the ILA constitution and the Cargo Agreement

(Counts One, Two, and Three); (2) a claim under § 8(b) of the

National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), for breach of the

duty of fair representation (Count Four); and (3) claims alleging

infringement of Local 333’s rights under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C.

§§ 411-415 (Counts Five through Nine). 

On June 22, 2000, the ILA filed a motion for summary judgment,

which the district court granted as to all claims on March 30, 2001.

With regard to the claims asserted in Counts One and Two, the district court held that these claims lacked merit because the ILA’s interpretation of its own constitution was entitled to deference absent bad

faith or arbitrariness and there was no evidence in the record of bad

faith or arbitrariness. With regard to the claim asserted in Count

Three, the district court held that this claim lacked merit because

Local 333 failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. With regard

to the breach of the duty of fair representation claim asserted in Count

Four, the district court held that the duty of fair representation was not

implicated because the ILA was neither acting as the representative

of Local 333, nor processing a grievance or negotiating a contract

with an employer when the ILA chartered Local 2066. Because the

duty of fair representation was not implicated, the district court did

not address the issue of whether the ILA breached that duty. With

regard to the claims asserted in Counts Five through Nine, the district

court held that Local 333 lacked standing under the LMRDA and, in

any event, the claims lacked merit. Local 333 noted a timely appeal.

On appeal, Local 333 only takes issue with the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of the ILA on its claim of breach of

the duty of fair representation. According to Local 333, the ILA

breached its duty of fair representation when it chartered Local 2066.

Upon reviewing the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Int’l

4 LOCAL 333 v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOC.
Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Local 333, AFL-CIO v. Int’l Longshoremen’s

Ass’n, AFL-CIO, No. 99-CV-2653 (D.Md. March 30, 2001). 

AFFIRMED

LOCAL 333 v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOC. 5