IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND 

FORESTRY, RUBBER, 

MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED 

INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE 

WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, 

AFL-CIO/CLC and JAMES KILBORN 

in his capacity as 

Administrator of USW Local 

8378, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOSEPH J. MUNGER, SR., and 

LEE FRAKES, 

Defendants. 

ROBERT H. LAVITT 

3:15-CV-00955-BR 

ORDER 

Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP 

18 W. Mercer Street, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98119 

(206) 285-2828 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 11
LEON DAYAN 

BRUCE LERNER 

THOMAS W. PEREZ-LOPEZ 

Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC 

805 15~ Street N.W. 

Suite 1000 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 842-2600 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

BROWN, Judge. 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion (#65) 

for Permanent Injunction. For the reasons that follow, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion and enters a Permanent Injunction. 

BACKGROUND 

On May 26, 2015, the President of Plaintiff United Steel 

Workers International Union (USW), Leo Gerard, placed Local 8378 

into administratorship pursuant to Article IX of the USW 

International Constitution and appointed Plaintiff James Kilborn 

as Administrator of the Local. Gerard advised the Local's 

elected officials, including Defendants Joseph Munger and Lee 

Frakes, that they were immediately suspended from their positions 

as officers of the Local. 

On June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs brought an action in this Court 

under§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 

U.S.C. § 185, alleging Defendants violated the USW Constitution 

by taking steps to decertify USW as the exclusive bargaining 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 11
representative for members of the Local employed by Cascade Steel 

Rolling Mills, Inc. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged Defendants 

removed union files from the union office, changed the locks to 

the union hall so that only Defendants could gain access to the 

property, and failed to comply with the administratorship of the 

Local instituted by USW. 

Also on June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Temporary 

Restraining Order seeking to require Defendants to comply with 

Kilborn's directives, to return to Kilborn all records and 

property of Local 8378 in their possession, to cede control of 

the Local's bank accounts to Kilborn, and to stop holding 

themselves out as officers of Local 8378. 

On June 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' 

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. At the hearing 

Defendants admitted they had removed and retained certain Local 

8378 records including grievance files. Defendants turned over 

the grievance files to Plaintiffs at the hearing. 

On June 12, 2015, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining 

Order (#32) finding "Plaintiffs likely will succeed on the merits 

of their claims against Defendants arising from Plaintiffs' 

institution of the administratorship" of Local 8378 and that 

"[a]bsent the issuance of a temporary restraining order, 

Plaintiffs are likely to suffer immediate and irreparable 

injury." The Court, therefore, ordered Defendants (1) to 

3 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 11
immediately return to Local 8378 all records and files they had 

removed from the union's offices, (2) to cease holding themselves 

out to the public as officers of the Local, (3) to assist Kilborn 

in accessing the Local's computer records, and (4) to return all 

union property to the Local. 

On June 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Emergency 

Supplemental Temporary Restraining Order on the ground that 

Defendants continued to refuse to relinquish control of certain 

union property, including a union-owned laptop, or to provide 

Kilborn with the necessary passwords to access a Dropbox account 

in which certain union records were stored in electronic form. 

Plaintiffs, however, ultimately withdrew their Motion when 

Defendants complied with the Court's June 12, 2015, Temporary 

Restraining Order. 

On June 18, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction in which they moved to convert the June 12, 2015, 

Temporary Restraining Order into a preliminary injunction. In 

particular, Plaintiffs sought an order requiring Defendants to 

turn over to Kilborn all remaining records and other property of 

Local 8378 in their possession, to destroy "residual" electronic 

copies of Local 8378 records stored on their personal computers 

or elsewhere, and to refrain from holding themselves out as 

officers of the Local. 

On June 24, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on 

4 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 11
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court noted 

an internal USW hearing regarding the validity of the 

administratorship was scheduled on June 26, 2015. The Court, 

therefore, denied as premature Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction with leave for Plaintiffs to renew their Motion if it 

remained necessary after the internal USW hearing. 

On June 26, 2015, an International Commission of the USW 

chaired by Commissioner James Carvin conducted a hearing as to 

the validity of the administratorship imposed upon Local 8378. 

The Commission heard testimony, including testimony from 

Defendants Munger and Frakes; received evidence; and considered 

legal arguments on the events leading to the administratorship. 

On July 10, 2015, the Commission issued a final report in 

which it confirmed the earlier findings of the International 

President and found that a valid legal basis existed for the 

administratorship. In particular, the Commission concluded (1) a 

plan was in place to remove the USW as the certified bargaining 

agent of the production and maintenance employees of Cascade 

Steel and meetings took place to discuss decertification of USW; 

(2) the locks and security codes at the Union Hall were changed 

to allow access only to Munger and Frakes and to exclude all 

other elected officials; and, as a result, (3) "the placing of 

Local Union 08378 under adrninistratorship was proper.~ The 

Commission recommended continuation of "the administratorship 

5 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 11
. until the Administrator secures all records, all assets[,] 

and feels the Local is capable of operating in a proper manner 

within the guidelines of the USW Constitution and Local By-Laws." 

On July 10, 2015, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining 

Order (#55) in which it directed Defendants (1) to immediately 

take all necessary steps to return exclusive control of and 

signing authority for Local 8378's bank accounts to the 

Administrator and (2) to preserve and not to delete or to destroy 

any electronic or physical files in Defendants' possession, 

including electronic files related in any way to union business 

that may reside on personal laptops, in storage, or on mobile 

devices. The Court also directed the parties to file a Joint 

Status Report no later than July 17, 2015. 

On July 16, 2015, the USW provided a copy of the 

International Commission's July 10, 2015, final report to 

Defendants and advised them that the International Executive 

Board Appeal Panel would hear an appeal on August 6, 2015. 

On July 17, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Status Report 

(#56) in which they advised the Court of the July 10, 2015, 

Commission final report and of the August 6, 2015, appeal 

hearing. Defendants asserted in the Joint Status Report that 

they believed the hearing before the International Commission 

6 - ORDER 

violated USW International By-Laws and 

Constitution. The Defendants were denied hearings 

that were fair and impartial and the ability to 

present a defense and challenge testimony. The 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 6 of 11
Defendants were interrupted during testimony, 

refused an opportunity to present evidence, had 

objections overruled to testimony by one party for 

another, had admonishments that laws were broken 

that were not by the alleged impartial jurists, 

amongst other injustices. Though no evidence was 

produced at the hearings of any wrong doing by the 

Defendants, the Defendants expect unfavorable 

rulings. 

July 17, 2015, Joint Status Report (#56) at 2. 

On July 23, 2015, the Court entered an Order (#57) 

continuing in effect the Temporary Restraining Order and 

directing the parties to file a further Joint Status Report on 

August 14, 2015. 

On August 6, 2015, the Board Appeal Panel held a hearing on 

the Commission's July 10, 2015, decision. Defendants did not 

appear at the hearing. The Board adopted the recommendations 

contained in the International Commission's final report. 

Pursuant to the Board's adoption, the emergency administratorship 

of Local 8378 became a regular administratorship effective 

August 6, 2015. 

On August 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report (#58) 

in which they advised the Court of the Board's adoption of the 

Commission's July 10, 2015, findings and sought a "final order 

. declaring that the administratorship was proper under 

federal law and the Steelworkers' Constitution and the Local's 

By-Laws, and that the Administrator was properly appointed and 

authorized." Plaintiffs also sought a "final order" continuing 

7 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 7 of 11
the directives of the Temporary Restraining Order. 

On August 17, 2015, the Court entered an Order (#59) in 

which it noted it had reviewed the August 14, 2015, Status Report 

and that it did not appear to include any position statement from 

Defendants. Because the Court concluded the "final order" that 

Plaintiffs sought was in the nature of a permanent injunction, 

the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a formal Motion for that 

relief after conferral with Defendants. 

On August 26, 2015, the Court entered an Order (#60) in 

which it noted: 

The Court has received a message from Defendant 

Munger as follows: "Please excuse my late reply. 

I was out of state to attend the funeral of my 

father in law. We can't jointly respond anymore 

because of the liberties taken by the plaintiffs 

last time with our response. We maintain our 

position and would encourage the court to maintain 

jurisdiction over the files. We add that the 

hearings were not impartial and we will not 

participate in an appeal as it is counterproductive. Thank you." Notwithstanding 

Defendant's statement, the Court reminds both 

Defendants that they may not ignore a court order 

to confer with opposing counsel. If they wish 

Plaintiffs' counsel to include any particular 

statement in a future, court-ordered, joint 

filing, they should provide counsel with the 

statement who will include it in the report. 

Order (#60) at 1 (issued Aug. 26, 2015). 

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for 

Permanent Injunction. Plaintiffs noted they attempted to confer 

with Defendants regarding the Motion, but they were unsuccessful 

because Defendants would not take or return their telephone 

8 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 8 of 11
calls. 

Defendants did not file any response to Plaintiffs' Motion 

for Permanent Injunction. 

DISCUSSION 

In their Motion Plaintiffs seek an order permanently 

requiring Defendants: (1) to refrain from interfering with the 

administratorship of the Local; (2) to refrain from representing 

themselves or holding themselves out to the public, any employer, 

any vendor or other organization that transacts or does business 

with the Local, or to members of the Local, as officers, 

officials, or representatives of the Local; (3) immediately to 

return to the Local any property, in whatever form, of the Local 

currently in their possession or control, or which may come into 

their possession or control, unless expressly authorized to do 

otherwise by Kilborn; and (4) to comply with reasonable requests 

by Kilborn to assist in the implementation of the 

administratorship, including providing on request an accounting 

of expenditures and explanation of receipts and/or disbursements 

and financial transactions by the Local or its officers or 

agents. 

The Court concludes Defendants' assertion in their 

August 26, 2015, message to the Court that the administrative 

proceedings before the Commission were not properly conducted in 

9 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 9 of 11
accordance with USW procedures and requirements is .unsupported by 

the record. In fact, the record reflects the Commission's 

findings and procedure were upheld on administrative appeal. 

Moreover, Defendants have not produced any evidence to support 

their position, Defendants have not conferred with Plaintiffs, 

and Defendants have not filed any response to Plaintiffs' Motion 

for Permanent Injunction. 

The Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have 

established there is a present risk of immediate and irreparable 

injury, loss, or damage to Plaintiffs because Defendants are in 

possession of certain documents and information that Plaintiffs 

need to conduct the business of Local 8378. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs have established Defendants have yet to turn over all 

USW property and records in their possession. Plaintiffs also 

have demonstrated the only relief available to them to compensate 

for Defendants' unauthorized possession of union records and 

other property is injunctive relief. The Court, therefore, 

concludes on this record that the balance of hardships weighs in 

Plaintiffs' favor. In particular, the hardship to Plaintiffs 

resulting from the deprivation of its records and other property 

is substantial because the Administrator requires those records 

to conduct the day-to-day business of Local 8378, including 

adjudication of member grievances. On the other hand, Defendants 

have not demonstrated any harm in being required to return all 

10 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 10 of 11
USW property and records to Kilborn. Finally, the Court 

concludes the public interest would not be disserved by the 

issuance of a permanent injunction that furthers federal labor 

policy by enforcing the terms of the USW Constitution. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion (#65) 

for Permanent Injunction and will enter a separate Order for 

Permanent Injunction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 30th day of October, 2015. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

11 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00955-BR Document 68 Filed 10/30/15 Page 11 of 11