Source: https://openjurist.org/762/f2d/1349
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:06:39+00:00

Document:
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA, WEST, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Bette J. Briggs, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Julius Reich, Reich, Adell, & Crost, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before WRIGHT, ALARCON, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant William E. Brock, III, Secretary of Labor for the United States Department of Labor (hereinafter the Secretary) appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint challenging a union election conducted by appellee Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (hereinafter the Guild), and from the district court's sua sponte award of attorneys' fees to the Guild. This appeal requires us to resolve a novel question of statutory construction: whether section 401(c)1 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereinafter LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 481(c), which requires that unions provide adequate safeguards to insure fair union elections, affords the Secretary the power to challenge a union's decision to permit supervisors to participate as candidates in a union election.
On September 15 and 16, 1983, the Guild (a labor organization subject to the provisions of Title IV of the LMRDA regarding the conduct of union elections) conducted an election of officers. The Guild permitted two individuals who held supervisory or management positions in the entertainment industry to participate as candidates.2 One was employed as a director/producer/writer for a television series; the other was a director for an episodic television program.
Having exhausted his internal union remedies, Guild member Edmund Morris filed a complaint with the Secretary pursuant to LMRDA Sec. 402(a). The Secretary investigated the complaint and found probable cause to believe that a violation of Title IV of the LMRDA had occurred. Specifically, the Secretary determined that, by allowing supervisors to participate as candidates in the election, the Guild failed to provide the adequate safeguards to insure a fair election required by LMRDA Sec. 401(c).
The Secretary brought an action in district court pursuant to LMRDA Secs. 401(c) and 402(b), challenging the election and seeking an order setting it aside and directing a new election under the Secretary's supervision. The district court granted the Guild's summary judgment motion and dismissed the Secretary's complaint on the following grounds: (1) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because LMRDA Sec. 402(b) does not confer jurisdiction on the court to hear actions to set aside union elections based upon the alleged participation of supervisors as candidates for union office;3 (2) the court's jurisdiction was "preempted" because the alleged participation of supervisors as candidates in a union election is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter NLRB);4 and (3) exclusive jurisdiction to determine supervisory status lies with the NLRB. The court also awarded the Guild its costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412.
The question on this appeal arises out of the tension between two conflicting policies embodied in Title IV of the LMRDA: the need to afford the Secretary sufficient authority to ensure free and democractic union elections so that union corruption may be avoided, and the policy against unnecessary governmental intrusion into union affairs. The Secretary contends that the portion of LMRDA Sec. 401(c) which requires unions to provide "[a]dequate safeguards to insure a fair election" was intended to authorize him to intervene and set aside a union election based upon the participation of supervisors as candidates. We disagree with the Secretary's reading of section 401(c) because such a construction would establish a per se rule of non-eligibility for supervisory candidates. Because "[t]here is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress' silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted" (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 625, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 2015, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978) ), we refuse to extend the statute "beyond the point where Congress ... would stop." 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593, 600, 71 S.Ct. 515, 520, 95 L.Ed. 566 (1951).
In construing a statute in a case of first impression, we look to the traditional signposts of statutory construction: first, the language of the statute itself (see North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 312, 103 S.Ct. 1095, 1102, 75 L.Ed.2d 77 (1983); American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 1537, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982) ); second, its legislative history (see Heckler v. Turner, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1144-45, 84 L.Ed.2d 138 (1985) ), and as an aid in interpreting Congress' intent, the interpretation given to it by its administering agency (see Heckler v. Turner, supra 105 S.Ct. at 4214; Winterrowd v. David Freedman & Co., Inc., 724 F.2d 823, 825 (9th Cir.1984) ).
Adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided, including the right of any candidate to have an observer at the polls and at the counting of the ballots.
The Secretary shall investigate such complaint [of an individual member of a labor organization alleging the violation of a provision of LMRDA Sec. 401] and, if he finds probable cause to believe that a violation of this subchapter has occurred and has not been remedied, he shall, within sixty days after the filing of such complaint, bring a civil action against the labor organization as an entity in the district court of the United States in which such labor organization maintains its principal office to set aside the invalid election, if any, and to direct the conduct of an election ... under the supervision of the Secretary and in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter and such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe.
Neither the language nor the context of the "adequate safeguards" provision supports the broad construction of the statute which the Secretary urges. Section 401(c) makes no reference to candidate eligibility, nor does it draw any distinction between union members based upon their supervisorial status. Moreover, the adequate safeguards provision is immediately followed by two examples typifying the procedural safeguards which are required: (1) every candidate has the right to have an observer at the polls, and (2) every candidate has the right to have an observer at the counting of the ballots. LMRDA Sec. 401(c), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 481(c). Had Congress intended the adequate safeguards provision to encompass such substantive protections as restrictions on candidate eligibility, it seems unlikely that it would have included as examples two such purely procedural rights.
The fact that Congress itself expressly established certain minimal qualifications for candidates for union office in section 504, taken in combination with its broad statement of member eligibility in section 401(e), suggests that Congress intended that unions retain the freedom not to impose additional candidacy qualifications. But cf. Brown v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local No. 54, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3179, 3187-90, 82 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984) (NLRA Sec. 7, guaranteeing to employees the right to bargain collectively through representatives "of their own choosing," does not necessarily preempt all state regulations imposing candidacy qualifications which ultimately restrict the rights of employees to select certain individuals as union officers).7 The conspicuous absence in the LMRDA of any candidacy qualifications based upon supervisorial status persuades us that Congress did not intend to impose any qualifications other than those expressly set forth in section 504(a).
The LMRDA was "the product of Congressional concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership." Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 2563, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984) (quoting Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 435, 102 S.Ct. 1867, 1870, 72 L.Ed.2d 239 (1982) ). The special function of Title IV in furthering the overall goals of the LMRDA is to insure "free and democratic" union elections. Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Association, 389 U.S. 463, 470, 88 S.Ct. 643, 647, 19 L.Ed.2d 705 (1968). Congress meant to further this basic policy, however, with a minimum of governmental interference in the internal affairs of unions. See Donovan v. Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Local 19, 700 F.2d 539, 547 (9th Cir.1983). Title IV was Congress' attempt to balance these competing policies.
United Steelworkers of America v. Sadlowski, supra, at 117, 102 S.Ct. at 2348. As this court has noted, Congress believed that "[g]iven the maintenance of minimum democratic safeguards and detailed essential information about the union, the individual members are fully competent to regulate union affairs." Donovan v. Local 19, supra, at 547 n. 12 (quoting S.Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 7, reprinted in 1959 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2318, 2323, and in 1 NLRB, Legislative History of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 403 (1959) (hereinafter Leg.Hist.)).
The pivotal question on this appeal is what Congress meant by "minimum democratic safeguards" and "adequate safeguards to insure a fair election." The Secretary argues that the potential for retaliation against the rank-and-file union members must render supervisors ineligible to participate in union elections as candidates for union office. He reasons that such potential for abuse is likely to chill the free exercise of voting rights and thus to render the election inherently unfair. The Secretary concludes that these dangers were precisely those which Title IV was designed to prevent.
We disagree. The legislative history and the Secretary's own administrative regulations interpreting Title IV combine to persuade us that Congress did not intend to afford the Secretary the unilateral authority to determine candidate eligibility for union office.
S. 1555, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); 105 Cong.Rec. 40 (1959); 1 Leg.Hist. at 555 (emphasis added). On August 14, 1959, the House, working on another track, passed the Landrum-Griffin bill (H.R. 8342). 105 Cong.Rec. 14541 (1959); 2 Leg.Hist. at 1702. The House bill broadened the safeguards requirement to the form in which it was ultimately enacted ("Adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided...."), eliminating the qualifying phrase "to insure a fair count of the ballots." H.R. 8342, Sec. 401(b), 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); 105 Cong.Rec. 14536 (1959); 2 Leg.Hist. at 1697.
The Senate bill requires the union to establish safeguards for a fair count of the ballots. The Landrum-Griffin bill contained a much broader protection--it required adequate safeguards for a fair election which goes beyond a mere count of the ballots. The conferees accepted the language of the Landrum-Griffin bill.
The Secretary asserts that the Committee's rejection of the narrower Senate bill language indicates that Congress intended to expand the mechanical protections afforded by section 401(c) to include substantive protections such as restrictions on candidate eligibility. While we agree that the Committee's action reflects an intent to expand the reach of the adequate safeguards provision, we are persuaded that Congress meant only to broaden the types of procedural protections available. Congress did not intend to confer upon the Secretary the power to promulgate substantive restrictions on candidate eligibility. See 105 Cong.Rec. 16387 (1959); 2 Leg.Hist. at 1416 (statement of Senator Morse) ("The important [purpose of section 401(c) ] is to get the democratic procedure, and then to let the union run its own internal affairs in keeping with that democratic procedure....") (emphasis added).
Moreover, like the panel in Donovan v. Local 19, supra, we decline to attribute much weight to Senator Goldwater's staff reports. See id. at 545. Senator Goldwater was opposed to the enactment of S. 1555 because he believed that it inadequately regulated union behavior. Id. at 545-46 n. 10. The remarks of legislators opposed to legislation are entitled to little weight in the construction of statutes. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 203 n. 24, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1386 n. 24, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976); Donovan v. Local 19, supra, at 544 n. 7. Furthermore, because the study was inserted into the record after the Committee's Report had been approved by the Senate the conclusions expressed therein are post-enactment statements which constitute poor evidence of Congressional intent. See Donovan v. Local 19, supra, at 545 n. 9.
When even after [going behind the plain language of a statute in search of a possibly contrary congressional intent] nothing in the legislative history remotely suggests a congressional intent contrary to Congress' chosen words ... any further steps take the courts out of the realm of interpretation and place them in the domain of legislation.
United States v. Locke, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 1793, 85 L.Ed.2d 64 (1985). We decline the Secretary's implied invitation that we assume the role of legislators.
The rulemaking power granted to an administrative agency charged with the administration of a federal statute is not the power to make law. Rather, it is the power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute.
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S. at 213-14, 96 S.Ct. at 1391 (citations omitted).
Inasmuch as it is an unfair labor practice under the [NLRA] for an employer (including persons acting in that capacity) to dominate or interfere with the administration of any labor organization, it follows that employers, while they may be members, may not be candidates for office or serve as officers.
The Secretary's reliance upon section 452.47 is misplaced. Section 452.47 was promulgated under LMRDA section 401(e), and does not purport to interpret the adequate safeguards provision of section 401(c). Rather, it establishes guidelines for a union which wishes to impose candidate eligibility requirements under the "reasonable qualifications" provision of section 401(e). It does not follow that simply because a qualification prohibiting the eligibility of supervisor candidates would be reasonable if imposed by a union, the Secretary has authority to impose such an eligibility requirement on the union through section 401(c).
Moreover, the Secretary's Title IV regulations contain a provision entitled "Adequate Safeguards" (see 29 C.F.R. Sec. 452.110) which specifically interprets section 401(c). That regulation contains no reference to candidate eligibility or to supervisors. Instead, it gives two examples of required adequate safeguards: (1) if one candidate is permitted to have his nickname on the ballot, the other should enjoy the same privilege, and (2) voting instructions must be intelligible. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 452.110. The inclusion of these mechanical procedural safeguards as examples of the required safeguards suggests that the Secretary, like Congress, construed the adequate safeguards provision narrowly.
The Secretary also contends that Regulation 452.47 affords the Guild fair notice that supervisorial candidacy is prohibited by section 401(c). Because the Regulation was promulgated pursuant to section 401(e), however, the Guild received no notice of the requirements of section 401(c). Section 401(e) and Regulation 452.47 pertain only to the candidacy qualifications which a union may require through its constitution and bylaws. Because the Guild's constitution and bylaws do not impose any such restrictions on candidates, it had no reason to assume that Regulation 452.47 was applicable to the eligibility of union members in good standing.
The administrative rulings and court cases to which the Secretary points as evidence of fair notice to the union only serve to underscore the crucial difference between section 401(c) and 401(e). All but one of the decisions cited interpret the reasonable qualifications provision of section 401(e) and the regulations (C.F.R. Secs. 440.1910-2000) promulgated thereunder. See, e.g., Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 164, No. 32-5180 (May 4, 1978) (union violated section 401(e) when it allowed constitutionally ineligible supervisor to run for and hold office); accord, Marshall v. Longshoremen, Local 1593, No. 42-3835 (M.D.Fla. filed Sept. 1, 1977). On the only previous occasion when the Secretary sought to invoke section 401(c) to set aside a union election on the ground that a union allowed two supervisors to run for office, the court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust internal union remedies, never reaching the merits. See Donovan v. Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 126, 113 L.R.R.M. 3725, 3726-27 (E.D.Pa.1982), vacated 728 F.2d 610 (3d Cir.), and remanded without op. 732 F.2d 145 (3d Cir.1984).
The district court did not err in its conclusion that the complaint failed to state a claim under LMRDA Secs. 401(c) and 402(b) because Congress has not authorized the Secretary to impose upon unions substantive requirements concerning the eligibility of candidates for union election.
The Secretary also appeals from the district court's sua sponte award of reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412. Pursuant to section 2412(d),9 a prevailing party in an action brought by the United States may, upon timely application, recover its attorneys' fees unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.10 Because the district court's sua sponte award of fees in the present case contravenes the mandatory language of section 2412(d) and deprives the Secretary of an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the Guild's entitlement to the fees awarded, we reverse that portion of the order.
Section 2412(d)(1)(B) plainly states that the filing of an application for fees is a prerequisite to a fee award. The statute provides that a party seeking an award "shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action" submit an application containing a request for fees, an itemization, and a statement as to why the government's position was not substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(1)(B); see also Rawlins v. United States, 686 F.2d 903, 914 (Ct.Cl.1982) (court could not consider plaintiff's claim for fees on appeal because plaintiff had not filed required fee application under section 2412(d)(1)(B) ). The purpose and necessity for such an application is equally apparent: the court has discretion to reduce or deny such a fee award if the prevailing party engaged in conduct which unduly protracted the resolution of the controversy, the fees sought are excessive, the position of the United States was substantially justified, or special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust. See section 2412(d)(1) and (2). By failing to await the filing of such an application, the district court deprived the Secretary of an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the Guild's entitlement to fees. Therefore, the district court erred in making a sua sponte award of fees to the Guild.
Although neither party raised the point, the Guild's failure to file a fee application within thirty days from the date of entry of the district court's order granting summary judgment in its favor presents a potential barrier to our remand of the matter of fees. This court has strictly construed the requirement of section 2412(d)(1)(B) that an application be filed within thirty days from the date of final judgment. See McQuiston v. Marsh, 707 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.1983) (request for fees under section 2412(d) untimely if filed more than thirty days after entry of final judgment in the district court; filing of appeal does not toll the statute). But cf. Taylor v. United States, 749 F.2d 171, 174 (3d Cir.1984) (thirty day period for fee application begins to run when government's right to appeal has lapsed, or after completion of appellate proceedings); accord, McDonald v. Schweiker, 726 F.2d 311, 315 (7th Cir.1983).
The equities of the present case, however, dictate a different result. In McQuiston, we were not faced with a sua sponte award by the district court. Where the district court misleads the prevailing party by making such an award, it would be grossly unfair to hold that the party's failure to file an application within thirty days from entry of the court's order bars recovery of fees. See Hernandez-Rivera v. I & NS, 630 F.2d 1352, 1354-55 (9th Cir.1980) (official misleading by the district court as to the time within which a timely notice of appeal may be filed justifies a finding of constructive filing within jurisdictional time limits).
Therefore, the Guild will have thirty days from the date of entry of this court's order to file an application for fees. Assuming that the Guild files a timely application, the matter of entitlement to fees is remanded to the district court for a determination pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d) as to whether the Secretary's position was substantially justified so as to preclude an award of attorney's fees.
We uphold the district court's dismissal of the Secretary's complaint for failure to state a claim because Congress has not authorized the Secretary to impose restrictions on candidate eligibility for union office. The trial court erred in granting attorneys' fees to the Guild sua sponte.
The judgment is AFFIRMED. The award of attorneys' fees is REVERSED and REMANDED.
In Brown, the Court relied heavily upon LMRDA Sec. 603(a), an anti-preemption provision affirmatively preserving the operation of state laws. See id. The Court observed that section 603(a) indicates that Congress "necessarily intended to preserve some room for state action concerning the responsibilities and qualifications of union officials." Id. The Court also noted that the disqualification criteria embodied in LMRDA Sec. 504 (i.e., the restrictions on the candidacy of persons convicted of certain state law crimes) are premised on the existence of state laws. Id. Finally, the Court found that because enactment of the LMRDA was prompted by the inadequacies of existing state governmental machinery in policing internal union corruption, more stringent state regulation of the qualifications of union officials was not incompatible with national labor policy. Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3189.
In the instant case, we are presented with an attempt by the Secretary of Labor, acting as an arm of the federal government, to impose upon the Guild a candidacy qualification which is not expressly authorized by the LMRDA. While in Brown the state officials sought to impose on a union candidacy restrictions established by an independent state statutory scheme, the Secretary relies solely upon his construction of a subsection of the same statute (LMRDA Sec. 401(c)) which confers blanket eligibility on union members. Moreover, neither the antipreemption provision which operates to preserve state laws nor the policy favoring more stringent state regulation at issue in Brown are applicable to this case.
The Secretary argues that Congress' intent in enacting LMRDA Sec. 401(c) was to supplement existing employee rights created by the NLRA. The Guild contends that the two sets of rights do not overlap, and that Congress did not intend by enacting section 401(c) to thrust the Secretary into the arena of management-union relations. The NLRA governs the relationship between labor organizations and management. See generally NLRA Sec. 1, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151. Congress gave the NLRB exclusive authority to administer the NLRA and primary jurisdiction as an administrative tribunal to enforce its provisions. See Burke v. French Equipment Rental, Inc., 687 F.2d 307, 311 (9th Cir.1982). Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA makes it unlawful for an employer to "dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(2). NLRA Sec. 2(11) defines the term "supervisor," and the definition of "employee" explicitly excludes supervisors. See NLRA Sec. 2(3), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(3). Therefore, under the NLRA a supervisor is an employer.
The NLRB first disapproved the participation of high ranking supervisors in a union election two years before enactment of the LMRDA, in Nassau & Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc., 118 N.L.R.B. 174 (1957), finding that such conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice by the employer under NLRA Sec. 8(a)(2). The Board reasoned that a potential harm in allowing supervisors to participate as candidates lies in having agents of the employer sitting on both sides of a bargaining table, making arm's-length bargaining impossible. Id. at 187. Such a conflict between the interests of labor and management is exactly what the NLRA was designed to prevent.
In contrast, the LMRDA was Congress' first attempt to regulate intra-union affairs. Trbovich v. U.M.W., 404 U.S. 528, 530, 92 S.Ct. 630, 632, 30 L.Ed.2d 686 (1972). Congress gave the Secretary primary responsibility for the enforcement of the LMRDA (Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, supra, 104 S.Ct. at 2565 n. 14), and conferred jurisdiction on the federal district courts to hear actions brought by the Secretary for violations of Title IV. See LMRDA Sec. 402(b), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 482(b).
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; their power is limited to those areas specifically conferred by Congress. U.S. Const. Art. III. Congress delegated the arena of management-union relations to the NLRB. See Burke v. French Equipment Rental, supra, at 311. Congress was presumably aware when it enacted the LMRDA that the NLRB was exercising its jurisdiction to disapprove supervisor participation in union elections. See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 341-42, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143-44, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (because Congress is composed predominately of lawyers, court may assume that Congress is aware of existing law). Congress' failure to make any express provision in the LMRDA of similar authority to the Secretary suggests that Congress did not intend to authorize the Secretary unilaterally to impose candidacy qualifications imported from the NLRA, nor to seek the assistance of the district court in the enforcement of such restrictions. See Albernaz v. United States, supra, at 341-42, 101 S.Ct. at 1143-44 (if anything can be presumed from congressional silence, it is that Congress was aware of existing law and legislated with it in mind).
The Secretary argues that Title I of the LMRDA has been interpreted to confer cumulative rights which overlap with those created by the NLRA, and urges us to adopt a similar construction of Title IV rights. Title I of the LMRDA creates a bill of rights for union members. The Supreme Court has held that Title I rights are cumulative to and overlap with rights created by the NLRA. See International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Hardeman, supra, 401 U.S. at 238-39, 91 S.Ct. at 613-14; accord, Cooke v. Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 49, supra, at 820.
The Secretary's analysis is flawed. Congress included in Title I an expression of its intent to create federal rights which would overlap and supplement existing protections. See LMRDA Sec. 103, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 413 (rights in this subchapter are cumulative); Cooke v. Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48, supra, at 820. Indeed, Congress' failure to include a similar statement in Title IV when it took care to do so in Title I suggests a contrary intention. Furthermore, the Supreme Court itself has emphasized the distinction between Title I, where governmental interference to enforce rights is condoned, and Titles II through VI, where the principal value at stake is the presumption of union self-government. See United Steelworkers of America v. Sadlowski, supra, 457 U.S. at 117, 102 S.Ct. at 2348.
Finally, the Secretary posits that Congress must have intended to grant him the power to intervene in union elections to contest candidate eligibility because the LMRDA affords him a unique retrospective remedy--the power to set aside elections--while the NLRB's remedy is limited to a prospective order directing the employer to cease and desist from dealing with a union which permits supervisors to serve as officers. See Nassau, supra, at 188-89. This argument stands the relevant inquiry on its head. The dispositive issue is whether Congress intended to afford the Secretary the opportunity to exert such admittedly substantial governmental influence over internal union affairs. Indeed, in light of the policy against excessive governmental intrusion into internal union affairs, the fact that Congress created such a powerful remedy for the Secretary militates strongly in favor of a narrow construction of section 401(c). See supra section IIB.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.