Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/c381374/john-a-pawlak-and-james-stafford-v-charles-e-greenawalt-local-union-no/
Timestamp: 2018-06-20 01:36:41
Document Index: 778526751

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 101', '§ 12', '§ 101', '§ 12', '§ 12']

john-a-pawlak-and-james-stafford-v-charles-e-greenawalt-local-union-no, Third Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
john-a-pawlak-and-james-stafford-v-charles-e-greenawalt-local-union-no , 628 F.2d 826 ( 1980 )
John Pawlak, a member of Local Union No. 764, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, filed an action three years ago in the district court contesting a change in the working conditions at his place of employment. He alleged that his employer, in instituting the change, had violated the applicable collective bargaining agreement under which Pawlak worked. Pawlak further charged that Local 764 had violated its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievance concerning the change in conditions. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Pawlak had not exhausted internal union remedies before filing suit. Pawlak v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 764, 444 F. Supp. 807 (M.D.Pa.1977); aff'd mem. 571 F.2d 572 (3d Cir. 1978).
The district court denied a motion by Local 764 and Greenawalt to dismiss Pawlak's complaint, although it did dismiss the fair hearing allegations. As to the latter point, the court believed that because the underlying facts were not in dispute, a transcript of the proceedings was not necessary for the court to decide whether Pawlak's statutory rights had been violated. Pawlak v. Greenawalt, 464 F. Supp. 1265, 1271 (M.D.Pa.1979).2 Local 764 then filed a counterclaim seeking an order directing Pawlak to pay the fine of $2,635 that had been imposed.
All parties thereafter moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the defendants' motion. Pawlak v. Greenawalt, 477 F. Supp. 149 (M.D.Pa.1979).
Although the language of the clause left unclear whether Congress intended the courts or the unions to implement it, the proviso has since been interpreted as empowering the courts to enforce it. The Supreme Court addressed the issue in NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U.S. 418, 88 S. Ct. 1717, 20 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1968). There, an employee was expelled from the union for filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without first utilizing internal union procedures. The Supreme Court concluded that his expulsion violated § 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. In reaching its decision, the Court reviewed the legislative history of § 101(a) (4) of the Landrum Griffin Act and interpreted the proviso as follows:
In Operating Engineers Local 3 v. Burroughs, 417 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 916, 90 S. Ct. 921, 25 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1970), which followed Marine Workers, an employee was fined by his union because he had brought an action against the union without first exhausting internal procedures. The district court held that any discipline imposed on the employee for having sued the union was void. In affirming, the court of appeals declared:
The prospect that a union member who sues his union would risk liability under § 12(b) for attorneys fees incurred by the union, in the event the court required the member to exhaust internal remedies, would, we believe, chill union members in the exercise of their statutory right to sue the union. This would undermine the very purpose of § 101(a)(4). See Ryan v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 361 F.2d 942 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 935, 87 S. Ct. 296, 17 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1966). Consequently, we conclude that § 12(b) of the International Constitution is invalid in that it restricts the right of a union member to sue his union in a manner that is inconsistent with the Landrum-Griffin Act. The fine imposed on Pawlak by the union, pursuant to § 12(b), is also invalid.
Cf. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 258-59, 95 S. Ct. 1612, 1622, 44 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1975)
DocketNumber： 79-2587
Citation Numbers： 628 F.2d 826
A. Glynn Ross, and Cross-Appellant v. International ... , 544 F.2d 1022 ( 1976 )
john-j-ryan-thomas-monaghan-and-clifford-j-beck-v-international , 361 F.2d 942 ( 1966 )
operating-engineers-local-union-no-3-an-unincorporated-association-the , 417 F.2d 370 ( 1969 )
Pawlak v. Greenawalt , 477 F. Supp. 149 ( 1979 )
Pawlak v. Greenawalt , 464 F. Supp. 1265 ( 1979 )
Pawlak v. INTERN. BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. , 444 F. Supp. 807 ( 1977 )
john-h-mallick-an-individual-billy-n-chadwick-an-individual-v , 644 F.2d 228 ( 1981 )
pawlak-john-a-and-stafford-james-v-greenawalt-charles-e-local-union , 713 F.2d 972 ( 1983 )
gary-h-v-leo-hegstrom-jn-peet-richard-s-peterson-bennett-k-holt , 831 F.2d 1430 ( 1987 )
Brenda S. Collison v. International Chemical Workers Union, ... , 34 F.3d 233 ( 1994 )
Frank Ackley and Steven Cole v. Western Conference of ... , 958 F.2d 1463 ( 1992 )
larry-f-hrometz-plaintiff-appellantcross-appellee-v-local-550 , 227 F.3d 597 ( 2000 )
Taschner v. Hill , 589 F. Supp. 127 ( 1984 )
local-union-no-38-sheet-metal-workers-international-association , 350 F.3d 73 ( 2003 )
Sadlowski v. United Steelworkers of America , 507 F. Supp. 623 ( 1981 )
Anjelino v. New York Times ( 1999 )