Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/389/463/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 00:28:09
Document Index: 691667776

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 482', '§ 401', '§ 481', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 481', '§ 401', '§ 402', '§ 2', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 481', '§ 481', '§ 401', '§ 482', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 401']

WIRTZ V. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN., 389 U. S. 463 - Volume 389 - 1968 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 389 > WIRTZ V. BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSN., 389 U. S. 463 (1968) > Full Text
Section 402(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 482(b), authorizes the Secretary of Labor, upon complaint by a union member who has exhausted his internal union remedies, to file the suit when an investigation of the complaint gives the Secretary probable cause to believe that the union election was not conducted in compliance with the standards prescribed in § 401 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 481. If the court finds that a violation of § 401 occurred which "may have affected the outcome of an election," it "shall declare the election, if any, to be void, and direct the conduct of a new election under supervision of the Secretary." [Footnote 1] The alleged illegality in the
Page 389 U. S. 465
election was a violation of the provision of § 401(e), 29 U.S.C. § 481(e), that, in a union election subject to the Act, every union member "in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to . . . reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed). . . ."
Page 389 U. S. 466
A Local bylaw provided that union members had to have attended 75% of the Local's regular meetings in the two years preceding the election to be eligible to stand for office. [Footnote 2] The union member whose complaint invoked the Secretary's investigation had not been allowed to stand for President at the 1963 election because he had attended only 17 of the 24 regular monthly meetings, one short of the requisite 75%; under the bylaws, working on the night shift was the only excusable absence, and none of his absences was for this reason.
The District Court held that the meeting attendance requirement was an unreasonable restriction upon the eligibility of union members to be candidates for office, and therefore violated § 401(e), [Footnote 3] but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not established that the violation "may have affected the outcome" of the election. 244 F.Supp. 745. The Secretary appealed to the Court
Page 389 U. S. 467
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appeal was pending when the Local conducted its next regular biennial election in October, 1965. The Court of Appeals held that the Secretary's challenge to the 1963 election was mooted by the 1965 election, and therefore vacated the District Court judgment with the direction to dismiss the case as moot. In consequence, the court did not reach the merits of the question whether the unlawful meeting attendance qualification may have affected the outcome of the 1963 election. 372 F.2d 86. [Footnote 4] Because the question whether the intervening election mooted the Secretary's action is important in the administration of the LMRDA, we granted certiorari, 387 U.S. 904, and set the case for oral argument with No. 58, Wirtz v. Local 126, Laborers' Int'l Union, post, p. 389 U. S. 477. We reverse.
The holding of the Court of Appeals did not rest on any explicit statutory provision that, on the happening of another unsupervised election, the Secretary's cause of action should be deemed to have "ceased to exist." California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 149 U. S. 313. [Footnote 5] Indeed, a literal reading of § 402(b) would more reasonably
Page 389 U. S. 468
compel the contrary conclusion. For no exceptions are admitted by the unambiguous wording that, when
A reading of the legislative history of the LMRDA, and of Title IV in particular, reveals nothing to indicate any consideration of the possibility that another election might intervene before a final judicial decision of the Secretary's challenge to a particular election. The only reasonable inference is that the possibility did not occur to the Congress. [Footnote 7] We turn, therefore, to the question
Page 389 U. S. 469
The LMRDA has seven subdivisions dealing with various facets both of internal union affairs and of labor-management relations. The enactment of the statute was preceded by extensive congressional inquiries upon which Congress based the findings, purposes, and policy expressed in § 2 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 401. [Footnote 8] Of special significance in this case are the findings that, "in the public interest," remedial legislation was necessary to
Page 389 U. S. 470
Title IV's special function in furthering the overall goals of the LMRDA is to insure "free and democratic" elections. [Footnote 9] The legislative history shows that Congress
Page 389 U. S. 471
weighed how best to legislate against revealed abuses in union elections without departing needlessly from its longstanding policy against unnecessary governmental intrusion into internal union affairs. [Footnote 10] The extensive and vigorous debate over Title IV manifested a conflict over the extent to which governmental intervention in this most crucial aspect of internal union affairs was necessary or desirable. In the end, there emerged a
But the freedom allowed unions to run their own elections was reserved for those elections which conform to the democratic principles written into § 401. International union elections must be held not less often than once every five years, and local union elections not less often than once every three years. Elections must be
Page 389 U. S. 472
by secret ballot among the members in good standing, except that international unions may elect their officers at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot. 29 U.S.C. §§ 481(a), (b). Specific provisions insure equality of treatment in the mailing of campaign literature; require adequate safeguards to insure a fair election, including the right of any candidate to have observers at the polls and at the counting of ballots; guarantee a "reasonable opportunity" for the nomination of candidates, the right to vote without fear of reprisal, and, pertinent to the case before us, the right of every member in good standing to be a candidate, subject to "reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed." 29 U.S.C. §§ 481(c), (e).
"maximum amount of independence and self-government by giving every international
Page 389 U. S. 473
union the opportunity to correct improper local elections."
But it is incorrect to read these provisions circumscribing the time and basis for the Secretary's intervention as somehow conditioning his right to relief once that intervention has been properly invoked. Such a construction would ignore the fact that Congress, although committed to minimal intervention, was obviously equally committed to making that intervention, once warranted, effective in carrying out the basic aim of Title IV. [Footnote 11] Congress deliberately gave exclusive enforcement authority to the Secretary, having "decided to utilize the special knowledge and discretion of the Secretary of Labor in order best to serve the public interest." Calhoon v. Harvey, supra. In so doing, Congress rejected other proposals, among them plans that would have authorized suits by complaining members in their own right. [Footnote 12] And Congress unequivocally declared that,
Page 389 U. S. 474
once the Secretary establishes in court that a violation of § 401 may have affected the outcome of the challenged election, "the court shall declare the election . . . to be void and direct the conduct of a new election under supervision of the Secretary. . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 482(c). (Emphasis supplied.)
We cannot agree that this statutory scheme is satisfied by the happenstance intervention of an unsupervised election. The notion that the unlawfulness infecting the challenged election should be considered as washed away by the following election disregards Congress' evident conclusion that only a supervised election could offer assurance that the officers who achieved office as beneficiaries of violations of the Act would not by some means perpetuate their unlawful control in the succeeding election. That conclusion was reached in light of the abuses surfaced by the extensive congressional inquiry showing how incumbents' use of their inherent advantage over potential rank and file challengers established and perpetuated dynastic control of some unions. See S.Rep. No. 1417, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. These abuses were among the "number of instances of breach of trust . . . [and] disregard of the rights of individual employees. . ." upon which Congress rested its decision that the legislation was required in the public interest. [Footnote 13] Congress chose the alternative of a supervised election as the remedy for a § 401 violation in the belief that the protective presence of a neutral Secretary of Labor would best prevent the unfairness in the first election from infecting, directly or indirectly, the remedial election. The choice also reflects a conclusion that union members made aware of unlawful practices could not adequately protect their own interests through an unsupervised election. It is clear, therefore, that the intervention of an election
Page 389 U. S. 475
in which the outcome might be as much a product of unlawful circumstances as the challenged election cannot bring the Secretary's action to a halt. Aborting the exclusive statutory remedy would immunize a proved violation from further attack and leave unvindicated the interests protected by § 401. Title IV was not intended to be so readily frustrated.
We therefore hold that, when the Secretary of Labor proves the existence of a § 401 violation that may have affected the outcome of a challenged election, the fact that the union has already conducted another unsupervised election does not deprive the Secretary of his right to a court order declaring the challenged election void
Page 389 U. S. 476
and directing that a new election be conducted under his supervision. [Footnote 14]
". . . He has power to -- . . . (e) investigate violations of the election provisions and bring court actions to overturn improperly held elections and supervise conduct of new elections. . . ."