Case Name: CALHOON, PRESIDENT, OR PETERS, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF DISTRICT NO. 1, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO v. HARVEY et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-12-07
Citations: 379 U.S. 134
Docket Number: No. 17
Parties: CALHOON, PRESIDENT, OR PETERS, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF DISTRICT NO. 1, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS’ BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO v. HARVEY et al.
Judges: Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the jhdgment of the .Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion as reported in 324 F. 2d 486.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 379
Pages: 134–147

Head Matter:
CALHOON, PRESIDENT, OR PETERS, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF DISTRICT NO. 1, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS’ BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO v. HARVEY et al.
No. 17.
Argued October 20, 1964.
Decided December 7, 1964.
David Scribner argued the cause for petitioner. With him oh the -brief was Lee Pressman.
Burton H. Hall argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Solicitor General Cox for the United States and by J. Albert Wall, Robert C. Mayer, Theodore J. St. Antoine and Thomas E. Harris for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging, affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union and by Róioland Waits fór the Workers Defense League.

Opinion:
Mr. .Justice Black
delivered the 'opinion of the Court.
This case raises important! questions concerning the powers of the Secretary of Labor and federal courts to protect rights Of employees guaranteed by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
The respondents, three members of District No. 1, National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, filed a complaint in Federal District Court against the union, its president and its . secretary-treasurer, alleging that certain provisions of the union's bylaws and national constitution violated the Act in that they infringed "the right of members of defendant District No. 1, NMEBA, to nominate candidates in elections of defendant, which right is guaranteed to each member of defendant, and to each plaintiff, by Section 101 (a)(1) of the LMRDA . . . ." It was alleged that § 102 of Title I of the Act gave the District Court jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. The union bylaws com plained of deprived a member of the right to nominate anyone for office but himself. The national constitution in turn provided that no member could be eligible for nomination or election to a full-time elective office unless he had been a member of the national union for five years and had served 180 days or more of seatime in each of two of the preceding three years on vessels covered by collective bargaining agreements with the national or its subsidiary bodies. On the basis of these allegations respondents asked that the union be enjoined from preparing for or conducting any election until it revised its system of elections so as to afford each of its members a fair opportunity to nominate any persons "meeting fair and reasonable eligibility requirements for any or all offices to be filled by such election."
The union moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, and (2) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The District Court dismissed for want of "jurisdiction," holding that the alleged conduct of the union, even if true, failed to show a denial of the equal rights of all members of the Union to vote for or nominate candidates guaranteed by § 101 (a) (1) of Title I.of the Act, so as to give the District Court jurisdiction of the controversy under § 102. The allegations, said the court, showed at most imposition of qualifications of eligibility for nomination and election so restrictive that they might violate § 401 (e) of Title IV by denying members a reasonable opportunity to nominate and vote for candidates. The District Court further held that it could hot exercise jurisdiction to protect § 401 (e) rights because § 402 (a) of Title IV provides a remedy, declared by § 403 to be "exclusive," authorizing iriembers to vindicate such rights by challenging elections after they have been held, and then only by (1) first exhausting all remedies available with the union, (2) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, who (3) may, after investigating the violation alleged in the complaint,-bring suit in a United States district court to attack the validity of the election. The Court of Appeals reversed,.holding-that "the complaint alleged a violation of § 101 (a)(1) and that federal jurisdiction existed under § 102." 324 F. 2d 486, 487. Because of the importance of the questions presented and conflicting views in the courts of appeals and the district courts, we granted certiorari. 375 U. S. 991.
I.
Jurisdiction of the District Court under § 102 of Title I depends entirely upon whether this complaint showed a violation of. rights guaranteed by § 101 (a)(1), for we-disagree with the Court of Appeals' holding that jurisdiction under § Í02 can be upheld by reliance in whole or in part on allegations which in substance charge a breach of Title IY rights. An analysis and understanding of the meaning of § 101" (a)(1) and of the charges of the complaint are therefore essential to a determination of this issue. Respondents charge that the bylaws and constitutional provisions referred to above infringed their right guaranteed by §101 (a)(1) to nominate candidates. The result of their allegations here, however, is an attempt to sweep into the ambit of their right to sue in federal court if they are denied an equal opportunity to nominate candidates under § 101 (a)(1), a right to sue if they are not allowed to nominate anyone they choose regardless of his eligibility and qualifications under union-restrictions. But Title IV, not Title I, sets standards for . eligibility and qualifications of candidates and officials and provides its own separate and .different administrative and judicial procedure for challenging those standards. And the equal-rights language of § 101 (a)(1) would have to be stretched far beyond its normal meaning to hold that it guarantees members not just a right to "nominate candidates," but a right to nominate anyone, without regard to valid union rules. All that §101 (a)(1) guarantees is that
"Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges . to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization . . . and to participate in the delibera tions and voting . . . subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws."
Plainly, this is no more than a command that members and classes of members shall not be discriminated against in their right to nominate and vote. And Congress carefully prescribed that even this right against discrimina.tion is "subject to reasonable rules and regulations" by the union. The complaining union members here have not been discriminated against in any way and have been denied no privilege or right to vote or nominate which the union has granted to others. They have indeed taken full advantage of the uniform rule limiting nominations by nominating themselves for office. It is true that they were denied their request to be candidates, but that denial was not a discrimination against their right to nominate, since the same qualifications were required equally of all members. Whether the eligibility requirements set by the union's constitution and bylaws were reasonable and valid is a question separate and distinct from whether the right to nominate on an equal basis given by § 101' (a) (1) was violated. The District Court therefore was without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested here unless, as the Court of Appeals held, the "combined effect of the eligibility requirements and the restriction to self-nomination" is to be considered in determining whether § 101 (a)(1) has been violated.
II.
We hold that possible violations of Title IV of the Act regarding eligibility are not relevant in determining whether or not a district court has jurisdiction under § 102 of Title I of the Act. Title IV sets up a statutory-scheme governing the election of union officers, fixing the terms during which they hold office, requiring that elections be by secret ballot, regulating the handling of campaign literature, requiring a reasonable opportunity for the nomination of candidates, authorizing unions to fix "reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed" for candidates, and attempting to guarantee fair union elections in which all the members are allowed to participate. Section 402 of Title IV, as has been pointed out, sets up an exclusive method for protecting Title IV rights, by permitting an individual member to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor challenging the validity of any election because of violations of Title TV. Upon complaint the Secretary investigates and if he finds probable cause to believe that Title IV has been violated, he may file suit in the appropriate district court. It is apparent that Congress decided to utilize the special knowledge and discretion of the Secretary of Labor in order best to serve the public interest. Cf. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 242. In so doing Congress, with one exception not here relevant, decided not to permit individuals to block or delay union elections by fifing' federal-court suits for violations of Title IV. Reliance on the discretion of the Secretary is in harmony with the general congressional policy to allow unions great latitude in resolving their own internal controversies, and, where that fails, to utilize the agencies of Government most familiar with union problems to aid in bringing about a settlement through discussion before resort to the courts. Without.setting out the lengthy legislative history which preceded the passage of this measure, it is sufficient to say that we are satisfied that the Act itself shows clearly by its structure and language that the disputes here, basically relating as they do to eligibility of candidates for office, fall squarely within Title IV of the Act and are to be resolved by the administrative and judicial procedures set out in that Title.
Accordingly, the jhdgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that óf the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the jhdgment of the .Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion as reported in 324 F. 2d 486.
73 Stat. 519, 29 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. (1958 ed., Supp. V).
"Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rulés.-and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws." 73 Stat. 522, 29 U. S. C. § 411 (a) (1) (1958 ed., Supp. V)-. '
73 Stat. 523, 29 U. S. C. § 412 (1958 ed., Supp. V).
The complaint also asked for damages.
221 F.Supp. 545, 550.
"In any election required by this section which is to be held by secret ballot a reasonable opportunity shall be given for thé nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to section 504 of this title and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed) and shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of his choice . . . 73 Stat. 533, 29 TJ. S. C. § 481 (e) (1958 ed., Supp. V).
73 Stat. 534, 29 Ü. S. C. § 482 (a) (1958 ed., Supp. V).
Section 403 provides also that "[e]xisting rights and remedies to enforce the constitution and bylaws of a labor organization with respect to elections prior to the conduct thereof shall not be affected . . . ." 73 Stat. 534, 29 U. S. C. § 483 (1958 ed., Supp. V).
While both courts below referred to the question before us as "jurisdictional,"'it is obvious that the courts differed as to whether the facts alleged in the complaint stated a "cause of action," thereby raising some of the same problems discussed in Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. That question need not concern us here, however.
See, e. g., Mamula v. United Steelworkers, 304 F. 2d 108 (C. A. 3d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U. S. 823; Beckman v. International Assn. of Bridge Workers, 314 F. 2d 848 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Robins v. Rarback, 325 F. 2d 929 (C. A. 2d. Cir.), petition for cert. pending, No. 11, Misc., 1964 Term; Johnson v. San Diego Waiters & Bartenders Union, 190 F. Supp. 444 (D. C. S. D. Cal.); Colpo v. Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers, 201 F. Supp. 307 (D. C. D. Del.) vacated as moot, 305 F. 2d 362 (C. A. 3d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U. S. 890; Jackson v. International Longshoremen's Assn., 212 F. Supp. 79 (D. C. E. D. La.).
It appears that the present union practice is to permit candidates to be nominated by other union members, but that change in procedure does not affect our decision.
324 F. 2d, at 489. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 401 (c) of the Act permits suits prior to election in the United States District Courts by any bona fide candidate for union office to enforce the rights, guaranteed by that section, to equal treatment in the distribution of campaign literature and access to membership lists. 73 Stat. 532, 29 U. S. C. §481 (c) (1958 ed., Supp. V).