Opinion ID: 543670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the local union vote in favor of Option A

Text: 16 The UBC first contends that the Colorado union members approved the contested dues increase as required by LMRDA Sec. 101(a)(3)(B)(ii) because the vote in which they chose Option A as their revenue option provided them with the opportunity to reject the dues increase included in Option A in favor of the per capita tax increase proposed in Option B. An increase in the per capita tax paid by a local union is not, they argue, an increase in the rates of dues ... payable by union members and hence is not subject to the voting requirements of LMRDA Sec. 101(a)(3)(B)(ii). See Seybert v. Lowen, 623 F.2d 780, 784 & n. 8 (2d Cir.1980); Ranes v. Office Employees Int'l Union, Local No. 28, 317 F.2d 915, 918 (7th Cir.1963). Accordingly, the UBC asserts, the September 1988 vote did present union members with a choice between a dues increase and no dues increase and their vote in favor of Option A was therefore sufficient under the statute. 17 The district court rejected this argument on the ground that Option B's proposed increase in the local union per capita taxes was, in fact, a dues increase subject to section 101(a)(3)(B)'s democratic requirements because it would have imposed additional financial burdens on individual union members. Memorandum and Order at 2. We agree. Under the financial burden test first enunciated in King v. Randazzo, 234 F.Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd, 346 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1965), and approved by every court that has since considered the issue, [w]hether there has been an increase in dues must be determined not by who imposed the exaction but by the nature of the imposition and its direct effect upon the financial burden of the individual members. Id. at 394; see Seybert, 623 F.2d at 784; Local No. 2, Int'l Bhd. of Tel. Workers v. Int'l Bhd. of Tel. Workers, 362 F.2d 891, 894-95 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 321, 17 L.Ed.2d 226 (1966). In this case, plaintiffs presented undisputed evidence that the up to sixfold per capita tax increase proposed in Option B would require the local unions to increase their dues in order to remain solvent, thus imposing a direct financial burden on individual union members. Under these circumstances, Option B proposed a thinly disguised dues increase rather than a true per capita tax and was not an alternative to the dues increase proposed in Option A. See Seybert, 623 F.2d at 785 n. 11 (recognizing that a per capita tax increase could be deemed an increase in the rate of dues under LMRDA Sec. 101(a)(3) when an international union seeks to impose such an onerous per capita tax increase that the members of its subordinate locals would be coerced into increasing their own local membership dues so as to preserve the financial integrity of their locals). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's holding that the September 1988 union member vote in favor of Option A did not satisfy the requirements of LMRDA Sec. 101(a)(3).