Opinion ID: 309634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expulsion of Members

Text: 8 The International first claims that the notice to fifty-eight supervisory employees stating that the Local had been informed of their ineligibility for membership was an illegal expulsion. 8 The letter's language and the surrounding circumstances, however, suggest that no members were expelled by this or any other act of the Local prior to imposition of the trusteeship. There is evidence that the supervisory employees were not in fact taken off the membership rolls of the Local. 9 In addition, they were given an opportunity to appeal their classification; this suggested that no final action had been taken. 10 9 The International protests that requirements under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 411(a)(5) of specific charges, time to prepare a defense, and full and fair hearing were not met. The section relied upon, however, is entitled Safeguards against improper disciplinary action and provides that no member . . . may be . . . expelled, or otherwise disciplined 11 without the enumerated safeguards. Even assuming the Local had taken final action to expel the supervisors, that action was not disciplinary in nature. The supervisory personnel were not being removed in order to punish them but rather to comply with a decision of the NLRB Examiner. The Local was not obligated to conform to the specific provisions of Sec. 411(a)(5). 10 Strictly speaking, the Local may not have been obligated to expel the supervisors since such individuals may be non-voting members of unions. 12 The Local could have simply amended its bylaws to provide for this special non-voting status. As noted, however, the supervisors were not actually expelled by the letter. Indeed, they were specifically invited to show why they ought not to be expelled. 13 The supervisors could have raised the possibility of a non-voting membership at that time. The Local's notice, therefore, met the minimum standards required by due process under the circumstances.