Opinion ID: 439051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Union Members

Text: 62 We are presented with a series of challenges to the district court's determination that Baugh and DiGiulian breached their fiduciary duty to the members of Local 31 created by 29 U.S.C. Sec. 501, which provides in relevant part: The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. The defendants argue first, as they did in support of their motion to dismiss, that Quinn did not fulfill what they contend are two strict prerequisites to district court jurisdictions: 26 he did not make a formal demand on the union to bring suit on his behalf, and he did not obtain leave of the court, upon verified application and for good cause shown, to proceed with his action before bringing his complaint. The defendants contend further that even if the court had jurisdiction over Quinn's section 501 action, Quinn did not state a cause of action under that section because the fiduciary obligation it creates concerns officers' dealings with the funds or property of the union and does not extend to the protection of members' individual political rights. The district court held, however, that under the particular circumstances, (1) Quinn's failure to make a formal demand that the union sue on his behalf was excused, 27 and (2) Quinn's inclusion in his verified complaint of a request for leave to proceed satisfied the requirement of section 501. 28 The district court held finally that the fiduciary duty of section 501 extended to the protection of members' individual political rights, and that defendants had violated their duty. 29 63 Each of these challenges would place us in a thicket of conflicting judicial interpretations of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 501. We are particularly troubled by the district court's ruling on the scope of the fiduciary duty imposed by section 501. 30 However, we do not find it necessary to decide any of the questions presented. The single remedial order that the district court predicated on its finding of section 501 liability--the order that Baugh and DiGiulian refrain from violating or chilling the exercise of LMRDA rights of Local 31 members 31 --was a permissible form of relief against the same conduct found by the jury to violate section 102, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 412. We thus affirm this order without deciding whether the district court's interpretation of both the jurisdictional and the substantive provisions of section 501 is correct. 32 III. CONCLUSION 64 We affirm the judgment of the district court except insofar as it approved the award of punitive damages against Local 31 for its breach of the duty of fair representation. 65 So Ordered.