Opinion ID: 2999874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Present Investigation

Text: The impetus for the Secretary’s investigation and the issuance of the subpoena was a complaint filed by Richard Berg. The complaint purports to allege “violations of Title IV of the [LMRDA]” stemming from the October 16, 2004 election that was cancelled prior to completion and requests that the Secretary “investigate our complaint under Title IV. . . .” The complaint alleges that when Berg mailed campaign literature to the addresses on the Union’s mailing list, approximately 750 such mailings were returned by the postal service as undeliverable. Berg claimed that when ballots were mailed to the same addresses by the Union prior to the October election, 90 ballots sent to the previously undeliverable addresses were returned fully executed. These 90 ballots, and approximately 98 others, were set aside and challenged by the election officer, and were not included in the initial incomplete tally made on October 16, 2004, at which point Berg claims that he led the incumbent president by seven votes. The election officer proposed to rule on the challenged ballots and complete the vote count on October 19, 2004. At this point, Berg alleged, the incumbent officers realized for the first time that Berg 3 We again emphasize that the issue of whether the Secretary may bring a § 482 action under the present circumstances is not properly before us and we express no opinion on the matter. No. 05-2478 13 might actually win the election when the tally was completed.4 Berg believes that during the intervening two days the incumbent officers fired the election officer and voided the entire election, not because of any preelection complaint Berg may have filed, but because they feared the result of the election. He alleged that the officers’ purported reliance on his protest as a vehicle for voiding the October election was only a pretext for their true intention to stave off his inevitable victory. The subpoena duces tecum at issue here sought Union records relating to visits by a Union business agent to one of its worksites during the time preceding the October election, dues payment history information used to determine Union member eligibility to vote in the October election, and current contact information for 348 members of the Union. With respect to whether this subpoena is directed toward the investigation of a possible LMRDA violation lying wholly within the ambit of Title I, we first note that the rights enumerated in Titles I and IV of the LMRDA are not neatly compartmentalized into separate and distinct categories. Instead, it is well recognized that Title I and Title IV “protect many of the same rights” with respect to union elections. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 539 (1984); Local 57, 346 F.2d at 555. Thus, in the context of this case, the pertinent question is whether the conduct being investigated potentially implicates a Title IV violation (and therefore is within the Secretary’s grant of investigatory power), and not upon 4 It was Berg’s view that the election officer would likely have sustained the challenge to the 90 ballots received from suspicious addresses and denied the incumbent officers’ challenge to at least another 35 ballots that Berg is certain would have gone his way. 14 No. 05-2478 whether such conduct might also give rise to a Title I violation. This overlap between the rights protected by Titles I and IV and the Secretary’s power to investigate in cases potentially implicating both Titles was persuasively analyzed by the First Circuit in Local 57: Appellant’s second new argument is that, in view of the express exclusion of Title I violations from Section 601 [29 U.S.C. § 521], the Secretary’s power to investigate the election for Title IV violations was preempted by the fact that a suspended union member . . . apparently has commenced an action in the District Court based on an alleged violation of his rights under Title I of the Act. We must reject this argument also. It rests on the false premise that union misconduct which deprives an individual of rights guaranteed to union members by Title I may not also constitute a violation of duties imposed upon the union by Title IV. Local 57, 346 F.2d at 555 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). We have no difficulty concluding that the allegations of Berg’s complaint, and the Secretary’s subsequent investigation of the October election, fall within the permissible boundaries of the investigatory power conferred by § 521. The allegation that October ballots may have been marked and returned by individuals other than those to whom they were mailed clearly implicates Title IV’s requirements that “[e]ach [union] member in good standing shall be entitled to one vote,” 29 U.S.C. § 481(e), and that the union is required to institute “adequate safeguards to insure a fair election,” 29 U.S.C. § 481(c). The Secretary’s demand for member contact information and records concerning the manner in which the union determined voter eligibility is reasonably relevant to this aspect of the investigation. Title IV also generally prohibits the expenditure of union money to promote the candidacy of any person in an No. 05-2478 15 election subject to regulation under the LMRDA. 29 U.S.C. § 481(g). The Secretary’s subpoena, requesting records relating to a union employee’s visits to a worksite in the period immediately preceding the October election, is relevant to an inquiry into a possible violation of that section. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. A true Copy: Teste: ________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—10-31-06