Opinion ID: 198588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mailing Labels

Text: 27 The district court's award of attorney's fees on the Title IV claim cannot be sustained. As a legal matter, the district court was incorrect in stating that McCafferty had a clearly established right to have the union provide him with mailing labels containing the names and addresses of voting union members. Title IV of the LMRDA imposes on unions the statutory duty to distribute campaign literature to their membership in response to the reasonable request of any candidate for union office. Brown, 498 U.S. at 467 (construing 29 U.S.C. § 481(c)). Although the court cited language in the Brown opinion recounting the candidate's request that the Union provide him with mailing labels containing the names and addresses of voting Union members to be given to a mailing service so that he could arrange, at his own expense, for a timely mailing of campaign materials, id. at 469, the Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction that differed from the request of the plaintiff in Brown by directing the union to deliver the names and addresses of the Union members to a mailing service acceptable to the parties. Id. (emphasis added). 28 Moreover, the parties in Brown were concerned with the timing of campaign mailings and whether the union could postpone compliance with an otherwise reasonable mailing request merely because it conflicted with a union rule that authorized mailings only after nominations had been made. See id. at 468. In holding that the union's rule was inconsistent with the union's statutory obligation to comply with all reasonable requests for mailings, id. at 478, the Supreme Court focused on the timing of mailings of campaign literature rather than the party who would receive a member list as a prelude to a mailing. Thus, the Brown Court had no occasion to comment on the significant difference between the union member's initial request to have mailing labels provided to him personally (to turn over to a mailing service) and the district court's order that the union provide the mailing labels directly to a mailing service acceptable to the parties. The distinction is important because [t]he legislative history of the LMRDA demonstrates a congressional intent that the use of membership lists be severely limited and that such lists be kept out of the hands of partisans in union campaigns to avoid coercion of members. Marshall, 623 F.2d at 1326; see also Legislative History of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 at 1240 (1959 ed.) (Senator McClellan) (recognizing that there was apprehension that a person might become a candidate and then use the [membership] list for improper purposes and explaining that the LMRDA would simply permit [the candidate] to send his campaign material to the union and have the union mail it out). 29 Brown clearly does not stand for the proposition that candidates for union office are entitled to mailing lists. 6 Indeed, such a reading would render another part of § 481(c) superfluous. Section 481(c) gives each candidate for union office the right to inspect a membership list containing names and last known addresses of all members once within 30 days prior to an election. 29 U.S.C. § 481(c); see also 29 C.F.R. § 452.71 (The right of inspection does not include the right to copy the list but does include the right to compare it with a personal list of members.). There would be no reason to guarantee candidates access to the list once within 30 days prior to an election if candidates were entitled to the list as a matter of right. 30 Factually, the history of the mailing label claim is also markedly different from McCafferty's employer list claim. In his initial correspondence with the Local's recording secretary, McCafferty did not inquire about mailing labels and he did not request that the Local undertake a mailing on his behalf. Later, McCafferty requested that the Local provide him with a set of mailing labels of the Local membership to be turned over to a mailing service, and he continued to press this claim in his request for injunctive relief. In response, the Local at all times acknowledged an obligation to undertake a mailing of campaign literature on McCafferty's behalf (and at his expense), but it refused to turn over the mailing labels to McCafferty. In fact, even before McCafferty had requested mailing labels, in response to McCafferty's first letter, the Local had provided McCafferty with a copy of section 481(c) of the LMRDA which codifies the Local's obligation to undertake mailings at the candidate's expense. Later, both in its February 3 letter and in its motion to dismiss McCafferty's complaint, the Local acknowledged this statutory duty and consistently represented that it intended to comply with this obligation. With respect to McCafferty's Title IV claim, the lawsuit had no effect on the union's behavior or obligations. The court therefore erred in designating McCafferty as a prevailing party on this claim. 7 31 For these reasons we must vacate the court's award to McCafferty of attorney's fees which erroneously included fees for his Title IV claim.