Court Opinion

ID: 9654077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:05:30.022489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:05.739009
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice.
I am unable to concur in the majority opinion. I am particularly concerned with; the implications of the statement that “the-courts should hesitate to upset a labor organization’s interpretation of its own Constitution and -by-laws.” I am not aware of any rule, based upon either precedent or-common justice, which requires the courts, to follow or to be particularly influenced;, by such an interpretation when the property rights of a member or members are-involved. As I view it, the remedies of' a member against a union which denies him some property right to which he is entitled are exactly the same as if he were entitled to the same right or property from a natural, person or private corporation which refused-to concede it.
*855The case of Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Harris, 260 Ky. 132, 84 S.W.2d 69, cited in the majority opinion, is not in point. That case merely reiterates the well-recognized principle that the courts will not construe the constitution or by-laws of an unincorporated association so long as the association’s interpretation does not trespass upon or destroy contractual or property rights of its members. By entertaining jurisdiction, the majority opinion impliedly recognizes that contractual or property rights are involved in this case. Otherwise we would be powerless to order appellant’s restoration to membership in any event.
It is apparent that property rights are involved here, since appellant’s loss of membership deprives him of salary and per diem as District Chairman of the System Board of Adjustment and delegate to the Grand Lodge Convention. The expulsion also destroys his rights in a death benefit certificate entitling his beneficiary to the payment of $300 upon his death. In addition to the property rights enumerated above, he had certain other benefits by virtue of Union membership, such as protection and aid in obtaining promotion or preferred jobs in the event vacancies occurred or new jobs were created.
The majority opinion necessarily concedes that an individual member of Congress is neither a “legislature” nor a “legislative committee,” and that technically an appearance before a member of Congress is not an appearance before any of the prohibited bodies mentioned in Section 9. However, in deference to the Union’s authorized agents, the opinion in effect reads into Section 9 a prohibition which it does not contain.
I do not share the view that there is any rule of deference which requires us to follow the Union’s administrative interpretation when such construction destroys property or contractual rights of a member. I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to say that Chief Justice SIMS joins in this dissent