Court Opinion

ID: 9590122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:51:44.35367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:04.985206
License: Public Domain

Grady, C. J.
This action was brought by John Mahoney against Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, a voluntary association, to secure a judgment setting aside an order expelling him from the union, commanding his reinstatement, and awarding damages. The court granted the relief prayed for by Mahoney and awarded judgment in the sum of $3,533.63, and a further award of $453.90 per month, less earnings from October 30, 1951, until such time as the judgment would become final. And it provided that at such time the court would make a determination of the amount of additional judgment. Injunctive relief against expulsion was awarded. The union appealed.
Respondent was a member of appellant union and a sailor by occupation. It is in this manner that he earns a livelihood. When respondent became a member of the union, he took the following obligation:
“I pledge my honor as a man, that I will be faithful to *876this Union, and that I will work for its interest and will look upon every member as my brother; that I will not work for less than Union wages and that I will obey all orders of the Union. I promise that I will never reveal the proceedings of the Union to its injury or to persons not entitled to know it. And if I break this promise, I ask every member to treat me as unworthy of friendship and acquaintance. So Help Me God!”
The constitution of the union contained the following provisions:
“ ‘Article III. Membership. Section 4. . . . Any member who advocates and/or gives aid to the principles and policies of any hostile or dual organization, or gives aid or comfort to such, shall be denied further membership in this Union . . .
“ ‘Article V. Duties of Members. Section 1. It shall be the duty of each member to be true and loyal to the Union and the labor cause, and to endeavor to put into practice the principles laid down in the Preamble. Members shall treat the officers of the Union while discharging their duties with due respect and consideration, and yield strict obedience to such rules as the Union may see fit to adopt.’ ”
Article 19, section 1, of the constitution and by-laws of the union provides:
“ ‘Any charge of violating the laws and rules of the union made against any member must be submitted in writing to regular meeting. Thereupon a trial committee of five full members shall be elected to which said charges shall be referred without discussion. Such committee shall be elected Un a Port most convehient to both accused, and accuser, and witnesses.’ ”
On May 23 and June 6, 1949, respondent attended union meetings in Seattle at which he made remarks resulting in the following charges being preferred against him:
“ ‘We, the undersigned book members and officials of the Sailors Union of the Pacific, hereby prefer charges against John Mahoney, Book No. 4344, for the following reason:
“ ‘Mahoney’s scurrilous and defamatory remarks entered in the minutes of the Seattle meeting May 23, 1949 when John Mahoney “wanted to know who gave the pie-cards the authority to engage in strike breaking activities and how come the membership of the organization were not kept ad*877vised of this” and also because of his remarks entered in the minutes of the Seattle meeting June 6, 1949 when Ma-honey reiterated the same statement.
“ ‘The above are definite violations of the Constitution of the Sailors Union of the Pacific which are listed as follows:
“ T. Violation of the Obligation
“ ‘2. Violation of Article III, Section 4
“ ‘3. Violation of Article V, Section 1
“ ‘We hereby request that John Mahoney, Book No. 4344, appear before a trial committee at Headquarters in accordance with Article XIX, Section 1. . . . ’ ”
On July 12, 1949, a trial was conducted by the union in San Francisco. The respondent did not appear at the trial. An order was entered expelling respondent from the union.
The judgment of the court setting aside the order expelling respondent from the union must be affirmed for three reasons: (1) expulsion from the union deprived respondent of a property right without due process of law; (2) appellant violated the above-quoted provision of its constitution in conducting the trial at San Francisco instead of Seattle, the place where the alleged offense occurred, and also denied respondent procedural due process of law; and (3) the conduct of respondent was not a violation of the union constitution for which he can be expelled from the union.
Without membership in the appellant union, respondent would be unable to secure employment as a sailor upon any vessel leaving ports within its jurisdiction. The union issued shipping cards to its members. When a vessel owner desired sailors, he so advised the union, and the jobs were posted at its hiring hall. Members competed for a job by handing in their shipping cards, and the member whose card bore the oldest date was given the job. On August 4, 1949, respondent held the most eligible card for a job on the “S. S. Baranof”, but because of his expulsion he was refused the job.
The charges preferred against respondent and upon which he was tried were not sufficient from a legal standpoint to warrant expulsion from the union when the effect of such expulsion was to disable him from securing employment as a sailor. The following of a lawful vocation *878by which one may earn a livelihood is a property right of which one may not be deprived without due process of law. Jones v. Leslie, 61 Wash. 107, 112 Pac. 81; Washington Local Lodge, etc. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 33 Wn. (2d) 1, 203 P. (2d) 1019; Nissen v. International Brotherhood, etc., 229 Iowa 1028, 295 N. W. 858, 141 A. L. R. 598; Lo Bianco v. Cushing, 117 N. J. Eq. 593, 177 Atl. 102; DeMille v. American Federation of Radio Artists, 31 Cal. (2d) 139, 187 P. (2d) 769, 175 A. L. R. 382. These cases cite others which recognize and apply the same rules of law.
' The basic thought expressed by the courts is that if the union chooses to have the advantage of closed or union shop provisions in its contracts with employees, it must in turn preserve and protect membership in the union.
We do not wish to be understood as holding that a union may not reasonably discipline its members for infractions of its laws, rules, and regulations, but such discipline must not'be of such a character as to deprive a member of a property right. Nor do we exclude the idea that a situation may exist where expulsion would be lawful. Such a question must be met and determined if and when it arises.
 The procedural machinery for the trial of union members by one of its authorized tribunals must also meet the requirements of due process of law. The constitution and by-laws of the union provide that such trials shall be held at a port most convenient to accused, accuser, and witnésses, and generally this is the place where the alleged offense was committed. The record shows that the objectionable statements made by respondent were made at meetings of the union in Seattle, and necessarily what was said by him on those occasions would be heard only by the members present. One cannot escape the conclusion that the port of Seattle would have been most convenient to respondent, the union, and the members present at the meetings. The union’s constitutional provision follows the general rules of law on the subject of place of trial, and conducting the trial at San Francisco was not only contrary to the union’s constitution and by-laws but denied respondent procedural due process of law.
*879The subjects of membership in a union being a property-right and procedural requirements of trials before union tribunals, are discussed in 27 Wash. L. Rev. 211, and 4 Stanford L. Rev. 177. The article in the Stanford Law Review gives a history of and discusses the controversy between respondent and appellant. We invite those interested in the subject of property rights of workmen to read and consider what was said by Chief Justice Dunbar in the case of Jones v. Leslie, supra, and quoted on page 70 of 33 Wn. (2d).
The conduct of respondent, either as charged or proved, was not a violation of the union constitution for which he can be expelled from the union. Whether it be said that he asked a question or made a statement, he did so in the union meeting. He spoke there upon union policies, as a member of the union, to the other members present. This he should be able to do freely, without fear of expulsion. The union constitution does not provide to the contrary. The trial court was correct in holding, in effect, that speech per se is not rebellion. See 4 Stanford L. Rev. 177, p. 212. The charge being insufficient, the proceeding based upon it was a nullity and plaintiff’s expulsion was void. Leo v. Local Union No. 612 of International Union of Operating Engineers, 26 Wn. (2d) 498, 514, 517, 174 P. (2d) 523, 168 A. L. R. 1440 (1946), and case cited.
The court made findings of fact which are supported by the evidence and among them found that respondent, by reason of his expulsion from the union, had been unable to obtain employment as a sailor upon any of the vessels shipping from Pacific coast ports since April 17, 1950; that his average earnings during the past several years when employed as a sailor have been four hundred twenty-five dollars per month; that between April 17, 1950, and October 30, 1951 (the date of trial), he had suffered a loss of earnings in the sum of four hundred twenty-five dollars per month; and that this would continue until such time as he was reinstated in the union, given a shipping card, and permitted to again be employed on sailing vessels. The court ordered that upon the decree in the case becoming final, upon appeal or otherwise, a determination should then *880bé made as- to any additional damages since October 30, 1951, which respondent may suffer by reason of the expulsion.
The court adopted a correct method of arriving at the damages suffered by respondent up to the time of the trial and provided a proper method for determining subsequent damages until the judgment becomes final upon appeal to this court and respondent is reinstated in the union with all of his former rights and privileges.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mallery, Hill, Hamley, Donworth, Weaver, and Olson, JJ., concur.