Court Opinion

ID: 9424731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:12:30.836074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:52.080230
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting in part.
I join the opinion of the Court to the extent that it holds that Title IV of the Landrum-Griffin Act does not bar intervention by union members, pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24 (a), in suits initiated by the Secretary of Labor challenging union elections. I differ from the majority, however, in that I would also permit the union members in this case to raise their additional *540grounds* for setting aside the disputed election. In my view, the limited intervention granted by the majority serves neither the purpose of the liberalizing 1966 amendments to Rule 24, nor the twin purposes of Title IV— to preserve unions from a multiplicity of frivolous election challenges, and also to centralize in a single proceeding such litigation as might be warranted with respect to a single election.
Here, the Secretary has served his screening function. He has decided that petitioner’s election challenge is meritorious. The Court concedes, moreover, that the burden on the union to defend against the additional claims would not be particularly burdensome, compared to the onus of an independent action. Ante, at 537. These claims relate squarely to the election whose legality the union must defend. I would permit them to be heard.

These claims both related to alleged manipulation of pensioners by the incumbents. One claim attacked so-called “bogus” locals, composed entirely of pensioners,, which were “run” by the incumbents. The second claim was that the union president attempted improperly to influence the pensioners’ vote by arranging for increased pension benefits just before the election.