Court Opinion

ID: 9424635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:12:11.723682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:51.526137
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice White,
dissenting.
If, as in this case, a new election is ordered because a candidate used union facilities when he should not have, the Act directs a new election “under supervision of the Secretary and, so far as lawful and practicable, in conformity with the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization.” 29 U. S. C. § 482 (c). I take it, then, that the Secretary is under no obligation, indeed forbidden, to follow a provision of the bylaws or constitution that is unlawful. If, in proceedings that order a new election, the Secretary discovers in the bylaws or constitution a provision regulating elections that he deéms unlawful — such as the meeting-attendance rule — but the únion insists, that it is entirely lawful, does the Secretary simply ignore the provision in holding the election, may he or the union secure a judicial ruling on it, or is court action foreclosed and the Secretary required to follow thé provision simply because a member in challenging *344the election failed to attack the meeting-attendance rule, probably because it did not affect him?
I agree that if Hantzis’ claim of. using union facilities had been rejected, a new election could not have been ordered even though the Secretary turned up the meeting-attendance rule in his investigation and discovered that the ballot boxes had also been stuffed. But if the Secretary finds ah invalid bylaw that purports to govern a new election that has been validly ordered on á claim that has . been exhausted, as in this case, the Secretary appears to have express grounds in the Act, independent of the .complaint-exhaustion requirements, to insist that the new election be conducted in accordance with the law and to insist that a court adjudicate .the matter if the union stands by its bylaw provision.