Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WEIHRAUCH v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC. RADIO &

August 1, 1967

Milton Weihrauch, Individually and as President of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, District Number 3, AFL-CIO, and as Vice President of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, Plaintiff
v.
International Union Of Electrical, Radio And Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, Defendant


Coolahan, D.J.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: COOLAHAN

Plaintiff Milton Weihrauch seeks a preliminary injunction, pending the outcome of this suit to enjoin further action of administrator trustees appointed by the defendant, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (hereafter "the IUE" or "the International") over one of its subordinate bodies. In addition to opposing preliminary relief, the IUE moves to dismiss the Complaint on several grounds. For the reasons discussed below both the request for a preliminary injunction and the motion to dismiss the Complaint are denied.

 Even more than usual, understanding the issues presented requires at least a brief summary of the conflict's genesis in a series of extraordinary events, alleged by defendant and which are unrefuted by affidavit or testimony at this time.

 The appointment was allegedly made in response to a request from the District Council, which arose from serious charges of union fund mismanagement and embezzlement against plaintiff and the District Treasurer. These charges in turn stemmed from inquiries by the Chairman of the District Trustees and by the International after Labor Department investigations of the District indicated some unusual occurrences. *fn3"

 Plaintiff concedes the International constitution provides for such appointment of administrators over a local in appropriate circumstances, but he denies any parallel power of the Board, express or implied, to appoint administrators for a District. Hence, he contends the present trusteeship violates Section 462, supra, since it is neither authorized by nor made pursuant to procedures of the IUE constitution.

 Moreover, he claims the appointment is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent provisions in that constitution which limit the method of removing District officers to recall. This is deemed a breach of the IUE's contractual obligation under the constitution to the District, the locals, and the plaintiff himself. *fn4" See note 2, supra. Similarly, plaintiff challenges the concomitant institution of charges against the District itself, rather than an individual, as an unauthorized ad hoc attempt to bring charges indirectly against the conduct of District officers - again in violation of the constitution.

 This Court's jurisdiction to issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief is based on Section 185, supra for the contractual claim, and on 29 U.S.C. § 464, *fn5" for the claim under Section 462.

 The IUE opposes temporary relief on the ground plaintiff has shown neither irreparable injury nor likelihood of success at trial. Its motion to dismiss is based on failure to join indispensable parties; failure to exhaust administrative remedies; unclean hands precluding equitable relief; lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; and existence of adequate legal remedies if a cause of action lies.

 All these defenses must be weighed in the context of the two opposed characterizations of the appointment. Defendant claims it was within the Executive Board's constitutional powers and did not violate the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 462, because it was in response to an urgent justified request of the District Council, rather than being imposed from above by the IUE. *fn6" Plaintiff replies that regardless of who suggested or requested the trusteeship, it was the Board of the IUE, not the District, which appointed the administrators, and that such unconstitutional action cannot be authorized by the Council.

 In addition, plaintiff now defends his failure to answer the charges made by the special committee's report on the ground that the Executive Board's demand for response to such charges violated the aforementioned Article 24 of the IUE constitution. This is pertinent to several of the defenses.

 Nonjoinder of Parties

 Plaintiff's failure to join "indispensable parties", to wit, the two administrators, is urged as fatal to the complaint. I disagree. To be sure, plaintiff seeks prevention of certain activity by the administrators, but the primary relief sought would direct the defendant International to discontinue the trusteeship, now existing under its appointment. I see no reason why relief would be ineffective merely because the administrators are not joined, since further action by them would be void once the source of their authority, namely their designation by the IUE, is terminated. Additionally, as agents of the International, who I trust will receive notice of any decree, they will be bound not to interfere with that termination under long established principles of the breach of equity. Citation of cases by the IUE on this point are inapposite and misleading. *fn7" The Advisory Committee's Note to 1966 Amendment of Rule 19, F.R.C.P. makes clear the intent to emphasize pragmatic analysis of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.