Donovan v. Loc. 738, Intern. U. United Auto., Etc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Reich v. Local 890, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Afl-Cio

    930 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1996)   Cited 1 times

    Indeed, at least two district courts have accepted the argument that the exhaustion requirement may be excused when the protesting union member does not know and could not have known of the facts constituting the alleged violation. Donovan v. Blasters, Drillrunners Miners Union, Local 29, 521 F. Supp. 595, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Donovan v. Local 738, United Automobile, Aerospace And Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 575 F. Supp. 52, 54-55 (Md. 1983). However, these cases are distinguishable from the present case because they involved improper contributions by unknown employers, and therefore it was highly unlikely that the complainant would discover the alleged violations.

  2. Brock v. Intern. Union of Operating Engineers

    790 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times
    In Brock v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 790 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1986), we stated that the LMRDA, was intended to be applied realistically, but with due regard for a balance between the rights of industrial union members and the real need of elected union officials to carry out their duties without the "debilitative drag of tardily asserted challenges to their authority."

    In addition, at least two district courts have accepted the argument that the exhaustion requirement should be excused when complaining union members did not know and could not have known of the violation. Donovan v. Local 738, International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers, 575 F. Supp. 52 (D.Md. 1983); Donovan v. Blasters, Drillrunners and Miners Union, Local No. 29, 521 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). However, in neither of these cases did the court analyze or explain the rationale or policy behind the holding.

  3. Solis v. Local 9477

    CIVIL NO. JKB-09-3375 (D. Md. Jul. 22, 2011)

    See Shultz v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America, 426 F.2d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 1970) ("The legislative history of the Act does not indicate that Congress . . . meant to encourage troublesome factual disputes over how much (or little) money constitutes a `de minimis' amount; and the language of the provision itself is clear and unambiguous."). Thus, any use of employer resources to promote a candidate's campaign is prohibited. Donovan v. Local Union 70, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 661 F.2d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 1981) ("`Moneys,' as used within § 401(g), has been interpreted as anything of value, whether the expenditure be direct or indirect."); Donovan v. Local 738, Int'l Union United Auto., Aerospace, and Agric. Workers of America, 575 F. Supp. 52, 55 (D. Md. 1983) (use of employer's equipment to type and photocopy endorsement letter violated LMRDA). Local 9477 does not dispute that Sparrow Point's facsimile ("fax") machines, copiers, computers, and email system were utilized on behalf of candidates in the time leading up to the election.

  4. Solis v. Local 9477

    798 F. Supp. 2d 701 (D. Md. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    See Shultz v. Local Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America, 426 F.2d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 1970) ("The legislative history of the Act does not indicate that Congress . . . meant to encourage troublesome factual disputes over how much (or little) money constitutes a `de minimis' amount; and the language of the provision itself is clear and unambiguous."). Thus, any use of employer resources to promote a candidate's campaign is prohibited. Donovan v. Local Union 70, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 661 F.2d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 1981) ("`Moneys,' as used within § 401(g), has been interpreted as anything of value, whether the expenditure be direct or indirect."); Donovan v. Local 738, Int'l Union United Auto., Aerospace, and Agric. Workers of America, 575 F. Supp. 52, 55 (D. Md. 1983) (use of employer's equipment to type and photocopy endorsement letter violated LMRDA). Local 9477 does not dispute that Sparrow Point's facsimile ("fax") machines, copiers, computers, and email system were utilized on behalf of candidates in the time leading up to the election.

  5. Brock v. Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers

    703 F. Supp. 202 (D. Conn. 1988)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that "Defendant has provided no evidence which refutes either the violation or the inference that [violation] affected the outcome of the election" and ordering new election

    "In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Court must conclude that the outcome of the election may have been affected." Donovan v. Local 738, International Union United Automobile, Aerospace Agricultural Implement Workers, 575 F. Supp. 52, 55 (D.Md. 1983). Once the court finds a violation of section 401(g), it must order the Secretary to conduct a new election "so far as lawful and practicable, in conformity with the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization."