Driscoll v. Int'l U. of Op. Eng., Local

41 Citing cases

  1. Hunter v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union

    No. 18 C 986 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2019)

    " 29 U.S.C. ยง 483 (emphasis added); see Crowley, 467 U.S. at 541 ("[T]he exclusivity provision included in [29 U.S.C. ยง 483] of Title IV plainly bars Title I relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed."); Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 531 (1972) (29 U.S.C. ยง 483 "prohibits union members from initiating a private suit to set aside an election"); Chao, 467 F.3d at 1017 ("[T]he remedy provided by this subchapter for challenging an election already conducted shall be exclusive." (quoting 29 U.S.C. ยง 483)); Driscoll v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 686 (7th Cir. 1973) (A "complaint to and an action brought by the Secretary of Labor . . . is the exclusive means of challenging an election already conducted"); Corner v. Englehart, No. 11 C 5183, 2011 WL 4688723, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2011) (same); Tenuto v. Clair, No. 08 cv 1617, 2008 WL 4594514, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2008) (same). Plaintiffs try to escape Title IV's exclusivity provision in several ways. First, they argue that the purpose of the exclusivity provision is to "preclude any private action by disappointed office seekers to contest the results of the election."

  2. Corner v. Engelhart

    11 C 5183 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    " 29 U.S.C. ยง 483; see Local No. 82, Furniture Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 544 (1984) ("Congress clearly intended to lodge exclusive responsibility for post-election suits challenging the validity of a union election with the Secretary of Labor."); Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 531 (1972) ("[Section 483] prevents union members from initiating a private suit to set aside an election."); Driscoll v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 686 (7th Cir. 1973) ("complaint to and an action brought by the Secretary of Labor . . . is the exclusive means of challenging an election already conducted"). This means that courts do not have jurisdiction over private lawsuits raising challenges within the scope of Title IV. See Driscoll, 484 F.2d at 686 n. 9. "Congress made suit by the Secretary the exclusive post-election remedy for two principal reasons: (1) to protect unions from frivolous litigation and unnecessary judicial interference with their elections, and (2) to centralize in a single proceeding such litigation as might be warranted with respect to a single election."

  3. Hallinan v. Frat. Order of Police of Chicago

    570 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,287 times
    Holding that even where state employer forces government employees to associate with a union โ€œdoes not consequently make every union activity so imbued with governmental action that it can be subjected to constitutional restraintsโ€

    Hallinan and Harej appear to argue that because state action is present when a state employer forces employees to associate with a union, every action the union takes becomes action taken under color of law. "[G]overnmental regulation or participation in some of the affairs of unions," however, "does not consequently make every union activity so imbued with governmental action that it can be subjected to constitutional restraints." Driscoll v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 690 (7th Cir. 1973). If it did, state action could be assumed in every case involving a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a public entity, but our court and others have found otherwise.

  4. Howe v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

    379 F. Supp. 667 (S.D. Iowa 1974)   Cited 4 times

    " Powe v. Miles (2nd Cir., 1968), 407 F.2d 73, 81. See also, Marker v. Shultz (1973), 158 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 485 F.2d 1003, 1007; Driscoll v. Int'l Union of Op. Eng. Local 139 (7th Cir., 1973), 484 F.2d 682, 690; Jackson, supra 483 F.2d at 756 (speaking of the Supreme Court's holding in Moose Lodge, the Third Circuit in Jackson said "The Court thus recognizes the importance of a connection between the state regulation and the proscribed conduct."); Martin v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. (9th Cir., 1971), 441 F.2d 1116, 1118; Barrett v. United Hospital (S.D.N.Y., 1974), 376 F. Supp. 791; Stern v. Mass. Indemnity and Life Insurance Co. (E.D.Pa., 1973), 365 F. Supp. 433, 438; Salisbury v. Southern New England Telephone Co. (D.Conn., 1973), 365 F. Supp. 1023, 1024. Plaintiffs in the case at bar contend that Ihrke is controlling and that UPS involvement with the State of Iowa meets the guidelines found in Ihrke.

  5. Furniture Moving Drivers v. Crowley

    467 U.S. 526 (1984)   Cited 213 times
    Holding that "the exclusivity provision included in ยง 403 of Title IV plainly bars Title I relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed"

    We now reverse.See, e.g., Kupau v. Yamamoto, 622 F.2d 449 (CA9 1980); Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 484 F.2d 682 (CA7 1973); Schonfeld v. Penza, 477 F.2d 899 (CA2 1973); McDonough v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, 470 F.2d 261 (CA3 1972). See also, e.g., James, Union Democracy and the LMRDA: Autocracy and Insurgency in National Union Elections, 13 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 247 (1978); Comment, Titles I and IV of the LMRDA: A Resolution of the Conflict of Remedies, 42 U. Chi. L. Rev. 166 (1974); Note, Pre-election Remedies Under the Landrum-Griffin Act: The "Twilight Zone" Between Election Rights Under Title IV and the Guarantees of Titles I and V, 74 Colum. L. Rev. 1105 (1974).

  6. Tom Beu Xiong v. Fischer

    787 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2015)   Cited 63 times
    Holding union's actions pursuant to a grievance procedure negotiated by both union and the State insufficient to constitute "joint action"

    Furthermore, although the CBA creates a grievance mechanism in which the County and the Union agree to participate, this jointly negotiated procedure is not sufficient on its own to show a close nexus between the Union and the state. See Driscoll v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 690 (7th Cir.1973) ( โ€œ[G]overnmental regulation or participation in some of the affairs of unions does not consequently make every union activity so imbued with governmental action that it can be subjected to constitutional restraints.โ€); Hallinan, 570 F.3d at 818.

  7. English v. Cowell

    969 F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 34 times

    This is not a case where, as a practical matter, there is no reason to hold a hearing because the fact that would have to be proven is admitted and the disposition is foreordained. See, e.g., Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Eng'r, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 689 (7th Cir. 1973) (union member who was disqualified from running for union office because of his refusal to sign an affidavit which was a prerequisite for candidacy was not entitled to a hearing "since, as a practical matter, no hearing was needed to determine that he did not sign the affidavit"), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974); Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of America, Inc., 364 F.2d 67, 73 n. 8 (2d Cir.) (members expelled from union for failure to sign a mandatory oath were not entitled to a hearing because "no hearing is necessary to determine that plaintiffs did not sign the oath"), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 971, 87 S.Ct. 508, 17 L.Ed.2d 435 (1966). B. The Sanctions Issue

  8. Bradley v. Am. Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio

    962 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 61 times

    If a lawsuit alleges Title I violations, but is, in effect, a Title IV suit, the suit has been improperly brought, and the court has no jurisdiction over the action.See Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964); O'Doherty v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline S.S. Clerks, 618 F.2d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1980) (no claim for relief under Title I if complaint raises an issue governed "predominantly" by Title IV); McNail v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 549 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1977) (no jurisdiction under Title I by the mere assertion of such rights if Title IV rights are "essentially" involved); Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 1973) (existence of jurisdiction depends on a close analysis of the basic thrust of the complaint, not merely acceptance of allegations of Title I violations), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the "threshold requirement in every federal case is jurisdiction."

  9. Holmes v. Donovan

    796 F.2d 173 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that a consent agreement for a voluntary runoff election was a reasonable exercise of the Secretary's authority under the LMRDA

    In Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964), the first Supreme Court decision to address interpretation of LMRDA, the Court observed the Act's intent that the Secretary serve as the "clearing house" for union members' complaints. Id. at 140, 85 S.Ct. at 296; see also Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682, 688-89 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974). Based upon the Secretary's "special knowledge," it was left to the Secretary's discretion to determine what course to follow "to serve [best] the public interest."

  10. Donovan v. Nat. Transient Div., Int. Broth

    736 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1984)   Cited 6 times
    In Donovan v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 736 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1984), the labor body at issue occupied the bottom level of the union's organizational structure.Id. at 623.

    Defendants also rely on a number of cases in contending that the Secretary may not proceed under ยง 482 unless the labor organization has conducted an election. Driscoll v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139, 484 F.2d 682 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974), is illustrative. In Driscoll, a union member brought suit before an election challenging the union's practice of requiring every candidate for union office to execute an affidavit stating that he was not a Communist.