Moore v. Local Union No. 483

6 Citing cases

  1. Papianni v. Intern. Ass'n of B., S.

    622 F. Supp. 1559 (D.N.J. 1985)   Cited 8 times

    Ignoring the court's February 14 ruling that the plaintiffs' "Bill of Rights" claims under the LMRDA were not barred by the applicable statute of limitations except in a footnote, Defendant's Brief at 25, defendant renews its argument that plaintiff's LMRDA claims are time-barred, as well as contending that their original contractual claims are time-barred. As to plaintiffs' first cause of action, the court finds that the defendant's waiting list procedure is an obvious subterfuge to avoid the effect of a 1975 New Jersey Supreme Court decision on the practice of New Jersey Ironworker locals to exclude transfers, Moore v. Local 483, 66 N.J. 527, 334 A.2d 1 (1975); that the defendant's reliance on the 1972 Consent Decree to justify the practice is not only misplaced, but greatly disturbing in light of a 1978 ruling by this court definitively rejecting defendant's interpretation of the Consent Decree; that the Local's other justification for exclusion of transfers based on the availability of work in the area is wholly improper and must be premised on a practice of discriminating against non-members in job referrals which constitutes a violation of the National Labor Relations Act; and therefore that the local's waiting list procedure is a patently unreasonable interpretation of the constitution. As to plaintiffs' second cause of action, the court finds that the approved transfer procedure has in effect created a sub-class of union members qualified for membership in the local in order to accomplish the goal of unreasonably depriving admittedly qualified applicants for membership of the rights guaranteed in Section 101; that plaintiffs' are in f

  2. Matrix Distribs. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Bds. of Pharm.

    34 F.4th 190 (3d Cir. 2022)   Cited 10 times

    So the Court needed to step in to limit the society's "unbridled" power to exclude a doctor from a profession based on arbitrary criteria. Id. ; see alsoMatthews v. Bay Head Improv. Ass'n , 95 N.J. 306, 471 A.2d 355, 366 (1984) ("The general rule is that courts will not compel admission to a voluntary association," but when "an organization is quasi-public, its power to exclude must be reasonably and lawfully exercised in furtherance of the public welfare related to its public characteristics."); Moore v. Loc. Union No. 483, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO , 66 N.J. 527, 334 A.2d 1, 5–6 (1975) (reviewing a union's "arbitrary" refusal to accept transferring members because union membership "affect[s] the economic welfare of the individual applicant" and the union has "public importance").

  3. Connell v. Trustees, Pension Fund, Ironworkers

    118 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 17 times
    Finding Plaintiffs had "actual knowledge of all of the material elements of the violation . . . including knowledge of the harmful consequences flowing from the cancellation of [pension] credits"

    According to the Fund's pension plan booklet, "`Covered Employment' consists of the jobs for which contributions are made to the pension fund [by the employer]." Connell and Nelson also claimed that the Union's discriminatory hiring practices, see Ironworkers, Local 373, 232 NLRB 504 (1977), enf'd sub nom., NLRB v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 373, 586 F.2d 835 (3d Cir. 1978); Moore v. Local 483, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Ironworkers, 66 N.J. 527 (1975), diminished their capacity to earn a decent living as ironworkers and that their breaks in service were therefore involuntary and subject to an equitable exception to the break-in-service rule. See, e.g., Knauss v. Gorman, 583 F.2d 82 (3d Cir. 1978) (holding that enforcement of a break-in-service clause was arbitrary and capricious where employment hiatus was caused by involuntary unemployment and inability to find covered work).

  4. Schulz v. U.S. Boxing Association

    105 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming order granting preliminary injunction and explaining that judicial intervention into the affairs of private organizations is appropriate if plaintiff has interest sufficient to warrant judicial action and that interest has been subjected to an unjustifiable interference by defendant

    The judicial interest in protecting those who may be detrimentally affected by an organization like the IBF is greater than the judicial interest in protecting members of purely social organizations. Indeed, New Jersey's courts have a long tradition of intervening to protect the rights of those affected by organizations which possess near-monopoly power or which strongly affect the public interest. See, e.g., Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 471 A.2d 355, 367-68 (N.J.) (holding that a beachfront association's limitation on membership to borough residents violates public policy), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 (1984); Moore v. Local Union No. 483, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 334 A.2d 1, 5-6 (N.J. 1975) (requiring a union to reconsider plaintiff's application for membership fairly and reasonably); Falcone, 170 A.2d at 799-800 (striking down a medical society's membership requirement of four years' attendance at an A.M.A. — approved medical college as violative of public policy). Cf. New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 650 A.2d 757, 768, 775-777 (N.J. 1994) (recognizing a state constitutional right to distribute political leaflets at a privately-owned regional shopping center, "the functional equivalent of yesterday's downtown business district"), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 62 (1995).

  5. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services

    204 N.J. 320 (N.J. 2010)   Cited 547 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NJLAD complaint must be filed within two years of the date on which the cause of action accrued

    Philipchuk v. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural Ornamental Iron Workers, 66 N.J. 539, 334 A.2d 7 (1975) (6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned). Moore v. Local Union No. m, 66 N.J. 527, 334 A.2d 1 (1975) (6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned). State v. Jones, 66 N.J. 524, 333 A.2d 529 (1975) (6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned).

  6. Philipchuk v. International Association, Afl-Cio

    334 A.2d 7 (N.J. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    In this case plaintiffs, members of the international labor union, appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their complaint wherein they sought a judgment compelling Local Union No. 483 to accept their applications for transfer of membership. The issues involved are the same as those raised in Moore etal. v. Local Union No. 483, International Association, etc., etal., 66 N.J. 527, decided by this Court today, in which we held that Local Union No. 483 abused its discretion in arbitrarily denying applications by members of the international union to transfer their membership to the local union. We directed the local union to reconsider the transfer applications and to exercise reasonable discretion in acting thereon as contemplated by the international constitution.