Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-6633
August 9, 2002
OPINION
This case — The Executive Board of Local 234 v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO and Nellie (Jean) Alexander, Civ. No. 02-6633, filed on August 6, 2002 appears to have been assigned to me not through the process of random assignment but, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.1(b)(3), as a "related" case, counsel for plaintiffs having designated this case as "related" to a case on my docket, Steve Brookens v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Civ. No. 00-6087 ( Brookens).
Having examined the complaint and the appurtenant motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed in Executive Board of Local 234, I conclude that it is not "related" to Brookens — or indeed to Transport Workers Union of Philadelphia, Local 234 v. Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Civ. No. 00-4815 ( Local 234), or to Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr. v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Civ. No. 02-2725, ( Brooks) two cases on my docket consolidated with Brookens — within the meaning of Local Civil Rule 40.1(b)(3). The Rule states that "[c]ivil cases are deemed related when a case filed relates to property included in another suit, or involves the same issue of fact or grows out of the same transaction as another suit, or involves the validity or infringement of a patent involved in another suit." Executive Board the newly filed case — does not share with Brookens or Brooks or Local 234 any of the indicia of relatedness identified in the Rule.
Executive Board does, to be sure, have certain features in common with Brookens, Brooks, and Local 234. In each of the four cases the Transport Workers Union, an international union headquartered in New York, has been a named defendant (indeed, in Brookens, Brooks, and Local 234 the sole defendant). And all four cases deal with aspects of the relationship — for the last several years, a troubled one between the parent Transport Workers Union and its large Philadelphia affiliate, Local 234. Executive Board, is not, however, a controversy that is a companion of Brookens, Brooks, or Local 234. It is, rather, a controversy chronologically subsequent to those three cases.
The first case of the four was Transport Workers Union of Philadelphia, Local 234 v. Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Civ. No. 00-4815, filed in September, 2000. That case involved the effort of the Transport Workers Union to replace the elected officers of Local 234 — who were charged by the international union with various forms of maladministration with a trustee appointed by the international union. Local 234 resisted the proposed imposition of a trusteeship and brought its challenge to court. In addition, in December 2000, the Local 234 officers — Steve Brookens and Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr., among them whom the international union was seeking to unseat, filed an action on their own behalf against the international union. That action was entitled Steve Brookens v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, assigned the docket number Civ. No. 00-6087, and consolidated with Local 234.
After some preliminary proceedings before Judge Kaufman, these two cases were transferred to Judge Bechtle. Judge Bechtle sustained the action of the international union in removing the current officers of Local 234 and imposing a trusteeship. See Transport Workers Union of Philadelphia, Local 234 v. Transport Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 131 F. Supp.2d 659 (E.D. Pa. 2001). The trusteeship came into force early in 2001. The Brookens plaintiffs (that is, the ousted officers of Local 234) then amended their complaint to seek the dissolution of the trusteeship. After Judge Bechtle retired from the bench, the consolidated cases were reassigned to my docket. On March 8, 2002, the Brookens parties agreed, in a stipulation approved by me, that the Local 234 trusteeship would end on July 15, 2002, that elections for new officers of Local 234 would take place in conjunction with the termination of the trusteeship, and that on the termination of the trusteeship the Brookens complaint would be dismissed with prejudice.
In the spring of 2002 the Transport Workers Union announced its intention to conduct disciplinary proceedings, potentially leading to sanctions as severe as expulsion from union membership, against four members of Local 234, two of whom Steve Brookens and Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr. had announced their candidacies for the presidency of Local 234 at the election to be held prior to the July termination of the trusteeship. The Brookens plaintiffs — including Steve Brookens and Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr., and others — moved to enjoin the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, which were scheduled to be held in May of 2002, contending that holding the scheduled disciplinary proceedings would contravene the stipulation for termination of the trusteeship in July and the prior holding of elections. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr. v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Civ. No. 02-2725 — whose plaintiffs were Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr., and members of his election slate — was filed. Like the Brookens motion, the Brooks suit sought an order barring the international union from conducting disciplinary proceedings before the upcoming election for the officers of Local 234. By order of June 13, 2002, for reasons stated in a bench opinion of that date, the motions of the Brookens plaintiffs and of the Brooks plaintiffs were denied.
Thereafter, the international union shifted the date of the elections from June 28 to mid-July, with a corresponding delay of the trusteeship's termination. In a bench opinion of June 28, this court concluded that the March 8, 2002, Brookens stipulation precluded the international union's unilateral extension of the trusteeship. This court declined, however, to enjoin the postponement of the elections from June 28 to mid-July. By order entered on July 2, 2002, this court ordered that, after elections to be held on July 19, 2002, the trusteeship would end no later than July 22, 2002.
The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the imposition of sanctions on all four of the persons charged. Steve Brookens was suspended from union membership for three years and was rendered ineligible to hold union office during that period. Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr., was suspended from union membership for two years and rendered ineligible to hold union office during that period. Challenging the conduct and results of the disciplinary proceedings, the Brookens and Brooks plaintiffs sought a court order directing the international union not to remove the names of presidential candidates Steve Brookens and Jeffrey L. Brooks, Sr., from the ballot for the Local 234 elections scheduled for July 19, 2002. On July 17, 2002, for reasons presented from the bench, the motions were denied.
The new suit — Executive Board — was filed on August 6, 2002. According to the complaint, the Local 234 elections were held on July 19, 2002, and resulted in the election of a fourteen-member executive board, headed by the newly elected President of Local 234, Nellie (Jean) Alexander. (Papers filed in Brooks and Brookens have described Alexander as politically aligned with the leadership of the international union.) Aligned with Alexander on the new executive board are four other members of the Alexander Slate. The plaintiffs are nine members of the new executive board who won election as members of the Brooks Unity Team. The defendants are the Transport Workers Union of America and newly elected Local 234 President Alexander.
The complaint alleges that the fourteen newly elected members of Local 234's executive board were sworn in on July 22, 2002. At a meeting of the executive board held on July 25, three motions supported by the nine Brooks Unity Team executive board members, and opposed by President Alexander and the four executive board members aligned with her, were adopted by votes of nine to five. The motions called for (1) selecting a named accountant, (2) retaining a named law firm, and (3) hiring five named business agents, to replace the accountant, law firm, and business agents who had previously been carrying out these functions. On July 25, following the executive board meeting, President Alexander wrote to the head of the international union, Transport Workers Union President Sonny Hall. In her letter Alexander (1) narrated what had happened at the July 25 meeting, (2) stated her view that, under the constitution of the international union, "as President [of a local union], I have the power, to the exclusion of the Executive Board, to designate the Local's attorneys, accountants and appointed Business Agents," and (3) requested President Hall's "interpretation on these issues as requested above." On July 26, President Hall responded to Alexander's July 25 letter. Stating presidentially that his letter "constitutes my interpretation of the T.W.U. Constitution," Hall wrote that a local union president's constitutional responsibility for "`the proper conduct of the affairs of the Local Union'" is "inextricably bound up with the power to hire and fire staff professionals," and "[t]he Executive Board of the Local cannot usurp the power in question without invading a responsibility specifically assigned by the Constitution to the Local President."
The complaint filed by the nine plaintiff members of the Local 234 executive board invokes § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141, and Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq. The complaint is accompanied by a motion for declaratory and injunctive relief and a memorandum in support of the motion. The memorandum contends that Hall's interpretation of the constitution of the Transport Workers Union is "patently unreasonable." The plaintiffs seek a decree which, inter alia, would (1) require the defendants — the Transport Workers Union and Alexander — to "give full force and effect to the motions duly passed by the Local 234 Executive Board on July 25, 2002," (2) enjoin the defendants from "giving force and effect" to President Hall's July 26 interpretation of the international union's constitution, and (3) enjoin President Alexander "from filing disciplinary charges against Plaintiffs in violation of the LMRDA."
Executive Board does not present factual issues congruent with, or legal issues that impinge on, those put in focus in Brookens, Brooks, or Local 234. Those three consolidated cases have addressed overlapping aspects of the processes attendant on the termination of the Local 234 trusteeship and the conduct of the election of local officers who would assume responsibility for the management of Local 234's affairs after the trusteeship ended. The elections have now been held. The trusteeship is over. As the Executive Board complaint recites, the new executive board of Local 234 has been installed. The manner in which the members of the executive board carry out their newly assumed responsibilities presents new issues that do not depend for their resolution on the orders of this court in Brookens, Brooks, or Local 234. One would hope that the newly elected executive board members, together with the leadership of the international union, could work out their differences collaboratively as leaders responsive to their constituents, the union members, who are also their masters. But if, failing the challenge of political responsibility, the leaders of Local 234 and of the international union must resort to litigation, as framed by the complaint filed on August 6, they must conduct that litigation as a new event in the history of Local 234 and its parent, the Transport Workers Union of America. This new suit is not a case "related" to Brookens, Brooks, or Local 234. It is a new chapter in the travails of Local 234 and its parent.
Since Executive Board is not a "related" case, in an order accompanying this opinion I will "refer the case to the assignment clerk for reassignment by random selection in the same manner as if it were a newly filed case." Local Civil Rule 40.1(c)(1).
ORDER
August 9, 2002
For the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.1(c)(1), this case is referred to the assignment clerk for reassignment by random selection in the same manner as if it were a newly filed case.