Federal labor law generally allows a union and its members to decide for themselves how the union will be operated and what internal rules and procedures the union will have. These are "internal union matters" with which a court will normally not interfere. A union's control over its own internal matters and its members is not unlimited, however. Federal labor law provides a "Bill of Rights" to union members, and because a union is a voluntary association created under state law, general principles of state law apply to the union's operations. In particular, a union's relationship with a union member is governed by the union's constitution and by-laws as interpreted under state contract law principles.

     In IBEW, Local 567 v. Harry Milton, Cumberland County Superior Court, Docket No. CV-95-780 (December 19, 1996), Lawrence C. Winger, Esq. successfully represented a former union member (an electrician) who was sued by his former union for $8,000.00 in fines assessed by the union. The union had assessed the fines against the electrician allegedly because he had worked for a non-signatory electrical contractor without the union's permission. The electrician had refused to participate in the union's internal disciplinary proceedings and was found guilty by the union of violating its rules. The electrician defended the lawsuit on the grounds that he had effectively quit the union before working for the contractor, and that the fines were not properly and legally assessed against him.

     The electrician moved for summary judgment against the union's claims. The electrician argued that the union's notice of the charges against him was inadequate under the union's own bylaws and under federal labor law. The union's constitution and bylaws required that the charges against a member contain "a brief factual written statement of the act(s) considered to be in violation, including relevant dates, places, and names." Federal labor law, in the form of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. §411(5)(a), provides that "no member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined . . . unless such member has been . . . served with written specific charges . . . ."

     The union had given the electrician a general notice of the charges against him which did not mention specific dates or locations. The union argued that a specific notice of charges was not necessary because the specifics of the charges "were well-known" to the electrician. The Court ruled that the union's notice of charges was inadequate under both the union's constitution and bylaws. The Court said: "By failing to conform with the requirements of its own procedures, the Union failed to abide by the terms of its agreement with the electrician." The Court also found that the union's non-specific notice of charges failed to comply with the notice requirements of the LMRDA's Bill of Rights. The Court rejected the union's argument that the inadequacy of the notice was inconsequential because the details of the alleged violations were known to the electrician.

     COMMENT: The union's real target in this matter was the non-signatory employer, but when the employee quit the union and went to work for that employer, the union decided to go after its former member (the employee), and it did so in a very harsh way: by assessing $8000 in fines and then suing the employee to collect the money. Fortunately for the employee, the union's haste and vindictiveness caused it to proceed improperly and violate the employee's procedural rights, which lead to the employee's victory in court.

DISCLAIMER: All information is provided for educational or promotional purposes only and not as legal advice on a particular matter. The information is provided AS IS with no warranties of accuracy, completeness, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Providing this information DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship between Lawrence C. Winger, Esq. and the reader. All information is Copyright (c) Lawrence C. Winger, Esq. 2000 All Rights Reserved.

Dated: February, 2000