Morris v. Hoffa , 361 F.3d 177 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-16-2004
Morris v. Hoffa
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 02-1401
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Morris v. Hoffa" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 889.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/889
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF JEAN MORRIS, PERSONAL
APPEALS REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT OF THE ESTATE OF
JOHN MORRIS, DECEASED;2
KENNETH J. WOODRING;
ELMORE MACK; HAROLD FISCHER
Nos: 02-1401/2214
v.
JAMES P. HOFFA, GENERAL
JEAN MORRIS, PERSONAL PRESIDENT,
REPRESENTATIVE (individually and in his official
OF THE ESTATE OF capacity);
JOHN MORRIS, DECEASED;1 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
KENNETH J. WOODRING; OF TEAMSTERS
ELMORE MACK; HAROLD FISCHER
James P. Hoffa and International
v. Brotherhood of Teamsters,
JAMES P. HOFFA, GENERAL Appellants
PRESIDENT, (individually and his No. 02-2214
official capacity);
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS On Appeal for the United States District
Court
James P. Morris, Harold Fischer and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Elmore Mack (Civ. Action No. 99-5749)
Appellants No. 02-1401 District Court: Hon. John R. Padova
1
John P. Morris died on March 28, Argued: December 19, 2002
2002, after the district court proceedings
but prior to argument on appeal. By Order Before: SLOVITER and McKEE,
dated August 28, 2003, we granted Jean Circuit Judges,
Morris’s motion for substitution pursuant
to F.R.A.P. 43(a), for her late husband,
2
appellant John Morris. See n.1, supra.
1
and ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge trusteeship over Local 115 of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(Opinion filed: March 16, 2004 ) (“IBT”) by James P. Hoffa, General
President of the IBT. The trusteeship was
imposed pursuant to Title III of the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure
JOHN F. INNELLI, ESQ. (Argued) Act (“LMRDA”), and it resulted in the
Innelli and Molder subsequent removal of John P. Morris,
325 Chestnut Street Elmore Mack and Harold Fischer as
Suite 903 elected officers of Local 115. Hoffa
Philadelphia, PA 19106 imposed the emergency trusteeship on
Attorneys for John P. Morris, November 15, 1999.
Elmore Mack and Harold Fisher
Morris, Mack and Fischer
(collectively referred to as the “Morris
THOMAS H. KOHN, ESQ.
Plaintiffs”) filed suit three days after the
Markowitz & Richman
trusteeship was imposed alleging that it
121 South Broad Street
violated various provisions of the
Philadelphia, PA 19107
LMRDA. The essence of their complaint
was that Hoffa imposed the emergency
ROBERT M. BAPTISTE, ESQ. (Argued)
trusteeship in retaliation for their
JAMES F. WALLINGTON, ESQ.
opposition to Hoffa’s bid for the
SUSAN BOYLE, ESQ.
presidency of the IBT in the 1996 and
Baptiste & Wilder, P.C.
1998 elections. Count One alleged that
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Hoffa imposed the emergency trusteeship
Suite 500
for an invalid purpose in violation of Title
Washington, D.C. 20036
III of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 462, 464,
Attorneys for James P. Hoffa and
and the IBT’s Constitution. Count Two
The International Brotherhood of
alleged that Hoffa violated their rights to
Teamsters
free speech guaranteed by Title I of the
LMRDA, specifically 29 U.S.C. §
411(a)(2), and disciplined them for the
exercise of their free speech rights in
OPINION
violation of 29 U.S.C. § 529. Count Three
alleged that Hoffa breached the IBT’s
Constitution by imposing the emergency
trusteeship over Local 115 in the absence
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
of any colorable emergency, in violation
These consolidated appeals arise of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
from the imposition of an emergency
A few days after the complaint was
2
filed, the temporary trustee appointed by interlocutory appeal pursuant to §
Hoffa scheduled hearings as required by 1292(b): “Whether Plaintiffs have
the IBT’s Constitution. At the conclusion standing to recover for any damages on
of the hearings, an internal union hearing behalf of the Local Union 115 for the time
panel i s s u ed a Report and period between the November 15, 1999
Recommendation finding that there was emergency imposition and the General
sufficient reason for the imposition and President’s May 31, 2001 decision issued
continuation of the trusteeship. Hoffa after the hearing.”
adopted the panel’s Report and
For the reasons that follow, we will
Recommendation and continued the
affirm the district court’s grant of
trusteeship on May 31, 2000. On June 13,
summary judgment on Count Two in favor
2001, Hoffa dissolved the trusteeship
of Hoffa and against the Morris Plaintiffs.
when newly-elected officers of the Local
However, we will vacate the district
were installed.
court’s entry of judgment under Rule
In the meantime, Hoffa filed a 54(b) on Count One and direct the district
motion for summary judgment, which the court to enter summary judgment in favor
district court granted in substantial part. of Hoffa and against the Morris Plaintiffs
In its summary judgment opinion, the on their challenge to the prehearing
district court indicated that its disposition emergency trusteeship. As we will
of Hoffa’s summary judgment motion explain, based upon this holding, we need
might warrant the entry of final judgment not reach the issue of standing that the
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Accordingly, district court certified for interlocutory
both sides filed Rule 54(b) motions. appeal.
Hoffa also filed a motion for interlocutory
I. BACKGROUND
appeal of a number of issues under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b). Thereafter, the district The IBT is an unincorporated
court entered Rule 54(b) final judgment association that is a labor organization
on Count Two (the free speech claim) in within the meaning of § 2(5) of the
favor of Hoffa and against the Morris National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”),
plaintiffs; entered Rule 54(b) final 29 U.S.C. § 152(b). Local 115 is a
judgment on Count One with respect to Pennsylvania unincorporated association
the maintenance of the post-hearing and a labor organization under the NLRA.
trusteeship in favor of Hoffa and against It is also a subordinate body of the IBT
the Morris plaintiffs, and entered Rule within the meaning of § 304 of the
54(b) final judgment on Count One with LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 464.
respect to the pre-hearing emergency
John P. Morris was the elected
trusteeship in favor of Hoffa but against
Secretary-Treasurer and principal officer
Morris only. The district court also
of Local 115. Elmore Mack and Harold
certified the following question of law for
Fisher were elected trustees of the local.
3
All three were members of the Executive Over the ensuing months, Smith and
Board of Local 115 and constituted the McNamara allegedly met with IBT
majority of that Board under the representatives and agitated for a
trusteeship, with Smith complaining to
Local’s bylaws.
McNamara that the IBT was not moving
The IBT Constitution governs the fast enough. Morris claimed that Smith
relationship between the IBT and had been given target dates of April 1999
subordinate Local unions such as Local and then July 1999, for creating a
115. James P. Hoffa was installed as trusteeship.
General President of the IBT in mid-
Hoffa and the IBT had received
March, 1999, following a history of
numerous complaints about the abuses that
turmoil that culminated in a contentious
apparently characterized Local 115's
1998 election that was conducted under
leadership, and these allegations prompted
government supervision. Morris alleges
an investigation of the local. According to
that Hoffa initiated a campaign to oust
Hoffa, information developed during that
Morris, as well as those in Local 115 who
investigation revealed a “pretty
had been loyal to Morris, as soon as Hoffa
frightening portrayal” of Local 115:
took over.
We had these stories about
On February 28, 1999, Brian Kada,
beatings. Smith said he was
a member of Local 115, had a
beaten up in a stairwell, that
conversation with Michael T. Breslin,
Johnny Morris carries a gun,
Frank McGuire and Billy Anderson during
the local was buying guns.
which Kada told them that Hoffa had
They had stun guns, they
informed James E. Smith, Jr., a Morris
had pepper spray, unusual
foe, that Local 115 would be put under
purchases for a local union,
trusteeship. It is alleged that Kada also
and things that are improper
said that Morris would be out of office
as far as I know, as far as I
and that Hoffa wanted Morris’s seats on
believe and we got that
the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority,
information and we acted on
the Joint Council 53 and the Pennsylvania
it.
Conference of Teamsters. Morris claimed
that Smith would run Local 115 in return
for Smith’s assistance in ousting Morris.
App. at 53.
According to Morris, Gerald
The investigation lead Hoffa to the
McNamara had been communicating with
conclusion that it was necessary to impose
Hoffa as early as March 15, 1999.
an emergency trusteeship over Local 115.
McNamara was dissatisfied with Morris
Accordingly, on November 14, 1999,
and was waiting to hear if Hoffa was
Hoffa appointed Edward F. Keyser, Jr.,
going to place Local 115 in trusteeship.
4
Temporary Trustee over the affairs of the local. On November 22, 1999, Trustee
Local 115, effective November 15, 1999. Keyser issued a Notice of Trusteeship
That same day (November 14), Hoffa Hearing pursuant to the IBT Constitution,
issued a Notice to the Officers and scheduling formal hearings on the need for
Members of Local 115, informing them of a trusteeship for Thursday, December 9,
the reasons for the trusteeship. 1999, and Saturday, December 11, 1999.3
The Notice specified sixteen
reasons that included both general and A. The Trusteeship Hearing.
specific instances of violence and
According to Hoffa, a large
intimidation under Morris’s leadership
conference room and a smaller office were
dating back to 1955 and increasing in
made available to Morris’s counsel and
recent years. The intimidation included
witnesses throughout the course of the
charges that Morris and his business
ensuing hearings. Both rooms were
agents threatened and assaulted disloyal
adjacent to the membership hearing room,
members of Local 115, and that Morris
and they allowed Morris an opportunity
had purchased materials such as stun guns
for consultation and preparation. Hoffa
to wage war against disloyal union
claimed that the hearing panel kept the
members. Financial abuses were also
record open after the close of testimony so
noted, including a charge that Morris
that the parties or any member could
directed union members to perform
submit additional written testimony.
"extensive renovations and repairs on [his]
house" while still on the time clock for Trustee Keyser presented sixteen
their employers; that Morris required witnesses, including an IBT auditor and
stewards to collect cash gifts for himself in forensic auditors. Morris and his
the form of annual “Christmas gifts,” and supporters presented twenty-five
that he retaliated against members whose witnesses. Hoffa claims that
Christmas spirit did not embrace approximately sixty members presented
extortionate gift giving. The fiscal abuses information during open microphone
also included charges that Morris had sessions that provided an opportunity for
altered Local 115's Health and Welfare any member who wanted to address the
Plan to suit his personal needs, and that he panel to do so. Members also presented
used union funds to benefit family written statements, either directly to the
members. panel, or through the Trustee, and then
The November 14th notice and
accompanying letters of appointment 3
The hearings were postponed at
resulted in Keyser being given authority Morris’s request. Ultimately, they were
over all of the affairs of Local 115. It also rescheduled for January 5-7, 2000, and
resulted in the ouster of Morris, Mack and continued through January 19-21 and
Fisher from their elected positions with February 28 through March 3, 2000.
5
turned them over to the panel. The Morris also apparently harassed,
proceedings were transcribed and threatened and cursed any witness who
videotaped and both sides presented opposed him, and he interrupted and
extensive briefs and proposed findings and talked over anyone trying to make a
conclusions of law. statement against him. In addition, former
Business Agent Johnson sat next to Morris
Morris argues that the IBT caused
during the hearings and fulfilled the role
more than 100 police officers to be placed
of one of the “tough guys” that Morris
outside the offices where the hearings
reportedly always had with him. While
were held. The police included SWAT
sitting next to Morris, Johnson also
team members in riot gear with face
threatened and cursed witnesses and the
masks. People entering the offices had to
investigating panel.
walk a “gauntlet” of masked police
officers, be searched, and pass through a The hearing panel’s Report and
metal detector. Morris claims that the Recommendation found overwhelming
IBT orchestrated this scene even though evidence to support the imposition and
there was no indication of potential continuation of the trusteeship. The panel
violence from Morris’s supporters. concluded that lifting the trusteeship
Morris also claims that he was unable to would result in substantial damage to
obtain any evidence to contradict the Local 115 and its members because Morris
evidence offered by Hoffa and the IBT had created a climate of fear and
because the emergency Trustee had sole intimidation that was irreparably
possession and control of the books and destroying the rights of the membership.
records of Local 115. Morris alleges that
B. The IBT’s Findings.
he did not know in advance whom the
Trustee would call as witnesses or what Hoffa accepted the panel’s
testimony the witnesses would provide. recommendation and continued the
trusteeship. In doing so he wrote:
Ironically, Morris apparently
demonstrated his propensity for During the eleven days of
intimidation during the hearings. At one hearings, the longest
point, he became enraged at Local 115 running hearing ever
President Smith. While Smith was conducted by the [IBT],
testifying, Morris gestured as if he were n u m e r o us members
loading and firing a shotgun at Smith’s appeared to testify about the
head. This caused the hearing to adjourn events in the Local. Much
for the day. The following day when the of that testimony revealed a
hearing resumed, Morris denied making persistent pattern of abuse
the gesture even though his actions had of power and suppression of
been captured on videotape. membership rights. Quite
si mp ly, the evidence
6
established that supporters improve real estate, to purchase printing
of the John Morris equipment, buses, a snowplow and
administration received vehicles that had no benefit to the
special benefit s and members. Testimony from IBT auditor
attention and those members William Evans and forensic auditors
who spoke or acted in a Robert Walker and Joseph Wahl
manner viewed as being established that Morris purposefully failed
hostile to the administration to maintain required accounting records in
were abused, intimidated, order to hide much of his financial
retaliated against and even mismanagement. In addition, Morris
physically and economically falsified bank documents, commingled
endangered. money from various Local 115 Funds and
failed to file necessary tax documents.
Morris improperly used his
App. at 10.
authority to maintain control of Local 115.
Hoffa found evidence of several He placed members and their relatives in
violent, verbal and physical attacks by jobs and demanded loyalty in return for
Morris and other Local 115 officials keeping their jobs. The members so
against staff as well as union members. placed were reportedly fired if Morris
Morris had conducted abusive inquisitions thought that they were disloyal to him. In
and threatened union stewards. For addition, Morris arranged late night
example, union member Kada had been meetings where union members were
“sucker-punched” in the face by Business abused, threatened and, in one instance,
Agent “Jocko” Johnson on union property assaulted. Hoffa concluded that the
during a union meeting, in full view of officers of Local 115 did not properly
Morris. Morris had then pushed Kada and represent these members.5
baited Kada to push him back.4
The record contained substantial 5
The trustee’s evidence established
evidence of financial malpractice by a complete breakdown of democratic rule
Morris that Morris neither refuted nor within Local 115, and much of this
explained. Morris used millions of dollars evidence was almost entirely unrefuted.
of Local 115's money to purchase and Morris did not deny requiring union
members to do personal work for him or
his relatives while they were “on the
4
Morris’s demeanor was often clock.” Rather, he insisted that his position
beyond bounds attributable to normal on the Joint Council entitled him to such
anger. He allegedly reinforced the services. In fact as noted above, it was
intimidation by carrying a gun in the corroborated by Morris’s own conduct
office in violation of the IBT Constitution. during the very hearings that were
7
The evidence also demonstrated imposed.7 In essence, the plaintiffs
that Morris had violated the IBT alleged that Hoffa imposed the trusteeship
Constitution and federal law by because they opposed him in the 1996 and
consistently refusing to provide union 1998 IBT presidential elections. They
members with copies of their collective claimed that Hoffa was attempting to
bargaining agreements.6 suppress such opposition in the future.8 As
summarized above, Count One alleged
The evidence confirmed that
that the trusteeship violated Title III of the
Morris had used the guise of “Christmas
LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 462, 464, and the
gifts” to extort money from members at
some of the higher paying union shops as
Hoffa had previously heard. Documents 7
Originally, Kenneth Woodring, a
established that Morris had been union officer affected by the imposition of
embezzling money from the Union since the trusteeship, was a plaintiff. However,
1981 when he awarded himself a raise he moved to dismiss all of his claims
without the required Executive Board against Hoffa and the IBT pursuant to
approval. At the end of 1989, Morris Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).
further enriched himself by causing the
8
Union to take out an insurance policy on Morris claimed that Hoffa, an
his life under false pretenses. attorney, who until 1993 was never
affiliated with the IBT, left the practice of
Hoffa concluded that this evidence law in that year to become the
demonstrated that a trusteeship was administrative assistant to the President of
absolutely necessary. Teamsters Joint Council 43 for the sole
II. DISTRICT COURT purpose of running for the office of the
PROCEEDINGS General President of the IBT. Hoffa
made his first unsuccessful attempt at the
As noted above, the Morris IBT’s Presidency in 1996. Morris
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the district supported a slate opposed to Hoffa during
court against Hoffa and the IBT 1996 election.
challenging the imposition of the During the 1998 elections, Morris
emergency trusteeship days after it was once again supported a slate opposed to
Hoffa. Morris alleged that on May 3,
1998, William Walker, Sr., a retired
investigating claims of dictatorial control Teamster and a Hoffa supporter, attended
of Local 115. a Hoffa campaign fundraiser in Essington,
Pennsylvania. Walker asked Hoffa what
6
Members who attempted to he intended to do about Morris if Hoffa
participate in the preparation of proposals was elected. According to Morris,
prior to contract negotiations were told to Hoffa’s reply was: “He’s the first f....r to
“shut up.” go when I get in.”
8
IBT Constitution; Count Two alleged that interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
Hoffa violated plaintiffs’ right to free 1292(b). Morris filed a motion for final
speech as guaranteed by Title I of the judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) the same
LMRDA, specifically, 29 U.S.C. §§ day.
411(a)(2), and § 29; and Count Three
On December 28, 1999, the district
alleged that Hoffa breached the contract
court granted Morris’ motion for
between the Local and the IBT, i.e., the
preliminary injunction, enjoining Hoffa
IBT Constitution, by imposing the
and the IBT from exercising trusteeship
emergency trusteeship over Local 115 in
over Local 115 and ordering Hoffa and
the absence of any colorable emergency.
the IBT to return control over Local 115
Count Three further alleged that this also
to its duly elected officers. The district
violated the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
court concluded that the information
The plaintiffs sought various forms of
available to Hoffa and the IBT was
injunctive relief, compensatory and
insufficient to provide Hoffa and the IBT
punitive damages, and fees and costs.9
with a good faith belief that an emergency
Hoffa filed an answer and a existed sufficient to warrant the imposition
counterclaim. In his counterclaim, he of an emergency trusteeship. Morris v.
requested judicial confirmation of the Hoffa, 1999 WL 1285820 (E.D.Pa. Dec.
trusteeship under 29 U.S.C. § 464(c).10 28, 1999). Hoffa and the IBT appealed
Following additional discovery, the and this court stayed the injunction
district court granted Hoffa’s motion for pending the appeal. During the pendency
summary judgment in substantial part. In of the appeal, the IBT conducted the
doing so, the court indicated that entry of internal union hearing regarding the
final judgment qualifying for appeal necessity for a trusteeship. As noted
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) might be above, Hoffa, thereafter continued the
warranted. Morris v. Hoffa, 2001 WL t r u s t ee s h ip b a s e d u p o n t h e
1231741 (E.D.Pa. October 12, 2001). recommendation of the hearing panel. On
Following the court’s thoughtful lead, June 12, 2000, we dismissed the appeal as
Hoffa thereafter filed a motion for final moot because the internal union hearing
judgment under Rule 54(b) and for had been conducted and Hoffa had ruled
on the propriety of a trusteeship. Morris v.
Hoffa, 2000 WL 33727939 (3d Cir. June
9
The plaintiffs concede that the 12, 2000).
dissolution of the trusteeship on June 13, On January 7, 2002, the district
2001 mooted the equitable relief sought in court entered final judgment on Count
Counts One and Three. Two (the free speech count) in favor of
10
Hoffa concedes that the Hoffa and against all plaintiffs; entered
dissolution of the trusteeship moots his final judgment on Count One with respect
counterclaim. to the maintenance of the post-hearing
9
trusteeship in favor of Hoffa and against America, AFL-CI0, 900 F.2d 761, 766
Morris, Mack and Fischer; entered final (4th Cir. 1990). The legislation was an
judgment on Count One with respect to attempt to respond to abuses within the
the emergency pre-hearing trusteeship in organized labor movement while
favor of Hoffa and against Morris only. “minimizing governmental interference
As we noted at the outset, the court also with the internal affairs of labor
certified the following question of law for organizations.” Id. at 766-767. “Thus,
interlocutory appeal pursuant to § while substantive abuses were to be
1292(b): addressed, the McClellan Committee
recommended that any corrective
Whether Plaintiffs have
legislation insure union democracy.” Id.
standing to recover any
at 767 (citation and internal quotations
damages on behalf of the
omitted).12
Local Union 115 for the
time period between the Congress enacted Title III of the
N o v e m b er 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 LMRDA to address problems related to
emergency imposition and imposition of trusteeships over local
the General President’s May unions. Id.13 In doing so, Congress was
31, 2000 decision issued concerned with past abuses related to
after the hearing. imposition of trusteeships, but it was also
aware that “trusteeships are effective
devices for maintaining order within labor
Morris v. Hoffa, 2002 WL 15900 at *7 organizations[]”. Id. Thus, “the goals of
(E.D.Pa. Jan. 4, 2002).11 the [LMRDA] were to be accomplished
without emasculating the trusteeship as a
Both the Morris Plaintiffs and
Hoffa filed timely appeals.
III. DISCUSSION 12
The Select Committee on
A. The LMRDA Improper Activities in the Labor
Management Field that was responsible
The LMRDA “was enacted [in for investigating abuses in organized labor
1959] in response to the perceived abuses and recommending remedial legislation is
that plagued labor relations and often referred to as the “McClellan
undermined public confidence in the labor Committee,” after Senator McClellan, the
movement.” Becker v. Industrial Union of Committee’s chair.
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
13
The legislative history of Title III
is recited in detail in our opinion in Ross v.
11
The district court denied Hoffa’s Hotel Employees and Restaurant
motion for § 1292(b) certification as to all Employees International Union, 266 F.3d
other issues. Id. 236, 245-249 (3d Cir. 2001).
10
control device.”14 Id. agreements or other duties
of a bargaining
The LMRDA mandates that any
representative, restoring
trusteeship that is imposed conform to the
democratic procedures, or
constitution and bylaws of the union, and
otherwise carrying out the
the purposes for which the trusteeship is
legitimate objects of such
imposed must be legitimate. Id. More
labor organization.
particularly, § 302 of Title III of the
LMRDA provides:
Trusteeships shall be 29 U.S.C. § 462. Given the countless
established and circumstances that might give rise to a
administered by a labor trusteeship, “Congress specifically
o r g a n i z a ti o n o v e r a declined to attempt to detail all of the
subordinate body only in legitimate reasons for which a trusteeship
accordance with th e might be imposed, leaving for the courts
constitution and bylaws of the development of common law limiting
the organization which has principles.” Becker, 900 F.2d at 767-768
assumed trusteeship over (citations omitted).
the subordinate body and
Congress also recognized that
f or t h e p urpose o f
second guessing the judgments
correcting corruption or
culminating in trusteeships could be both
financial malpractice,
difficult and impractical. Accordingly, a
assuring the performance of
presumption of validity attaches to
c o l l e ct i v e b a rgainin g
trusteeships that are imposed for limited
duration and in a manner consistent with
the procedural mandates of the LMRDA.
14
It has been noted that “[w]hile Id. at 768 (“Recognizing the delicate
trusteeships are normally used by national judgments which international officers are
unions to prevent or eliminate called upon to make in imposing a
malpractices in subordinate organizations trusteeship and conscious of the relative
and as a tool of efficient union inexpertness of outsiders, the [LMRDA’s]
administration, they can be, and have guideline for evaluating a trusteeship
been, used as a tool by which national supplies a presumption of validity, limited
officers suppress local autonomy over in duration, when certain procedural
union activities.” J.D. Jolly v. Gorman, requirements are met.”) (citation omitted).
428 F.2d 960, 966 (5th Cir. 1970) (citing Title III of the LMRDA also provides:
Levitan, The Federal Law of Union
Trusteeship, in Symposium, Labor- In any proceeding pursuant
Management Reporting and Disclosure to this section a trusteeship
Act of 1959 (Slovekno, 1959)). established by a labor
11
organization in conformity trusteeship.” Id. (citations omitted). “The
w i t h t h e p r o cedural notice should also provide the date, time,
requirements of its and location of the hearing and indicate
constitution and bylaws and that the local will have the opportunity to
authorized or ratified after respond to the charges.” Id. (citation
a fair hearing either before omitted). Courts do not, however, require
the executive board or any particular form of notice as long as the
before such other body as notice, together with any written
may be provided in communications supplementing it, inform
accordance with its those concerned of the date and time of
constitution or bylaws shall the hearing. Id.be presumed valid for a
The international union seeking to
period of eighteen months
impose the trusteeship must present
from the date of its
sufficient evidence to justify a trusteeship
establishment and shall not
at the hearing, and “[t]he local must be
be subject to attack during
accorded the opportunity to cross-examine
such period except upon
the international’s witnesses and present
clear and convincing proof
rebuttal evidence.” Id. at 769 (citations
that the trusteeship was
omitted).16
established or maintained in
good faith for a purpose B. The Morris/Mack/Fischer Appeal
allowable under section 462
(No. 02-1401)
of this title.
The Morris Plaintiffs argue that the
IBT failed to conduct the fair hearing
29 U.S.C. § 464(c) (italics added). required to ratify and continue the
trusteeship. They also claim that the
A “fair hearing” requires notice and
trusteeship is little more than Hoffa’s
an opportunity to defend. Becker, 900
illegal retaliation for the exercise of their
F.2d at 768.15 “[T]he notice should set out
speech. We will discuss each claim
in writing the factual basis for alleged
violations of law or the union’s
constitution that justify imposition of a
16
Lack of counsel does not make a
trusteeship hearing unfair because there is
15
“Under the common law prior to no right to representation by counsel at
the passage of the LMRDA, a trusteeship such a hearing. See, e.g., Transport
imposed upon a subordinate body was Workers Union of Phila. Local v.
invalid unless the subordinate body was Transport Workers Union of Amer., AFL-
granted a fair hearing.” J.D. Jolly v. CIO, 2000 WL 1521507 at *2 (E.D.Pa.
Gorman, 428 F.2d at 967. Sept. 29, 2000).
12
separately. maintenance of trusteeship.
(I). Did The IBT Conduct a Fair The court viewed Count One as
Hearing asserting two separate claims – a pre-
hearing emergency trusteeship claim and
to Ratify and Continue the
a post-hearing maintenance trusteeship
Trusteeship (Count One)?
claim. 2002 WL 15900 at *3 n.5. The
court denied summary judgment to Hoffa
on the pre-hearing emergency trusteeship
The district court concluded that
claim because it believed a genuine issue
the Morris Plaintiffs failed to establish a
of material fact existed as to whether the
genuine issue of material fact as to the
emergency trusteeship was initially
unfairness of the hearing. Accordingly,
imposed in accordance with the IBT
the district court held that the post-hearing
constitution. 2001 WL 1231741 at *4.
trusteeship met the requirements of 29
U.S.C. § 464(c) and was therefore entitled However, because Morris was no
to a presumption of validity which went longer a member of Local 115 when the
unrebutted. 2001 WL 1231741 at *6. district court disposed of Hoffa’s summary
judgment motions, the court found that he
The district court considered
lacked standing to challenge the pre-
allegations that the trusteeship was
hearing emergency trusteeship because
imposed in bad faith and for an improper
any such claim would be limited to
purpose in violation of § 462. The court
damages suffered by the Local. 2002 WL
first concluded as a matter of law that a
15900 at *3 (citing Ross v. Hotel
trusteeship is permissible if supported by
Employees and Restaurant Employees
a single proper purpose even if an
International Union, 266 F.3d 236, 249-
improper purpose is also alleged.17 Id. at
50 (3d Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, the
*7. The court then considered the
district court granted summary judgment
numerous justifications the hearing panel
to Hoffa only as against Morris on the pre-
found that supported Hoffa’s decision to
hearing emergency trusteeship claim.
continue the trusteeship. Id.
Mack and Fischer, although no longer
Consequently, the district court granted
elected officials of Local 115, are still
summary judgment in favor of Hoffa and
members of the Local. The district court
against The Morris Plaintiffs on Count
certified the issue of their standing to
One with respect to the post-hearing
pursue a damage claim on the Local’s
behalf for interlocutory appeal under §
17
As noted, the alleged improper 1292(b). (No. 02-2214).
purpose was Hoffa’s alleged vendetta Mack and Fischer do not contest
against Morris, Mack and Fischer for their the district court’s ruling that a single
opposition to Hoffa in the 1996 and 1998 proper purpose is sufficient to justify a
elections.
13
trusteeship even where improper purposes Local 115, in exchange for
are alleged. Similarly, they do not which Smith, as ultimate
attempt to refute the hearing panel’s successor to Morris, would
factual findings that there were numerous permit Hoffa to control
proper purposes for ratifying and Local 115's seats on the
continuing the trusteeship.18 Rather, as Philadelphia Regional Port
we distill their argument, they appear to be Authority, the Joint Council
claiming that there are genuine issues of and the Pennsylvania
material fact as to whether Hoffa and the Conference.
ITB conducted a fair hearing to ratify and
continue the trusteeship.
Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-1401), at 14-15.
Initially, they claim that the hearing
They then argue that the district court
was unfair because its outcome was
held, in its preliminary injunction hearing,
predetermined. According to Mack and
that Morris was likely to establish at trial
Fischer:
that the information available to Hoffa
It is uncontroverted . . . that when he imposed the emergency
as of February 23, 1999, an trusteeship was not sufficient to provide a
agreement existed among good faith belief in the existence of an
supporters of James E. emergency. See 1999 WL 1285820 at
Smith, Jr., and Hoffa. *10. Thus, they claim that an inference
Hoffa would use his can be drawn that Hoffa “would control
authority as general the process of the hearing to ensure his
president of the IBT to desired outcome.” Appellants’ Br. (No.
impose a trusteeship upon 02-1401), at 15. Accordingly, they
maintain that the district court’s failure to
“submit this dispute to a factfinder
18
The reasons for the continuation constitutes reversible error.” Id. at 16.
of the trusteeship included: “refusal to We disagree.19
provide members of the Local with copies At the outset, the district court’s
of their collective bargaining agreements; grant of preliminary injunctive relief
intimidation and physical attacks on enjoining the imposition of the emergency
members; financial abuse. . . missing trusteeship was not a merits disposition.
assets; extortion of Christmas cash gifts;
compelling members of the Local to do
19
work that benefitted Morris and his We exercise plenary review of the
relatives personally; and engineering of district court’s grant of summary
the termination of jobs of Local members judgment. Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc.
who were perceived as disloyal.” 2001 v. American States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d
WL 1231741 at *7. 144, 146 (3d Cir. 1993).
14
“[A] decision on a preliminary injunction further establishes that
is, in effect, only a prediction about the Hoffa and the IBT
merits of the case.” United States v. Local conspired with James Smith
560, IBT, 974 F.2d 315, 330 (3d Cir. to create an excuse to
1992). Therefore, “a trial court, in institute a trusteeship. In
deciding whether to grant permanent exchange for his assistance
relief, is not bound by its decision or the in ousting Morris, Smith
appellate court’s decision about was promised control over
preliminary relief.” Id. Rather, the trial Local 115, and sure enough,
court “is free to reconsider the merits of that is exactly what
the case.” Id. Consequently, the district happened.
court’s grant of preliminary injunctive
relief does not suggest a genuine issue of
material fact sufficient to preclude the Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-1401), at 23.
grant of summary judgment. However, this claim ignores the fact that
Smith was elected by secret ballot of the
Moreover, Mack and Fischer do not
membership in an open and fair election.
contest the district court’s holding that the
As noted above, Local 115 conducted
existence of a single proper purpose for
elections for officers while this litigation
the imposition of a trusteeship establishes
was pending. A majority of the voting
the validity of the trusteeship, even where
members, not Hoffa, chose Smith to be
improper motives may exist. Thus, even if
president of the Local. And, Hoffa alleges
we assume arguendo that a Hoffa-Morris
without contradiction that he played no
vendetta motivated Hoffa’s efforts to oust
role in the election. Hoffa’s Br. at 23.
Morris, Mack and Fischer from Local 115,
Accordingly, we fail to see how an
we are still left with the district court’s
allegation that Hoffa promised Smith the
conclusion that the hearing panel found
presidency could defeat Hoffa’s motion
numerous proper justifications for
for summary judgment. While Mack and
imposing the trusteeship. Reasons, by the
Fischer assert this “uncontroverted”
way, which Mack and Fischer do not even
agreement that Hoffa would make Smith
begin to dispute.
the head of Local 115 in exchange for
Moreover, the record does not Smith’s cooperation in ousting Morris,
support any connection between the they concede that there is no record
alleged Morris-Hoffa vendetta, the evidence that any such deal existed.
imposition of a trusteeship and the Rather, their assertion rests on a rather
allegation that Hoffa rewarded Smith with ethereal inference. See Appellants’ Br.
the presidency of Local 115. In their (02-1401), at 7 n.3 (“Whether or not Hoffa
brief, Mack and Fischer argue that: actually promised Smith control over
Local 115, as Brian Kada suggested [in
the evidentiary record
the Breslin Declaration], is not established
15
on the record below; however it is 02-1401), at 17-18.
reasonable to infer that Smith received
However, Mack and Fischer have
such a promise”). (Emphasis added).
waived their right to make these two
In any event, the Morris Plaintiffs arguments on appeal because they did not
appear to retreat from their claim that the raise them in the district court. Rather, as
outc o me o f a n y h e a ri n g w as the district court explained, the challenge
predetermined and instead now present to the fairness of the hearing was based on
two reasons for concluding that the a claim that “(1) heavy police presence
hearing was unfair. First, they claim that inhibited members from testifying;21 and
they were unable to present an effective (2) [Morris, Mack and Fischer] were not
case and cross-examine witnesses because allowed to have the assistance of counsel
they did not have full access to Local during the hearing.”22 2001 WL 1231741115's books and records. They claim that
the books and records were in the custody
and control of the Trustee after the face masks. Persons entering the union
imposition of the emergency trusteeship. hall had to walk a gauntlet of dozens of
Thus, they could not know which masked officers lined up in two columns,
witnesses the Trustee would call each day being searched and passing through a
at the hearing. Second, they argue that medical detectors.” Id. (citation and
the police presence outside the union hall internal quotations omitted). Mack and
where the hearing was held was “per se Fischer argue that the IBT caused this
intimidation, even for Teamsters,” that heavy police presence even though there
biased the panel members by sending “a was no indication for a potential for
very clear message” to the panel that the violence by Morris’s supporters.
charges had merit.20 Appellants’ Br. (No. Appellants’ Br. (N002-1401) at 17-18.
21
The district court held that the
20
Plaintiffs claim that the IBT’s presence of police security at the site of
website reported: “Outside the hall, more the hearing did not by itself render the
than 100 law enforcement officers were on hearing unfair. 2001 WL 1251741 at *6
hand to ensure that the hearing proceeded (citing Chapa v. Local 18, 737 F.2d 929,
without violence instigated by Morris 933 (11th Cir. 1984).
supporters.” Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-
22
1401), at 9 (citation omitted). They also The district court held that there is
say: “The IBT brought in these police no right to counsel at a trusteeship
officers, including armed police and hearing. 2001 WL 1231741 at *6, and
SWAT team officers assisted by that is not contested on appeal.
sharpshooters, canine officers and officers Furthermore, it appears from the
mounted on horseback. The police transcripts of the hearing that Morris,
officers were clad in black riot gear, with Mack and Fischer were represented by
16
at *6 (emphasis added). As a general to express at meetings of the
rule, “absent compelling circumstances an labor organization his
appellate court will not consider issues views, upon candidates in
that are raised for the first time on appeal.” an election of a labor
Patterson v. Cuyler, 729 F.2d 925, 929 organization or upon any
(3d Cir. 1984), overruled on other business properly before the
grounds recognized in Carter v. Rafferty, meeting, subject to the
826 F.2d 1299 (3d Cir. 19987). Here, organization’s established
Mack and Fischer do not suggest any such and reasonable rule s
compelling circumstances and we can pertaining to the conduct of
think of none. meetings: Provided, That
nothing herein shall be
(ii). IBT’s Retaliation for Engaging in
construed to impair the right
Protected Speech.
of a labor organization to
In Count Two of their complaint, adopt and enforce
the Morris Plaintiffs alleged that Hoffa reasonable rules as to the
violated their rights to free speech under responsibility of every
the Title I of the LMRDA,23 29 U.S.C. § member toward the
411(a)(2), and disciplined them for the o r g a n i z a ti o n a s a n
exercise of those rights in violation of 29 institution and to his
U.S.C. § 529. refraining from conduct that
would interfere with its
Section 101(a)(2) of Title I of the
performance of its legal or
LMRDA provides:
contractual obligations.
Every member of any labor
organization shall have the
right to meet and assemble 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2). Section 102 of
freely with other members; Title I, 29 U.S.C. § 412, provides that any
and to express any views, person whose rights have been infringed
arguments, or opinions; and by a violation of § 101 may bring an
action in the district court seeking such
relief as may be appropriate. Section 609
counsel who participated in the hearing. of Title VI of the LMRDA prohibits
Hoffa’s Appendix, at 103-105. certain kinds of discipline of a union
23
Title I of the LMRDA is referred member. It provides:
to as the “Member’s Bill of Rights.” See It shall be unlawful for any
Farrell v. International Brotherhood of labor organization, or any
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & officer, agent, shop steward,
Helpers of America (Airline Division), 888 or other representative of a
F.2d 459, 461 (6th Cir. 1989).
17
labor organization, or any as a political reprisal against
employee thereof to fine, the members of Local 115
suspend, expel or otherwise for their vigorous electoral
discipline any of its opposition to Hoffa's
members for exercising any candidacy for General
right to which he is entitled President and his policies."
under the provision of this (Compl. ¶ 58 (emphasis
chapter. The provisions of added)). Plaintiffs further
section 412 of this title shall allege that "Defendants
be applicable in the imposed the trusteeship
enforcement of this section. against Local 115
specifically to suppress the
opposition policies,
29 U.S.C. § 529. electoral activities and
dissent of Plaintiff Morris
In their appeal from the grant of
and the Plaintiff elected
summary judgment on Count Two, the
members of the Local 115
Morris Plaintiffs argue that the district
Executive Board, to the
court erred by holding that “as a matter of
policies and administration
law, a determination that a presumption
of Defendant Hoffa and the
of validity attached to the continuation of
IBT" (Compl. ¶ 59
a trusteeship pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
(emphasis added)); that
464(c), precludes the violation of an
"Defendants have imposed
individual union member’s rights under 29
the trusteeship against
U.S.C. §§ 411 and 529.” Appellants’ Br.
Local 115 to undermine the
(02-1401), at 1 (emphasis in original).
credibility of the expected
However, that is not what the trial testimony of Plaintiffs
district court held. Rather, the district Morris, Woodring and other
court held that the Morris Plaintiffs’ members of Local 115 ..."
nominal Title I claims were really a (Compl. ¶ 60 (emphasis
challenge to the validity of the trusteeship added)); and that
that must therefore be brought under Title "Defendants have imposed
III. The district court correctly the trusteeship upon Local
characterized the Title I claims as follows: 115 in order to retaliate
against the members of
Plaintiffs allege that
Local 115 and its elected
"Defendants' imposition of a
officers, the Plaintiffs, for
purported 'emergency'
their past and current
trusteeship over Local 115
political opposition to the
was carried out in bad faith,
policies and administration
18
of Defendant Hoffa." Consequently, the district court granted
(Compl. ¶ 61 (emphasis summary judgment to Hoffa on the Count
added).) Plaintiffs expressly Two claim.
cast their Title I claim as
For reasons not apparent to us, the
one "challenging th e
Morris Plaintiffs do not address the district
unlawful imposition of a
court’s rationale for granting summary
trusteeship, not the job
judgment to Hoffa on their Title I claim.
terminations of Plaintiffs."
In fact, they do not even mention that the
(Pls.' Mem. at 44- 45.)
district court dismissed their Title I claim
as nothing more than a Title III attack on
the validity of the trusteeship. Instead,
2001 WL 1231741 at *10 (italics in
they argue that their removal as officials
original). The district court held that the
of Local 115 for engaging in protected
claim was, in reality, “just another way of
free speech constitutes retaliatory
saying that the trusteeship was invalid
discipline in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 529.
because it was imposed for an improper
See Appellants’ Br. (No. 02-1401), at 21
motive.” Id. The court then relied upon
(“[R]emoval from union office for the
the reasoning in Farrell v. International
exercise of protected speech. . .constitutes
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
improper retaliatory discipline in violation
Warehousemen & Helpers of America
of 29 U.S.C. § 529.”) (emphasis added).
(Airline Division), 888 F.2d 459 (6th Cir.
1989), in finding that challenges to the Even if we assume arguendo that
validity of a trusteeship must be raised Morris, Mack and Fischer were all
under Title III, not Title I.2 4 engaging in protected speech and also
assume that they were disciplined for
doing so, their claim can still not survive
24
In Farrell, flight attendants our holding in Sheridan v. United
claimed that the international union’s Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
imposition of a trusteeship immediately
after they created their own local violated
their Title I right to vote in local elections. appellants with their appropriate remedy.
However, they did not challenge the A determination of the validity vel non of
validity of the trusteeship under Title III. the trusteeship must precede any
The court of appeals found that the flight determination of the appellants’ rights to
attendants could not claim violation of hold local elections. If the trusteeship is a
their Title I rights by means of a fraud, the statute provides a mechanism to
trusteeship without first addressing the prove it and thereafter recover their Title
validity of the trusteeship under in an III rights. But, let them not put the cart
action under Title III. The court wrote: before the horse.” 888 F.2d at 462.
“Title III, not Title I, provides these
19
America, Local No. 626, 306 F.2d 152 (3d the majority of appellate courts have held
Cir. 1962). There we held that neither that retaliatory removal from union office
Title I nor Section 609 of Title VI (29 for exercising Title I free speech rights
U.S.C. § 529) provide a remedy to a violates 29 U.S.C. § 529. Appellants’ Br
business agent who was removed from (No. 01-1401). at 21 (citing Bradford v.
elected office prior to the expiration of his Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
term. We stated that “[i]t is the union- Local 1093, 563 F.2d 1138, 1141-1142
member relationship, not the union-officer (4th Cir. 1977) (collecting cases and
or union-employee relationship, that is criticizing Sheridan)). They also argue
protected.” Id. at 157. We elaborated that Sheridan “does not represent the
upon this in Harrison v. Local 54 of the [current] position of this court.”
American Federation of State, County and Appellants’ Br (No. 02-1401). at 22 n.7.
Municipal Employees, 518 F.2d 1276 (3d
However, Sheridan has been
Cir. 1975):
followed in Martire v. Laborers’ Local
The union member is free to Union 1058, 410 F.2d 32, 35 (3d Cir.
express views, arguments or 1969), Harrison v. Local 54, 518 F.2d at
opinions on matters of 1281, and, most recently, in Ruocchio v.
union business even if the United Transportation Union, Local 60,
expressions are libelous or 181 F.3d 376, 381 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999).
malicious without fear of Moreover, because Sheridan is the law of
discipline. Conversely, the this circuit it controls our analysis
LMRDA does not provide notwithstanding any conflicting authority
relief to a union officer for from other Circuit Courts of Appeals. See
suspension as an officer, nor Reich v. D.M. Sabia Co., 90 F.32d 854,
for loss of income resulting 855, n.2 (3rd Cir. 1996) (“It is the tradition
therefrom. Nor does the Act of this court that a holding of a panel in a
p r o v i d e r e l i ef f r o m reported opinion is binding on subsequent
wrongful termination from panels.).
employment. What is
Nonetheless, a caveat is in order.
protected is the union-
In Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982),
membership relationship.
the Supreme Court concluded that the
language of §§ 411(a)(1) and (2) as well
as Title I’s legislative history established
518 F.2d at 1281 (3d Cir. 1975). Title I of
“that it was rank-and-file union members
the LMRDA therefore affords no remedy
– not union officers or employees, as such
for any damages resulting from plaintiffs’
– whom Congress sought to protect.” Id.removal as officers of Local 115.
at 437. In dong so, the Court approvingly
The Morris Plaintiffs attempt to cited our decision in Sheridan. Id. at 438.
undermine this reasoning by arguing that
20
However, about seven years after Moreover, the district court did not grant
Finnegan, the Court held in Sheet Metal summary judgment to Hoffa on Count
Workers’ International Association v. Two on the basis of Sheridan. Rather, as
Lynn, 488 U.S. 347 (1989), that the noted above, Hoffa was granted summary
removal of an elected business agent did judgment because the district court held
violate Title I’s free speech provisions. that plaintiffs’ nominal Title I action was
The Court distinguished between the really a Title III challenge to the
removal of an appointed business agent, as imposition of the trusteeship. The Morris
occurred in Finnegan, and the removal of Plaintiffs do not even discuss that issue.
an elected business agent. The Court They do not even mention the Court’s
noted that when an elected official is decision in Sheet Metal Workers.
removed from office, the membership is Therefore, we need not inquire into the
deprived of its representative of choice. impact, if any, that Sheet Metal Workers
Id. at 355. “[T]he potential chilling effect has on the continued validity of our
on Title I free speech rights is more holding in Sheridan.25
pronounced when elected officials are
discharged. Not only is the fired official
likely to be chilled in the exercise of his 25
Our decision in Ross v. Hotel
own free speech rights, but so are the Employees and Restaurant Employees
members who voted for him.” Id. Int’l Union, 266 F.3d 236, 257 (3d Cir.
Accordingly, the Court held that the 2001), precludes the recovery of personal
retaliatory removal of an elected official damages under Title III of the LMRDA by
can be actionable under Title I. The an appointed full-time salaried employee
Court also held that the removed official of a union flowing from the termination of
was not precluded from bringing a Title I his/her appointed employment. “Relief
action because he had been removed under [Title III] must be sought on behalf
during a Title III trusteeship. Id. at 356 of the local union organization and the
(“[W]e find nothing in the language of the entire union membership must reap the
LMRDA or its legislative history to benefits.” Id. As noted in n.15, supra,
suggest that Congress intended Title I the district court, on the basis of Ross,
rights to fall by the wayside whenever a found that because Morris was no longer
trusteeship is imposed.’). a union member, he could not pursue a
However, for reasons that are not damages claim on behalf of the Local for
apparent to us, the Morris Plaintiffs (who any damages the Local suffered as a result
were elected officials of Local 115) do not of the imposition of the pre-hearing
rely upon Sheet Metal Workers to support emergency trusteeship. The district court
their argument that their removal from further held that Ross precluded Mack and
elected office was improper retaliation in Fischer, who unlike Morris, were still
violation of their Title I free speech rights. union members, from asserting a claim for
personal damages under Title III. 2002
21
B. The Hoffa § 1292(b) Interlocutory evidence creates a genuine
Appeal issue of material fact under
Rule 56 as to whether Hoffa
(No. 02-2214).
imposed the emergency
trusteeship in accordance
with the IBT constitution. If
We have already noted that the
Plaintiffs establish at trial
district court viewed the Count One
that Defendants' imposition
challenge to the imposition of the
o f t h e e m e r g en cy
trusteeship as two separate claims – a
trusteeship suffered from
“pre-hearing emergency trusteeship” claim
this procedural deficiency,
and a “post-hearing maintenance
Plaintiffs would then have
trusteeship” claim – and granted summary
the opportunity to proceed
judgment to Hoffa on the post-hearing
on the damages claim for
claim while denying summary judgment
the period between the
on the pre-hearing claim. The district
defective imposition of the
court explained:
emergency trusteeship on
This Court has previously November 15, 1999, and
concluded, at the Hoffa's May 31, 2000
preliminary injunctio n decision, based on the post
stage, that the evidence hoc hearing, to continue the
demonstrated a reasonable trusteeship. Accordingly,
likelihood of proving that the Court denies the motion
the information available to for summary judgment as to
Hoffa at the time he decided the emergency trusteeship
to impose the emergency period from November 15,
trusteeship was insufficient 1999 to May 31, 2000.
to provide him with a good
faith belief in the existence
of an emergency. This 2001 WL 1231741 at *4. The district
court then limited any recovery to the
damages suffered by Local 115. The court
WL 15900 at *6. However, it also held explained:
that Ross did not address the issue of Plaintiffs have not yet
Mack’s and Fischer’s standing to recover specified the nature of the
damages on behalf of Local 115 from the compensatory damages
imposition of the pre-hearing emergency sought under Title III.
trusteeship. Id. Consequently, it certified Plaintiffs may not, however,
that issue for interlocutory appeal. Id. collect any personal
22
damages for lost wages, loss
of position, or any other
individual damages on this at 355; “the potential chilling effect of
portion of the Title III Title I free speech rights is more
claim. The potential damage pronounced when elected officials are
recovery on a Title III claim discharged. Not only is the fired official
is limited to damages to the likely to be chilled in the exercise of his
local union itself. See Ross own free speech rights, but so are the
v. Hotel Employees & members who voted for him.” Appellees’
Restaurant Employees Int'l Br. (O2-2214), at 13. As another
Union, [266 F.3d 236 (3d example, Mack and Fischer say the
Cir. 2001)]. The Court does question of whether the manner in which
not reach the question of Hoffa imposed the emergency trusteeship
Plaintiffs' entitlement to “resulted in a chilling effect on the
such damages on behalf of membership of Local 115, and the extent
the local union.26 of the damages sustained by the
membership of Local 115 as a result
thereof, is a question that is best left in the
26
Mack and Fischer appear to hands of the finder of fact.” Id. at 15.
concede that they have yet to identify the Admittedly, Mack and Fischer do
nature of the damages they seek on behalf make an allegation of appropriate Title III
of Local 115. They argue that because damages in a footnote in their brief.
Ross was decided during the pendency of There they state:
the summary judgment proceedings, the
“nature and quantum of damages is not Title III damages in the case
part of the record on the motion for at bar involve, inter alia,
summary judgment.” Appellees’ Br. (No. transfer of at least one union
02-2214), at 13. Nonetheless, they assert shop organized by Local
that “the court [of appeals] can reasonably 115 to Teamsters Local 500,
infer the nature, if not the quantum, of the Local of emergency
damages to Local 115 and its membership trustee Edward J. Keyser,
generally.” Id. Jr., in exchange for his
However, it is not our function to support. The membership
“infer the nature” of their damages. fees of the transferred union
Moreover, when Mack and Fischer do shop are significant enough
refer to their damages, it is clear that they to justify the continued
are claiming personal Title I damages, not existence of Local 500,
Title III damages to the local. For which was suffering a
example, they quote the following from significant decline.
Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Assn., 488 U.S.
23continued following a fair hearing.
Id. at*4 n.5. Section 304(c) of Title III of the
LMRDA provides, in relevant part:
At some point after a status
conference and filing of memoranda, In any proceeding pursuant
Morris conceded that he was no longer a to this section a trusteeship
member of Local 115. Accordingly, as established by a labor
we have noted, the district court found that organization in conformity
since “[t]he parties agree that because w i t h t h e proced u r a l
Plaintiff Morris is no longer a member of requ ireme nts o f its
the Local, he lacks standing to pursue a constitution and bylaws and
claim with respect to temporary authorized or ratified after a
trusteeship because such damages claim fair hearing either before
would be limited to damages on behalf of the executive board or
the Local.” 2002 WL 15900 at *3 (citing before such other body as
Ross v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant may be provided in
Employees International Union, 266 F.3d accordance with its
236, 249-250 (3d Cir. 2001)). constitution or bylaws shall
be presumed valid for a
Thereafter, the court certified only
period of eighteen months
the aforementioned question of Mack’s
from the date of its
and Fischer’s standing for interlocutory
establishment and shall not
appeal. However, we need not answer the
be subject to attack during
certified question because we agree with
such period except upon
Hoffa that the district court erred by
clear and convincing proof
splitting the challenge to the imposition of
that the trusteeship was not
the trusteeship into two separate claims.
established or maintained in
Under the plain language of § 464(c), the
good faith for a purpose
district court’s holding on the validity of
allowable under section 462
the post-hearing maintenance trusteeship
of this title.
necessarily established the validity of the
pre-hearing emergency trusteeship.
Therefore, Local 115 could not have
29 U.S.C. § 464(c) (italics added).
suffered any damages from the imposition
“Because the Act provides that a
of the emergency trusteeship that was
trusteeship may be ‘authorized or ratified
after a fair hearing,’. . ., a hearing meeting
Id. at 15 n.8. However, they never made the requirements of the Act need not
this damages allegation in the district always precede the imposition of a
court, and it has therefore been waived. trusteeship.” Becker, 900 F.2d at 769
(citing 29 U.S.C. § 464(c) (italics in
24
original). Accordingly, “[p]ost hoc In opposing Hoffa’s appeal, Mack
ratification of a trusteeship is consistent and Fischer ignore the fact that the plain
with the Act so long as the union’s language of § 464(c) validates the pre-
constitution provides for such a process, hearing emergency trusteeship absent
the ratification hearing otherwise meets sufficient evidence to overcome the
the requirements of the Act, and the presumption of validity. Instead, they
hearing follows the imposition of a argue that we cannot reach the validity of
trusteeship with reasonable promptness.” the pre-hearing trusteeship without
Id. (citations omitted). improperly expanding the question
certified for interlocutory appeal beyond
The district court found that “the
the issue of standing. We disagree.
post-hearing trusteeship meets the
requirements of § 464(c) and is entitled to “Although the scope of review on
the statutory presumption of validity.” an interlocutory appeal is generally
2001 WL 1231741 at *6. That constrained to the questions certified for
presumption was not rebutted. The plain review by the district court, we may
language of § 464(c) therefore compels a consider any grounds justifying reversal.”
finding that the emergency trusteeship was Billing v. Ravin, Greenberg & Zackin,
valid. Section 464(c) expressly requires P.A., 22 F.3d 1242, 1245 (3d Cir. 1994)
the presumption of validity of the (italics added). Moreover, “appellate
trusteeship be effective “for a period of jurisdiction [under § 1292(b)] applies to
eighteen months from the date of its the order certified to the court of appeals
establishment.” It also provides that the and is not tied to the particular question
trusteeship “shall not be subject to attack formulated by the district court.” Yamaha
during such period.” Consequently, the Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199,
eighteen month period of validity of the 205 (1996). Therefore, while we cannot
trusteeship cannot be construed to begin at “reach beyond the certified order to
the conclusion of the ratification hearing address other orders made in the case,” we
or at any time other than “the date of its can “address any issue fairly included
establishment.” within the certified order.” Id. (italics
added). Here, our conclusion that §
Here, the eighteen month period
464(c) necessitates a finding that the
began on November 15, 1999, when Hoffa
emergency trusteeship is valid is fairly
imposed the emergency trusteeship, and
included within the certified question of
under the statute, it was not subject to
plaintiffs’ standing to pursue a Title III
attack during such time period. Therefore,
claim for the period of the emergency
Mack and Fischer are barred from
trusteeship.27
bringing any action for damages on behalf
of Local Union 115 for violations of Title
III for 18 months following that date. 27
We commend the district court
on its handling of this complex and hotly
25
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, we
will affirm the district court’s grant of
final judgment under Rule 54(b) on Count
Two to Hoffa and against the Morris
Plaintiffs, However, we will vacate the
district court’s Rule 54(b) final judgments
on Count One and remand with directions
that the district court enter summary
judgment on Count One in favor of Hoffa
and against the Morris Plaintiffs. We will
also remand for disposition of Count
Three of the complaint.28
contested dispute, and on the precision
and thoroughness of nearly all of its legal
analysis. We disagree only with the
court’s decision to split Count One into
two separate claims.
28
In Count Three, the Morris
Plaintiffs alleged that Hoffa and the IBT
violated the IBT Constitution by imposing
the emergency trusteeship over Local 115
in the absence of any colorable
emergency, in violation of the LMRDA,
29 U.S.C. § 185. In Count One, they
challenged the imposition of the
emergency trusteeship on the grounds that
it violated both Title III of the LMRDA
and the IBT Constitution. In discussing
Count One in its summary judgment remains of the Count Three claim given
opinion, the district court noted that, “[t]he our holding that summary judgment
provisions in the IBT constitution should be granted to Hoffa and against the
governing trusteeships closely track those Morris Plaintiffs on the Count One claim.
in the LMRDA.” 2001 WL 1231741 at However, this is best resolved by the
*3. Therefore, it may well be that nothing district court.
26