Shea v. McKiernan, 373 N.Y.S.2d 17 (1975)

A union cannot enforce a rule that prevents members (who are not officers) from seeking to replace the current bargaining agent with another representative, as this infringes on their freedom of association.

Summary

This case addresses whether a union can fine its members for supporting a rival union. Three aircraft mechanics, members of Lodge 1894, supported the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) in an election to displace Lodge 1894 as the bargaining representative. Lodge 1894 won the election and subsequently fined the three mechanics for violating a provision in the IAM constitution prohibiting dual unionism. The court held that the union could not impose these fines, as doing so would limit the members’ freedom of association and their right to choose their bargaining representative. The court distinguished this situation from cases where members’ actions are designed to harm the union or undermine its duly adopted positions.

Facts

Three aircraft mechanics were members of Lodge 1894, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), as required by union shop agreements with their employers. They actively supported a rival union, Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), in an election seeking to replace IAM as the bargaining representative. Lodge 1894 won the election. The union constitution prohibited “attempting, inaugurating, or encouraging secession from the I.A.M., or advocating or encouraging or attempting to inaugurate any dual labor movement.” The mechanics were charged with violating this provision. Hearings were held, and fines were recommended. After internal appeals, the International President upheld the fines.

Procedural History

The President of Lodge 1894 sued to collect the unpaid fines in New York City Civil Court. The Civil Court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability but ordered a trial on the reasonableness of the fines, denying the defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed, granting leave to appeal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a union can impose fines on its members for supporting a rival union seeking to become the bargaining representative, when such support violates the union’s constitutional prohibition against dual unionism.

Holding

No, because such a rule, if enforced, would preclude or deter the right of employees to seek by legitimate means to replace an incumbent bargaining agent, violating the employees’ freedom of association as protected by the Railway Labor Act and analogous principles.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while courts generally support union discipline, it cannot be used to suppress criticism or political activity within the union. The court balanced the competing interests of the union and its members. The Railway Labor Act aims to forbid limitations on freedom of association. The court concluded that a rule preventing members from seeking to replace the current bargaining agent is not reasonably required for the protection of the union’s legitimate interests. To hold otherwise would deny members the right to choose their bargaining representative. The court distinguished this case from situations where members’ activities are designed to advance the employer’s interests against the union or where members fail to support a duly adopted union position. The court cited Airline Maintenance Lodge 702 v. Loudermilk, where a similar fine was deemed an invalid infringement on member rights. The court stated, “support of a rival union is a legitimate expression of member dissatisfaction with an incumbent collective representative, and involves the exercise of a right of the individual member which cannot be denied by the union irrespective of an explicit provision of the union constitution to the contrary.” The court emphasized the fiduciary duty of the union to its members, preventing the union from advancing its self-interest at the expense of the members’ rights. Two of the mechanics had been officers of the Lodge, but their service had ended before the activity at issue in the case. Thus the court declined to address the right, if any, of the union to enforce discipline against its officer members.