Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act Affords No Relief To Union's Appointed Business Agent Who Was Released By Appointed Union Leadership
VOUGHT v. THE STATE OF WISCONSIN TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCIL NO. 39 (March 10, 2009)
Daniel Vought and Daniel Alexander were business agents for their local union. James Newell was its Secretary – Treasurer. In mid-2003, Newell fired Robert Russell from his position as a union business agent for allegedly misrepresenting the nature of the union’s health plan. The termination was reversed by the union’s Executive Board. Charges and countercharges were exchanged between Newell and Vought on the one hand and three of the union’s other board members . The matter was submitted to the Joint Council. The Council decided against Newell and removed him as a union officer and suspended him from union membership or employment. His replacement fired Vought the next day. After Alexander showed his support for Vought in later disciplinary proceedings, union leadership showed its displeasure by making his job more unpleasant. He soon resigned. Alexander and Vought brought an action under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), alleging that they were forced out of their jobs in retaliation for identifying union impropriety. The District Court dismissed Vought’s claim on the merits and Alexander's on the ground that he failed to exhaust union remedies. Vought and Alexander appeal.
In their opinion, Judges Manion, Evans and Tinder affirmed. The Court first indicated its agreement with the lower court’s conclusion on exhaustion. It agreed with Alexander that exhaustion is not required when it would have been futile. Nevertheless, it concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that a union hearing would not have been an empty formality for Alexander. With respect to the LMRDA claim, the Court cited Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent supporting the proposition that the act does not restrict the freedom of a union leader to choose a staff with compatible views. The union leaders in the cited cases were all elected, and the union leader who terminated Vought was not. The Court did not view that distinction as one that would support a different conclusion.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select