Title Iv Of Lmrda (Union Elections)

15 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Schonfeld v. Penza
  477 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while challenges to union official removal and eligibility might ordinarily require Secretary of Labor involvement, allegations of free speech suppression and procedural due process violations under Title I of the LMRDA grant federal courts jurisdiction.
• Sheridan v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  306 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1962-07-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that a union member's right to sue is limited by the proviso in Section 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which allows a union to require members to exhaust reasonable internal procedures before resorting to court.
• Crowley v. Local NO. 82
  679 F.2d 978· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-21 ·cited 28×
  The court's interpretation of the statutory scheme, allowing a district court to invalidate an election and order a new one under its supervision after balloting has commenced, is incorrect.
• Driscoll v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs
  484 F.2d 682· 7th Cir.· 1973-09-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union member's challenge to a non-Communist affidavit requirement for candidacy, even if framed as a free speech issue, falls under Title IV of the LMRDA and must be pursued through the Secretary of Labor, not a private suit under Title I. Furthermore, the u
• Kupau v. Masayuki Yamamoto
  622 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a union member's claim of discriminatory application of eligibility rules falls under Title I of the LMRDA, allowing for private action and injunctive relief, and that the Secretary of Labor's Title IV suit was improperly brought.
• Cefalo v. Elwood Moffett
  449 F.2d 1193· D.C. Cir.· 1971-09-03 ·cited 21×
  The appellate court modified a preliminary injunction to allow a union convention to authorize a referendum on a merger, conditioned on district court approval and consideration of the Secretary of Labor's input, to ensure a free and informed vote.
• Rollison v. Hotel
  677 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-18 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a union member's free speech claim under Title I of the LMRDA is not preempted by Title IV, and that a court-ordered notice to members regarding a candidate's eligibility, even if it appears to promote candidacy, does not violate 29 U.S.C. § 481(g) when compel
• McGUIRE v. Grand Int'l Div. OF the Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs
  426 F.2d 504· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-07 ·cited 12×
  A union member seeking post-election relief for alleged election violations must exclusively use the remedies provided under Title IV of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, even if the claims could also be framed under Title I.
• Davis v. Turner
  395 F.2d 671· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the union members' asserted rights were protected by Title IV of the Act, not Title I, and that the exclusive remedy for challenging an election already conducted is through the Secretary of Labor.
• Brennan v. Int'l Union OF Dist. 50
  499 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by approving a merger referendum before a new election of union officers, and that the referendum's conduct was sufficiently supervised and fair.
• Molina v. Union de Trabajadores de Muelles Y Ramas Anexas
  762 F.2d 166· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a union member's claim challenging a completed election, even if framed as a Title I violation, is barred by Title IV's exclusivity provision if it effectively seeks to overturn the election's outcome, and such claims can only be brought by the Secretary of La
• Bradley v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
  962 F.2d 800· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-23
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over union member complaints that, despite being framed as Title I violations, are in substance challenges to a completed election, which are exclusively governed by Title IV of the LMRDA and enforced by the Secretary of Labor.
• Hofmann v. Schaefer
  648 F.2d 934· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-06
  A union member's claim regarding eligibility to run for union office falls under Title IV of the LMRDA, not Title I, and thus is not within the federal district court's subject matter jurisdiction under Title I.