Alex Corns v. Laborers International Union

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEX CORNS, No. 11-15737 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:09-cv-04403-

MHP

LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

OF NORTH AMERICA ; NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF OPINION

LABORERS; HOD CARRIERS LOCAL

UNION 166, affiliated with the Laborers International Union of North America, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 20, 2012—San Francisco, California

Filed March 7, 2013 CORNS V . LABORERS INT ’L UNION

Before: Richard A. Paez and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and Sarah S. Vance, Chief District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Paez; Concurrence by Judge Bybee

SUMMARY**

Labor Law

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in a former union member’s action under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, challenging an organizing fee and a dues increase imposed on local union members by the local’s umbrella labor organizations even though…

Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Concurrence by Judge BYBEE.

OPINION

Plaintiff Alex Corns, a now-retired member of Defendant Hod Carriers Local Union No. 166 (“Local 166”), filed this lawsuit under § 101(a)(3) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 411 (a)(3), to challenge the legality of an organizing fee and a dues increase imposed on Local 166 members by the local union’s umbrella labor organizations. Corns alleges that the labor organizations could not extract these fees without the approval of the Local 166 membership by a secret ballot vote, as provided in § 101(a)(3)(A). We hold that the plain text of the LMRDA authorizes a labor organization, other than a local labor organization or a federation of national or international labor organizations, to levy assessments or increase dues or initiation fees payable by its members by any of the procedures enumerated in § 101(a)(3)(B), provided that union members’ rights are adequately protected in the approval process.

Because Defendant Laborers International Union of North America (“LIUNA”) satisfied both prerequisites in this case, we conclude that it complied with the LMRDA when it enacted an…

concurring in the judgment:

Although I concur in the judgment, I write separately to express my differing views about the proper interpretation of § 101(a)(3) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 411 (a)(3). 1 The major *917 ity concludes that subsections (A) and (B) of § 101(a)(3) “provide alternative methods for increasing dues or initiation fees or levying assessments” payable by members of a local labor organization. Maj. Op. at 910-12. The majority acknowledges that this interpretation leaves open the possibility that it is lawful under the LMRDA for a larger umbrella labor organization to levy dues and fees on the members of a local union — and that union alone— through procedures that do not involve a vote of the local union’s members. Maj. Op. at 916. The majority claims, however, that because the dues increase imposed only on the members of Hod Carriers Local Union No. 166 (“Local 166”) by the delegates to the Northern California District Council of Laborers (“NCDCL”) — an umbrella labor organization that represents Local 166 and other local labor organizations — was unlawful under the NCDCL constitution, there is no need…