JAMES STACHAN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS WEBER ET AL., APPELLEES; CHAUFFEURS UNION LOCAL NO. 265, APPELLANT, V. THOMAS WEBER ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the union cannot exclude members from meetings for refusing to participate in the flag salute and pledge, as this violates the Bill of Rights provisions of the LMRDA.
Union members refused to participate in the flag salute and pledge at the beginning of union meetings. The union attempted to bar these members from a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Labor Management Reporting And Disclosure Act Of 1959 cases and more on FLexlaw
Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and CURTIS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated appeals are from the granting of preliminary injunctions restraining the appellants from interfering with appellees’ attendance at union membership meetings. The appellees are members of the union, in good standing.
The initial portion of the agenda for the union’s business meetings includes a joint flag salute and pledge of allegiance. The appellees refused to participate and remained standing silently. The union undertook to bar the appellees from attending the beginning portion of the meeting. When the appellees refused to leave, the union adjourned the meeting. This practice has continued.
The question presented is whether the Bill of Rights provisions of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(1) and 411(a)(2), prevent the union from applying the challenged sanction, and, conversely, whether the appellees have the right to engage in their questioned conduct at a union meeting.
The District Court correctly held that the union cannot exclude appellees from the meeting. The exclusion would clearly violate the equal rights section of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1). Moreover, the congressional grant of free speech in 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2) protects the conduct of the appellees, however offensive that conduct may have been to other members of the union. There was no showing that the union as a labor institution would be seriously harmed by the failure of appellees to salute the flag or join in the pledge of allegiance. Thus, the union’s restriction on their rights of expression is void. Cf. Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F. 2d 445 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 344, 11 L.Ed.2d 275 (1963).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, 605 F.2d 1228 (2d Cir. 1979)
-
Rollison v. Hotel, 677 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Solomon Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1963)
- Lee v. United States, 375 U.S. 946 (U.S. 1963)
- Caputo v. Salzhandler, 375 U.S. 946 (U.S. 1963)