Corns v. Laborers Int'l Union, et al, No. 11-15737 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a now-retired member of Local 166, filed suit under section 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 organizations. The court held that the plain text of the LMRDA authorized 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 section 101(a)(3)(B), provided that union members' rights were adequately protected in the approval process. Because Defendant LIUNA satisfied both prerequisites in this case, the court concluded that it complied with the LMRDA when it enacted an organizing fee, applicable to all of its members working in the construction industry, following a majority vote of its delegates at a general convention. The court held, however, that Defendant NCDCL lacked the statutory authority to ratify such an increase because Local 166 members were not members of the NCDCL. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: 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 the local’s members did not approve these fees by a secret ballot vote, as provided in LMRDA § 101(a)(3)(A). Affirming in part, the panel held 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 LMRDA § 101(a)(3)(B), provided that union members’ rights are adequately protected in the approval process. The panel held that the defendant international union complied with the LMRDA when it enacted an organizing fee, applicable to all of its members working in the construction industry, following a majority vote of its delegates at a national convention. Reversing in part, the panel held that another defendant labor organization, which functioned as an intermediate body between the international union and a group of local unions, lacked the statutory authority to ratify a dues increase because the local union members were not members of that organization. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Bybee wrote separately to express his differing views about the proper interpretation of LMRDA § 101(a)(3). He wrote that subsections (A) and (B) of § 101(a)(3) do not offer alternative methods for imposing levies, but rather offer the only lawful methods for imposing dues and fees payable by members of distinct types of labor organizations. Accordingly, levies payable only by members of a local union can only be lawfully approved under the procedures provided in subsection (A), requiring approval by a secret ballot vote of the local.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.