Reference no: EM131281396

Kay Rollinson had long been an outspoken critic of the leadership in Local 879 of the Hotel Employees Union. After a local election in which she was elected vice president, Rollinson filed charges with the international union, alleging certain violations of the union constitution and the LMRDA.

The inter national union ordered a new election, and this time Rollinson chose to run for financial secretary/business agent. Shortly before the election, however, a local trial board found her guilty of using foul language toward union officers; accusing officers of illegal actions; holding unauthorized meetings in the ladies' room; disseminating information to members containing derogatory remarks about union officers; beating on the office door of the business agent; and creating an atmosphere of distrust, ill will, and disservice.

The trial board suspended her from active membership for one year, fined her $850, and barred her from union meetings. Without fully appealing the discipline through union procedures, Rollinson petitioned the U.S. district court to enjoin the union from disciplining her, as her activity was protected under LMRDA's "Bill of Rights." She also requested the court to order her attorney fees to be paid by the union. The union argued that Rollinson was not entitled to relief in court until she exhausted the appeals process within the union and that under no circumstances was she entitled to attorney fees. Is Rollinson entitled to the relief she has requested from the court? Decide. [Rollinson v. Hotel Employees, Local 879, 110 LRRM 2489 (9th Cir.)] .

Three members of the Dallas area local of the American Postal Workers Union asked the Secretary of Labor to set aside a union election, pursuant to Section 401(e) and Section 402(b) of the LMRDA. The members challenged the validity of a provision of the union constitution that required candidates for any union office to have attended 12 regular union meetings within the 24 months prior to election in order to be eligible for nomination to any union office.

This provision rendered 2,544 (97.85 percent) of the union's 2,600 members ineligible for nomination because they did not comply with the meeting attendance requirement. The union insisted that its requirement was a reasonable qualification for candidacy under Section 401(e), as it guaranteed an informed union leadership and encouraged attendance at meetings. Should the election be set aside? Explain your decision.