Charles E. Shelley v. William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor
253 U.S. App. D.C. 382, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3005, 793 F.2d 1368 (1986)
Rule of Law:
The Secretary of Labor's decision not to sue to set aside a union election under the LMRDA is subject to judicial review under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, requiring an adequate statement of reasons that clarifies whether a violation occurred and if it likely affected the election outcome, without relying on improper factors like resource limitations or union promises.
Facts:
- The Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees (BRAC) held an election in 1983.
- A split developed in BRAC's leadership, and an insurgent slate emerged, but the incumbent president and his slate won.
- BRAC did not allow retired union members, who retained their local affiliation, to participate in the selection of their local's convention delegate.
- BRAC calculated the voting weight for each local at the convention based on the local's roster of both active members and retirees.
- To enable smaller locals to vote at the convention, BRAC "assigned" members to those locals, a practice consistent with long-standing past practice, to meet the 150-member requirement for convention representation.
- Union members alleged that the incumbent slate improperly used union funds and facilities in aid of its election campaign.
Procedural Posture:
- BRAC members (plaintiffs) unsuccessfully protested the result of the 1983 union election to the Union’s Executive Council.
- Pursuant to section 402 of the LMRDA, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging improprieties in the election.
- The Secretary of Labor investigated the plaintiffs’ allegations but declined to bring a civil action to set aside the election, issuing a "First Statement" and a "Second Statement" of reasons.
- After the Secretary’s decision, the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus in the District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Secretary to sue.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Secretary Brock (who had been substituted for former Secretary Donovan), finding that the Secretary’s decision not to sue was proper and neither arbitrary nor capricious.
- The BRAC members then appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Secretary of Labor provide an adequately reasoned basis, reviewable under the arbitrary and capricious standard, when declining to bring suit under the LMRDA to set aside a union election, where the explanation for the decision relies on ambiguous findings, improper considerations, and an unclear application of the "may have affected the outcome" standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Mikva, Circuit Judge
No, the Secretary of Labor did not provide an adequately reasoned basis for declining to sue, particularly regarding the member-shifting practice. The court found the Secretary's statement concerning the transfer of union members inadequate because it failed to explicitly state whether the practice violated the LMRDA and did not clearly apply the statutory standard of whether the violation "probably infected the challenged election." The Secretary's reasoning was deemed a "hodge-podge of considerations" that did not permit even deferential judicial review. The court clarified that the Secretary's discretion to decline suit is not merely a mathematical calculation of affected votes; it extends to technical violations that clearly did not affect the election outcome. However, the court explicitly stated that the Secretary's consideration of limited resources and a union's promise not to repeat violations are improper factors for declining to sue under the LMRDA, as the Secretary's discretion is distinct from that of a criminal prosecutor. The court upheld the Secretary's determination that excluding retirees from delegate selection was permissible, citing deference to agency interpretations (29 C.F.R. § 452.93) and the distinct interests of retirees, as recognized in Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. It also affirmed the Secretary's conclusion that counting retired members for delegate vote weighting was reasonable, drawing an analogy to congressional apportionment. Finally, the court found the Secretary's conclusion regarding the reciprocal use of union funds by both slates to be a reasonable exercise of discretion, despite the prose being "inelegant," as it indicated a belief that the violations did not affect the election's outcome.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope and reviewability of the Secretary of Labor's discretion under the LMRDA, reinforcing the Dunlop v. Bachowski standard. It establishes that while the Secretary's role is primary, the decision not to sue is not unreviewable prosecutorial discretion and demands a clear, statutorily-grounded explanation. The ruling particularly restricts the Secretary from using practical considerations like limited resources or union promises as justifications for inaction. By delineating acceptable and unacceptable factors, the court guides future agency action and statements of reasons, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the enforcement of union democracy protections.
