has suffered irreparable injury, is threatened with further irreparable injury and has no adequate remedy at law.
11. The public interest in fair union elections, as reflected in the Landrum-Griffin Act, will be furthered by the granting of injunctive relief.
12. There are no countervailing considerations of public or private policy which militate against the issuance of injunctive relief.
Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in order to restrain continued use of the membership lists in a manner discriminatory to plaintiff. 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(c).
2. The criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief have been met in this case. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. F.P.C., 104 U.S. App. D.C. 106, 110; 259 F.2d 921, (1958); see also A Quaker Action Group v. Hickel, U.S. App. D.C.(slip opinion, June 24, 1969).
3. The use of the Journal to discriminate in favor of the candidacy of defendant Boyle constitutes a discriminatory use of the union's membership list, employed in the Journal's distribution, in violation of 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(c).
4. The specific relief requested by plaintiff (slip op. page 2 supra) cannot be granted because:
(a) It would require this Court to order defendants to print copy supplied by plaintiff, in clear violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press;
(b) 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(c), upon which plaintiff relies for this Court's jurisdiction to consider his claim, does not authorize this type of relief;
(c) 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(g), which prohibits the use of union funds to promote the candidacy of any person and therefore makes it unlawful to use union funds to supply publication of the Journal when used as a campaign instrument, is enforceable only through suit by the Secretary of Labor under Section 482, and thus does not confer authority upon this Court to grant such remedy. Wirtz v. Independent Workers Union of Florida, 272 F. Supp. 31 (M.D. Fla. 1967); see also Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel and Club Emp. Union, Local No. 6, 391 U.S. 492, 20 L. Ed. 2d 763, 88 S. Ct. 1743 (1964).
(d) If this Court were to grant the requested relief, it might be to compel defendants further to violate the provisions of 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(g).
(e) The F.C.C. "fairness doctrine," upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371, 89 S. Ct. 1794 (1969), is applicable only to radio and television broadcasting media and is not applicable to this case.
5. Fair and comparable treatment of the activities of both plaintiff Yablonski and defendant Boyle in the future will not only avoid the present discriminatory use of the membership lists of the UMWA in violation of 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(c) but also will not run counter to the provisions of 29 U.S.C.A. § 481(g) which prohibits the use of union funds to promote the candidacy of any person.
Pursuant to this Court's Memorandum of September 15, 1969, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued this day, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, that:
1. The defendants, the United Mine Workers of America, W.A. (Tony) Boyle and Justin McCarthy, are enjoined and restrained from discrimination in the use of the membership lists of the United Mine Workers of America, for or against any candidate for any office in the United Mine Workers of America; and specifically they are ordered to refrain from discrimination in the use of said membership lists in the distribution of the United Mine Workers Journal as a campaign instrument in favor of the candidacy of defendant W.A. (Tony) Boyle, for the office of President of the United Mine Workers of America.
2. The defendants shall use the UMWA membership lists to distribute to the union membership on or before October 1, 1969, the entire text of these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order.
3. This preliminary injunction shall be in force until a trial of this case on the merits has been held or until modified or dissolved by this Court, or until the election is held on December 9, 1969, whichever first occurs.
4. The present bond posted under the temporary restraining order shall remain in effect to cover damages and costs incurred by defendants should they prevail on the merits.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.