(b) Neither plaintiff was attacked either directly or indirectly in any issue of the I.T. Sheldon v. O'Callaghan, supra at 325.
(c) Neither plaintiff holds an official position with the international union or with an affiliated organization which would merit coverage in the I.T. Yablonski v. UMW, supra at 868.
(d) The plaintiffs have not participated in any newsworthy, non-political activities which merit coverage in the I.T. Hodgson v. UMW, supra at 17.
(e) The few references to "dissidents" in the I.T. appear randomly throughout the various issues, and coincide with events rather than elections. At times, months lie between such comments.
(f) The I.T. does not evidence a consistent concentrated practice of undue and excessive coverage of incumbent officers, and denigration of dissidents, as to cross that fine line which distinguishes proper reporting of union activities from re-election campaigning by defendant incumbents. Murphy v. Operating Engineers, Local 18, supra at 2123. The facts herein are completely distinguishable from those in Yablonski, supra.
7. Defendants have not been requested by plaintiffs to distribute by mail or otherwise at plaintiffs' expense campaign literature in aid of plaintiffs' candidacies to all members in good standing.
8. Since the I.T. is not campaign literature, defendants through the publication of the I.T. have not discriminated in favor or against any candidate with respect to the use of membership lists.
9. The plaintiffs have failed to meet the burden of establishing that injunctive relief is warranted and have failed to meet the criteria for granting such relief. U.S. v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953).
10. The relief requested by plaintiffs, i.e., the nationwide mailing at union expense of plaintiffs' campaign literature and the inclusion of such literature on the basis of equal space and prominence in future issues of the I.T., is beyond the authority of this court to grant, would compel the International Union to violate § 401(g) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 481(g), and would infringe upon the union's First Amendment rights. Yablonski v. UMW, supra at 868; Yablonski v. UMW, 307 F. Supp. 1227 (D.D.C. 1969); Sheldon v. O'Callaghan, supra at 328; Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, Local No. 2, supra at 1377.
An order consistent with the foregoing has been entered this day.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.