the validity of an election that has already been completed." Id. at 541.
It is true that plaintiff does not challenge the validity of the election, but wants only to briefly delay the winners from taking office. Still, the remedy she seeks, an injunction nullifying the installation of duly elected officers, is one reserved to actions under Title IV. It is the nature of relief requested that is the crucial factor under Crowley. See 467 U.S. at 543, 550.
The rationale of Crowley is equally applicable to Title V suits. When a union election has already been completed, a member's only avenue to challenge the results of that election is a complaint to the Secretary of Labor after the exhaustion of internal union remedies. Given the specificity and clarity of the statutory language of Title IV, there is no reason to believe that Congress intended the courts to interfere with the results of the election, even in the limited way that plaintiffs suggest here, in a case arising under Title V. Congress could have inserted a provision in Title V authorizing this type of injunctive relief. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that it ever considered doing so. See generally U.S. Dep't of Labor, Legislative History of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, at 841-1084 (1964).
The cases cited by plaintiff in support of her position that the Court has authority to grant the suggested injunctive relief are simply not on point. This Court in Cefalo v. Moffett, 333 F. Supp. 1283 (D.D.C.), aff'd in part, 146 U.S. App. D.C. 117, 449 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1971), enjoined a union convention from voting on a proposed merger with another union while Title V charges were pending against its president.
Similar relief was granted in Fry v. Bingel, 116 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2165 (N.D. Cal. 1984), although the injunction was based on the plaintiffs' probability of success on their Title I claims, rather than their allegations under Title V. See id. at 2168. Neither of these decisions interfered with the results of elections regulated by Title IV. Indeed, the injunction in Fry tended to protect and further the will of union members as expressed in a recent election. See id. at 2166, 2168. The other cases relied on by plaintiff in her briefs are similarly, if not more, inapposite.
Section 501(b) comtemplates that unions should be given the opportunity to take action against officers accused of wrongdoing. For this reason, unions have been granted leave to intervene as plaintiffs in Title V proceedings after they have been commenced by a member. See O'Connor v. Freyman, 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2387, 2391 (D.D.C. 1985). Consideration by the union of a member's complaint, however, is not the "central provision of the entire statute." Plaintiff's Corrected Reply Memorandum at 3. In fact, Congress recognized that a complaint to the union itself will often be unavailing since the very officers accused of wrongdoing may be in control of the decision whether to file suit or take other action. Individual members are therefore permitted to bring suit in district court after making a request of the union. Full "exhaustion" is not required. Purcell v. Keane, 406 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1969). While plaintiff, as a member of the old Board, might prefer that she have an opportunity to participate in the union's decision whether to take action against defendants and to debate directly with other members of the Board, she is not without remedy if instead the new Board considers and refuses to support her charges. Indeed, in granting plaintiff leave to file her own Title V complaint, Judge Greene found that plaintiff had met the prerequisite of requesting without success that the union take action on her claims. The injunction she requests is not a "remedy required to eliminate the claimed statutory violation," Crowley, 467 U.S. at 550, much less an appropriate one.
It should also be noted that granting the injunction would cause the old Board to remain in office beyond the scheduled expiration of their terms, a result that the Crowley Court disapproved. 467 U.S. at 551. Article V, section 3 of the Union's bylaws provides that "the term of office, for all officers, shall be three (3) years from the date of installation." This is consistent with the LMRDA's requirement that a union shall elect its officers at least once every three years. 29 U.S.C. § 481(b). Local 25's old Board was installed on June 21, 1983, and its three year term therefore expired on June 23, 1986.
It was therefore a logical interpretation of the bylaws, not a "mistake of fact" as urged by plaintiff's counsel, see Tr., June 26, 1986, at 6, that the Union was bound to install the new Board on that date.
Plaintiff argues that since Article VIII, section 1 of the bylaws provides that the Executive board shall meet monthly, her election to that body "guaranteed" her the right to participate in 36 monthly meetings. She believes that the installation of the new officers before the June Executive Board meeting violates that right and also conflicts with the instruction of the International Union that the installation should not take place before the fourth week of June. See Plaintiff's Complaint, Exhibit 23(b). It is unnecessary to recite here other tangentially relevant facts and the involved theory by which plaintiff reaches this conclusion. Even accepting plaintiff's contention that the installation of the new Board before the June meeting was politically motivated, defendants' straightforward application of the Union bylaws was reasonable and will not be disturbed.
In sum, the relief requested by plaintiff is barred by the language and rationale of Title IV of the LMRDA, unsupported by caselaw under Title V, and not compelled by the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, it is this 2nd day of July, 1986,
That this Court's order entered on June 24, 1986, allowing the installation of Local 25's officers to take place, shall remain in effect.
That the defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint by July 21, 1986.