The opinion of the court was delivered by: REVERCOMB
GEORGE H. REVERCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter came before the Court on plaintiff Secretary of Labor and plaintiff-intervenor James McGee's motion for preliminary injunction. The Court having considered the parties' memoranda and the affidavits and evidence filed in support thereof, and oral argument being heard on October 23, 1989, it is hereby ordered that plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED and that the injunctive relief here granted is permanent.
The material facts of this case are undisputed.
In June 1988, the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees ("NAPFE" or "the Union") conducted its regularly-scheduled national and district officer elections. Joint Statement, pars. 5, 6. In the race for National President, Robert White defeated James McGee and, Comer Cash defeated Charles Denson in the vice presidential contest. Id., par. 6. McGee and six other individuals thereafter challenged the election results by filing complaints with the Union and the Secretary of Labor. NAPFEA agreed to rerun the election. Id., pars. 7-10. This election was supervised by the Department of Labor and eventually concluded on March 11, 1989. See Affid. of Louis Blackmon (Sept. 1989), p. 1; Affid. of Louis Blackmon (Oct. 1989), pars. 6-12; Affid. of Robert White, p. 3; Board Minutes3 (Jan. 1989) pp. 19-23, Memo., dated Jan. 29, 1989; Board Minutes (April 1989), pp.9-11; Joint Statement, par. 13, Exh. D-1.
The rerun election produced dramatically different results than the first election -- presidential candidate McGee defeated White and vice presidential candidate Denson defeated Cash. Joint Statement, par. 14, Exh. E. NAPFE, however, refused to honor these results (id., par. 18); and White and Cash filed complaints with the Secretary of Labor. Id., par. 16, Exhs. F-1, F-2. After investigating these complaints, the Secretary concluded that "the winning candidates from the [March 1989] rerun election . . . were duly elected and should be installed in office as soon as practicable, but no later than Friday, July 7, 1989." Id., par. 17, Exh. G. The Secretary provided the complainants and the Union with a Statement of Reasons which outlined the basis of her ruling. Id., Exh. G, (hereinafter referred to as " Statement of Reasons ").
Despite the Secretary's findings, NAPFE still refuses to install McGee and Denson and instead seeks to rerun the election yet another time. The Secretary and McGee have filed suit, asking the Court to issue an injunction directing defendant NAPFE to honor the March 1989 election results.
In oral argument, counsel for defendant NAPFE for the first time challenged this Court's jurisdiction, claiming that no complaint had been filed with the Secretary of Labor. See 29 U.S.C. § 482.
Defendant's challenge, however, lacks merit.
The Department of Labor closely supervised the March rerun election and thereby retained jurisdiction over challenges to the results. See e.g. Donovan v. Local 6, Washington Teachers' Union, 241 U.S. App. D.C. 274, 747 F.2d 711 (D.C.Cir. 1984); Marshall v. Local U. No. 639, Intern. Bro., Etc., 193 U.S. App. D.C. 143, 593 F.2d 1297, 1298-1299 (D.C.Cir. 1979). Consequently, both White and Cash filed complaints regarding the rerun election with the Secretary of Labor who investigated and ruled on the matter.
See Joint Statement, par. 16, Exhs. F-1, F-2; Board Minutes (April 1989), p. 11. This court now has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Secretary's attempts to enforce the election results. 29 U.S.C. § 482(b); see e.g., Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 44 L. Ed. 2d 377, 95 S. Ct. 1851 (1975); Shelley v. Brock, 253 U.S. App. D.C. 382, 793 F.2d 1368 (D.C.Cir. 1986).
A preliminary injunction should issue only upon a showing that 1) plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits; 2) plaintiff will be irreparably injured if injunctive relief is not granted; 3) that a balancing of hardships tips in favor of the plaintiff; and 4) that the public interest will be served by the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief. Virginia Petroleum Job. Ass'n v. Federal Power Com'n, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir. 1958).
Here, it is abundantly clear that plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. Defendant challenges the March 1989 election on one ground only -- that the NAPFE National Secretary failed to provide the NAPFE Election Committee with a single, self-contained list of certified eligible voters and their current addresses. The Secretary of Labor has already examined this issue -- finding that the absence of a single list neither constituted an election violation nor affected the outcome of the election