The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
This is a suit by a member of a union seeking damages and injunctive relief for violation of rights guaranteed by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 411-415. Defendants appear
to be the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Brotherhood); Local No. 8 of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Local); and Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity (District Council) which is composed of a number of locals (including No. 8) of the Brotherhood in the Philadelphia area.
The suit arises out of charges leveled against plaintiff by the Union, his trial thereon before the trial committee of District Council, and his subsequent expulsion from the Union. The proceedings before me are on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction seeking restoration to membership pending final hearing. Defendant District Council has moved to dismiss the action on the ground, inter alia, that Brotherhood is an indispensable party and since it has not been served, the Court is without jurisdiction. See Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Co. v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 365 F.2d 802 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. granted sub nom. Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Co. v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 940, 17 L. Ed. 2d 872, 87 S. Ct. 972 (1967).
Brotherhood as Indispensable Party
In the proceeding before the trial committee of the District Council, plaintiff was charged with and found guilty of three offenses against the Union: (1) publishing willful libels concerning members of Brotherhood; (2) divulging the business of District Council to unauthorized persons; and (3) assault and battery on two members of Brotherhood. The charges were brought pursuant to Section 55A of the Constitution and Laws of Brotherhood
which lists as offenses:
"(1) Causing dissension among the members of the United Brotherhood.
"(5) Willful slander or libel of an officer or any other member of the United Brotherhood.
"(8) Divulging to any unauthorized person, the business of any subordinate body without its consent.
"(13) Violating the Obligation."
Plaintiff contends that he had the right to make the statements attributed to him and the Union lacked power to try him for making them, see Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946, 11 L. Ed. 2d 275, 84 S. Ct. 344 (1963), and further, that he was denied the full and fair hearing required by 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a)(5).
The alternative claims are intertwined. The assertion of the first squarely places in issue the validity of certain of the provisions of the constitution of the Brotherhood, making it an indispensable party to these proceedings. Keenan v. Metropolitan Dist. Council, 266 F. Supp. 497, November 28, 1966 (E.D. Pa.),
appeal dismissed, No. 16524, 3d Cir., June 13, 1967. As stated by my colleague, Senior Judge Kirkpatrick, in Keenan, a case similar in many respects to the instant case:
"'The distilled essence of the cases discussed is that one whose interests or rights will be adversely affected by the outcome of an action has a substantive right to be joined as a party, and that the right forecloses a trial court from proceeding "to a final decision of the cause" until he is joined as a party.' Provident Tradesmens Bank and Trust Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., supra 365 F.2d at 809]. * * * Obviously, any judgment in favor of the plaintiff based upon his claimed right to slander other members would necessarily involve a ruling that the relevant provision of the Brotherhood's governing statutes is invalid. The Brotherhood has a definite interest in maintaining the integrity of the laws of ...