The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH
This is an action under Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 482, to declare void the February 11, 1969 election of the District Director of United Steelworkers of America District 19. The applicant, William J. Hart, was elected in that district election, and has filed a motion to intervene as a defendant, individually and in his official capacity of Director. We think the applicant should be permitted to intervene only as an individual to protect his personal interests.
Rule 24(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides:
"Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties."
The cases cited by plaintiff for the proposition that a complaining union member may not intervene as a plaintiff
are distinguishable from the present case. The statutory scheme envisages the Secretary as the only person capable of prosecuting a Title IV action so that interference with union elections and management might be kept at a minimum. Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 140, 13 L. Ed. 2d 190, 85 S. Ct. 292 (1964). This scheme would not necessarily be upset by allowing an interested incumbent to intervene as a defendant. Cf. Wirtz v. Teamsters Industrial & Allied Emp. U. Local No. 73, 257 F. Supp. 784, 790 (N.D. Ohio 1966).
The defendant in this action is the United Steelworkers of America and not District 19 of the United Steelworkers of America. Although Hart has not pointed to any particular area in which his interests would not be protected by the defendant labor organization,
it is obvious that the interests of the applicant, whose election is challenged, may not be identical with the interests of the defendant organization. The applicant is so situated that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect his property interests, and it is quite possible that the defendant organization as an entity may not adequately represent the property interests of the applicant as an individual.
An appropriate order will be entered.
And Now, to-wit, this 9th day of April, 1970, after argument and upon due consideration of the briefs submitted, It Is Ordered that the Motion to Intervene be and the same hereby is granted insofar as it requests intervention by William J. Hart as an individual in his own right, and said motion be and the same hereby is denied insofar as it requests intervention by William J. Hart as Director of District 19.
It Is Further Ordered that the Answer attached to the motion and marked Exhibit B be and the same hereby is filed as the answer of William J. Hart as an individual in his own right, but all allegations and references therein pertaining to the official capacity of William J. Hart as Director of District 19 be and the same hereby are stricken.
It Is Further Ordered that the intervenor shall comply with the Order of Court Fixing Pretrial Procedure heretofore filed, insofar as it is applicable to him, and he shall file his narrative written ...