[Download] "Paul W. Miller v. Henry B. Holden" by United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Paul W. Miller v. Henry B. Holden
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Release Date : January 23, 1976
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
Plaintiffs complaint seeks legal and equitable relief against the impending (since consummated) termination of plaintiff from his employment as Training Coordinator for the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local No. 198 Education Trust (hereinafter "the Trust"). This termination was allegedly in retaliation for plaintiffs support of an unsuccessful candidate for the office of Business Manager of the local union, an office won by defendant Pearson Holden. The named defendants are the Trust, the local union, four union members (three of whom serve as trustees by virtue of their election by the local union membership), and one management-appointed trustee who allegedly succumbed to pressure to vote in favor of discharging the plaintiff. The complaint asserts that the unions improper use of influence against the Trust and the trustees reaction to that influence represented a violation of 29 U.S.C. §Â§ 158(a)(1), 158(a)(3), 158(b)(1)(A), and 158(b)(2) (1970) (the National Labor Relations Act claims). The same conduct is characterized as violative of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §Â§ 411(a)(1), 411(a)(2), and 411(a)(5) (1970) (the Title I, LMRDA, or Landrum-Griffin Act claims). The district court held a hearing on plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. After considering argument and testimony of Pearson Holden further clarifying the relationship between the Trust and the local union, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. During argument before us, plaintiff abandoned his claims against the individual defendants, and we do not consider them. We agree that there is no jurisdiction to hear the claims against plaintiffs employer, the Trust, but we reverse with respect to two claims against the local union.