Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Union Member Required To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Suing His Union

Union Member Required To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Suing His Union
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2009, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Paulino v. New York Printing Pressman, ___F.3d___(2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2008) involves certain important principles under the LMRDA. Specifically, that a union can discipline its members, union members are entitled to a hearing, but that they must first exhaust administrative remedies. As the court explained:

Paulino also claims that the Union unlawfully suspended him without a full and fair hearing in violation of the LMRDA. The LMRDA requires that no member can be suspended from a union, except for failure to pay dues, without written notice, a reasonable time to prepare his defense, and a full and fair hearing. 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5). But, before legal proceedings can be brought, any union member can be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures within his or her union. 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(4).

The requirement that a plaintiff exhaust internal union remedies under the LMRDA lies within the court's discretion. Maddalone v. Local 17, 152 F.3d 178, 186 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). The district court found that Paulino had failed to exhaust his internal union remedies, noting that, while Paulino did write letters to the Union president and to the International Union, none of these letters complained about not being given a full and fair hearing prior to his alleged suspension. Paulino, 2007 WL 1345234, at *6, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33885, at *21-*24.

The district court was correct in finding Paulino has not exhausted his internal union remedies:

Paulino has never raised his claim that he was wrongfully suspended from the Union with the Union. Because there is no evidence that the Union officials in this case are so hostile to Paulino that there is no chance the Union would provide Paulino with a fair hearing, that the Union's internal procedures are inadequate, or that exhaustion of his remedies within the Union structure would unreasonably delay his opportunity to obtain a judicial hearing, the district court correctly granted summary judgment because Paulino has not exhausted his union remedies. See Schermerhorn v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 91 F.3d 316, 325 (2d Cir. 1996). Paulino's argument that going through the administrative process would have been futile is unsupported.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 09, 2009 (boomark / email).