Nunes v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters And Joiners of America

Background

Jeffrey Souza Nunes sued the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Joseph Geiger, Cord Contracting, Inc., and Eurotech Construction Corp. The defendants moved to dismiss Nunes’s First Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting the motions and recommended limited permission to amend certain claims. Nunes objected to portions of the recommendation and attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Claims and analysis

The court considered claims under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which protects certain union-member rights and requires basic fairness in union disciplinary proceedings, and under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), including a hybrid Section 301/duty-of-fair-representation claim involving an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement.

For the LMRDA claim concerning punishment for advocating a strike, the court held that the statute’s protection for union members’ speech is subject to a provision allowing unions to enforce reasonable rules concerning members’ responsibilities and conduct that interferes with the union’s legal or contractual obligations. Because the collective bargaining agreement contained a no-strike provision, the court concluded that Nunes’s conduct fell within that exception and that he failed to state a claim.

For the LMRDA claims concerning the union disciplinary trial, the court held that the trial procedures were required by a consent decree and that Nunes did not show that their use violated his rights. The court also held that the admission of Anthony Madaio’s affidavit did not support a claim because union disciplinary hearings need not follow the technical rules of evidence. Nunes did not allege facts showing that the lack of cross-examination or a proposed instruction about the affidavit seriously increased the risk of an incorrect result. His allegations of committee bias were also conclusory and lacked specific supporting facts. The court stated that the LMRDA claims against Geiger failed for the same reasons.

The court agreed that Nunes’s duty-of-fair-representation claim was time-barred. It also dismissed the hybrid Section 301/duty-of-fair-representation claims against the District Council, Cord Contracting, and Eurotech. Although the proposed Second Amended Complaint identified collective-bargaining-agreement provisions, it continued to allege collusion only in conclusory terms. The court also adopted the recommendation to dismiss Nunes’s claims against the United Brotherhood because he had not addressed that defendant’s motion and therefore had abandoned those claims. The LMRDA claims against Cord Contracting and Eurotech were dismissed because those claims could not be brought against private employers.

Ruling

The court reviewed the contested objections under the required fresh review standard and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. It adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation in full and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court denied Nunes leave to amend because the Second Amended Complaint remained deficient and another amendment would be futile. The opinion does not state that the dismissals were with or without prejudice.