Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 22 v. Kavanagh, 443 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2015). This opinion by Judge Currier today addressed an appeal by defendant, a former member of the plaintiff labor union, of a $115,000 fine for violations of the union’s constitution. The Law Division had granted summary judgment to the union, upholding the fine and rejecting numerous arguments by defendant. On appeal, Judge Currier upheld the finding below that defendant had violated the constitution, rejected most of defendant’s contentions as unworthy of discussion, disagreed with two arguments that were worth of being addressed, but remanded for reconsideration of the amount of the fine.
The union’s constitution was a contract that was enforceable in court. Defendant argued that because he had resigned from the union before the hearing on his conduct (conduct that occurred before he resigned), the union had no power to discipline him. Judge Currier did not agree. The union constitution expressly provided for discipline of former members, and the Appellate Division had stated in N. Jersey Newspaper Guild v. Rakos, 110 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 1970), that “a union member must leave the union prior to his violation of the union’s rule if he is to avoid being disciplined therefor.” Thus, the union had the power to discipline defendant here.
Defendant also complained that the union had denied him due process because it did not allow him to bring an attorney to the hearing, a hearing that defendant then boycotted because he could not appear with counsel. But Judge Currier noted that the union’s constitution addressed the issue of counsel, allowing “an accused party to select any good standing member of his or any other local union as his counsel.” The court was to enforce that provision, like any other contractual clause, and Judge Currier cited numerous cases from other jurisdictions that had likewise limited union members’ right to counsel in accordance with the union’s rules. Defendant therefore had no right to counsel from outside the union.
Turning to the amount of the fine, Judge Currier observed that an arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied. A fine may not be “unreasonably large.” After reviewing Rakos, the most recent New Jersey case to address the issue of the appropriate amount of a fine for violation of union rules, and authorities from outside New Jersey, Judge Currier cited five factors that are relevant to the analysis: “1) the conduct for which the fine was imposed; 2) the extent to which the member benefited or profited; 3) the calculation of the fine; 4) the harm to the union and its members; and 5) the current economic conditions.” The panel remanded the case to the Law Division to evaluate the fine under those criteria, while affirming the remainder of the Law Division’s rulings.