Kaanta v. Int'l Union

1

THOMAS KAANTA, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant.

No. 24-cv-10362

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 20, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P 12(b)(6) (ECF NO 5)

Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

This is an action asserting violation of Section 101 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C § 411. Plaintiff Thomas Kaanta, a former President of UAW Local 828 and proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendant International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO's interpretation of its Constitution regarding the quorum requirement for meetings violates § 101 of the LMRDA.

Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 5). The motion has been fully briefed.

The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and does not believe that oral argument will aid in its disposition of this matter; therefore it is dispensing with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Facts

For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court takes the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff Thomas Kaanta is the former President of UAW Local 828. (ECF No. 1, Compl., PageID.7 [stating he retired as President on May 13, 2023].) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO's (the “UAW”) interpretation of its Constitution, and specifically Article 37, § 4 of that Constitution, violates § 101 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 411. (Id. PageID.2.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the UAW “acted unreasonably when interpreting the [] Constitution when it held that separate shift meeting attendance should be considered cumulatively in order to determine whether Local 828 satisfied its Quorum requirement for meetings.” (Id.)

Article 37, § 4 of the UAW Constitution contains the rules a local union must follow when it holds shift meetings for membership. (Id. PageID.3-4.) As required by Article 37, § 4 of the UAW Constitution, Local 828 conducts monthly membership meetings. Prior to 2005, Local 828 held a single meeting for all three shifts of members. In 2005, Local 828 went to a split-shift meeting format to accommodate employees that worked a third shift. Following this change, Local 828 held one shift meeting around 7 a.m. for third shift members, suspended it, and then resumed the meeting shift around 3:00 p.m. for members that work the first and second shifts. (Id. PageID.7.)

Prior to 2023, Article 3 of Local 828's bylaws provided that “a quorum of ten members must be present for [the] legal transaction of business.” (Id. PageID.2.) Between 2005 and 2018, Local 828 required that a quorum could only be established when a minimum of ten members were present at each shift meeting. (Id. PageID.7.) But, in 2018, at the direction of the UAW, Local 828 implemented a “combined quorum format” that would permit Local 828 to transact business when the combined total number of members at both shift meetings equaled ten or more members. (Id.)

In October of 2021, due to a lack of attendance at the third shift meeting, Plaintiff notified union members that he would implement a ten-member quorum at each shift meeting. (Id.) In November of 2021, Plaintiff enforced a ten-member quorum at each shift meeting. (Id. PageID.8.) Local 828 membership brought Plaintiff's change to the UAW's attention. (Id.).

On June 1, 2022, the UAW, through International Servicing Representative Brian Bosak, advised Plaintiff that enforcing the ten-member quorum “to each session of the multi shift meeting [violates] the UAW constitution.” (Id.) Bosak explained to Plaintiff that Article 37, § 4 of the UAW Constitution provides that when a local union utilizes shift meetings, all the shift meetings are actually one, and that because the meetings are considered one meeting a combined quorum is reasonable and consistent with the UAW Constitution. (Id. (explaining that “there is only one (1) membership meeting at Local 828, which is comprised of two different sessions”).)

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff again enforced the ten-member quorum requirement on the third shift meeting. The third shift meeting did not meet Plaintiff's quorum and did not transact any business. Later, during the second shift meeting, the ten-member quorum was satisfied and Local 828 conducted the meeting. (Id.)

On June 21, 2022, UAW Regional Director Steve Dawes issued a memorandum to Plaintiff that again explained that the total members in attendance at all shift meetings are to be considered for quorum purposes because Article 37, § 4 provides that all shift meetings are actually one meeting. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that he then “applied the combined quorum format until he retired in May of 2023.” (Id.)

However, Plaintiff contends that on June 29, 2022, members of Local 828 brought internal union charges against him for failing to follow the UAW's directive to apply a combined quorum. (Id.) Plaintiff solicited an opinion from “retired Federal [Administrative Law] Judge William E. Kenworthy, who [was] a parliamentarian”^[1]regarding combined quorums. Kenworthy opined that “such an action would violate the by-laws” and “[t]here is absolutely no provision in Roberts Rules of Order for constituting a quorum requirement based upon the number of members present at successive meetings.” (Id. PageID.8-9.) The UAW ignored this opinion. (Id. PageID.9.)

On July 14, 2022, Bosak advised Plaintiff to challenge the UAW's interpretation of the quorum requirement through the UAW's internal appeal process. (Id.) On July 19 and August 4, 2022, Plaintiff sent requests to UAW President Ray Curry to challenge and appeal the UAW's interpretation of the quorum requirement. (Id.)

On August 9, 2022, Local 828 membership removed Plaintiff from office based on his alleged failure to abide by the UAW Constitution. (Id. PageID.10.) Plaintiff challenged his removal and appealed the Local's charges against him on August 15, 2022. (Id.) On August 29, 2022, the UAW reinstated Plaintiff and allowed him to return to Local 828 as President. (Id.)

On January 20, 2023, the UAW's International Executive Board (IEB) dismissed the charges against Plaintiff. Although the IEB ruled in Plaintiff's favor, he nevertheless appealed the IEB's decision to the UAW Public Review Board (PRB) for a determination of the constitutionality of the combined quorum issue. (Id.).

On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff successfully amended Local 828's bylaws to state that a “combined quorum of ten members must be present for legal transaction of business.” (Id. PageID.3, 10.) The amendment was approved by the UAW and adopted by Local 828. (Id. at PageID.10.)

Plaintiff retired as the Local 828 President and left office on May 13, 2023. (Id. PageID.7).

On June 20, 2023, the IEB issued a decision on Plaintiff's appeal regarding the interpretation of the quorum requirement, denying Plaintiff's appeal on the grounds that it was untimely. (Id. (stating that Plaintiff was “aware of the action forming the basis of the appeal when regional director Dawes provided an interpretation of the quorum requirements on 6/21/22.”).)

On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff appealed the IEB's decision to the PRB. (Id. PageID.11.) On November 9, 2023, the PRB ruled in favor of the UAW. (Id. PageID.11, 24-25.) The PRB found that although Article 37, § 4 of the UAW Constitution does not address quorum requirements, § 4(1)(2) of the Constitution states that “the succeeding meeting cannot introduce another motion on the same subject inasmuch as all the shift meetings are actually one.” (Id. PageID.4, 13, 2425.) The PRB found that since § 4(1)(2) treats all shift meetings as one it logically follows that the shift meetings should be considered as one for quorum purposes. (Id. PageID.13-14, 24-25.)

B. Procedural History

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant UAW under Title I of the LMRDA to “put the enforcement of the quorum [rule] in plain sight, at all shift meetings and place the rule of order, the quorum, first and foremost at every meeting to restore the rule of order.” (ECF No. 1, Compl., PageID.15.)

Plaintiff requests that the Court rule that “the UAW is violating its very own Constitution by adding the quorum sum of all local union meetings to establish a quorum.” (Id.)

On March 8, 2024, Defendant UAW filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 5, Def. Mot.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege that the UAW discriminated against him, deprived him of any rights, or retaliated against him for conduct protected by the LMRDA, and thus fails to contain any allegations that the UAW violated his equal rights under § 411(a)(1) of the LMRDA, or that the UAW violated his speech rights under § 411(a)(2) of the LMRDA.

On March 11, 2024, the Court entered an Order Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, affording Plaintiff the opportunity to cure any purported deficiencies in his Complaint by filing an amended complaint within 14 days of the entry of the order. (ECF No. 6.) The Court warned however, that “[i]f Plai...