Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving Drivers v. Crowley
United States Supreme Court
467 U.S. 526 (1984)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
There was a pending officer election set to occur in December 1980 for Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving Drivers (the union) (defendant). Before the election, several union members were excluded from a union meeting to nominate candidates because the union members could not produce a computerized receipt showing their dues payment. In addition, although challenger John Lynch claimed to have been nominated for the position of secretary-treasurer, ballots distributed to union members named Lynch as a nominee for the position of president. Based on these events, Jerome Crowley and other challenging union members (plaintiffs) sued the union in district court, alleging violations of their rights protected under Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) as follows: (1) violation of equal rights to nominate candidates and attend union meetings and (2) violation of their freedom of expression at union meetings. The district court ordered the distributed and mostly completed ballots to be sealed and delivered to court, preventing a ballot count. Invoking Title I jurisdiction, the court further invalidated the ballots and selected an outside arbitrator to conduct a new election. On appeal, the secretary of labor intervened on the union’s behalf. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s injunction. The matter came before the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.