United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Brown
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
343 F.2d 872 (1965)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Local 201 (the union) (plaintiff) in Wichita, Kansas, was a subordinate body of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (UBC) (defendant), an international labor organization. The union members were at one point in favor of forming a district council with other local unions in Wichita, the primary benefit of which would be to save members from paying a fee that would otherwise be required to work on missile sites. Affiliating with the district council would also, however, require an increase of monthly dues for union members. Learning this, the union’s members voted to (1) oppose the increase in monthly dues and (2) disaffiliate with the district council. The president of UBC ordered the union to affiliate with the district council and increase dues. The union failed to comply. Thereafter, UBC placed the union in a trusteeship and appointed a trustee to execute the president’s orders. UBC’s constitution and bylaws reserved a general right for UBC to regulate the affairs of subordinate bodies but contained no specific provision authorizing the imposition of trusteeships. The union filed suit against UBC, and a district court found that the trusteeship was invalid. UBC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, 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.