Cherie Mancini Vs SEIU's Trusteeship of SEIU Nevada: 8-9-2017

Case 2:17-cv-02137-MMD-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 37
MICHAEL J. MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ.

1
Nevada Bar No.: 14082
2 4539 Paseo Del Ray
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
3 Telephone: (702) 299-5083
Michael.mcavoyamaya@gmail.com
4 Attorney for Plaintiffs
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7 * * * *
8 CHERIE MANCINI, individually, and

FREDERICK GUSTAFSON, as a member and CASE NO.:
9 on behalf of CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION dba NEVADA
10 SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION aka SEIU
LOCAL 1107, a non-profit cooperative
11 corporation,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 vs. PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED
14
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL RELIEF
UNION, a nonprofit cooperative corporation;
15
LUISA BLUE, in her official capacity as (TRIAL ON THE MERITS PURSUANT TO
16
trustee; Mary Henry, in her official capacity as FRCP 65 REQUESTED)
International President; DOES; and ROE
17 CORPORATIONS 1-20, inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
COME NOW, Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney of record, MICHAEL
20
MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ., and hereby submit this Complaint and allege as follows:
21
22
I. INTRODUCTION
23 1. This action arises out of Defendants breach of the Service Employees International
24
Union (SEIU) Constitution and Bylaws, for failing to follow the procedures outlined in the SEIU
25
Constitution regarding the improper removal of the Local 1107 President, Plaintiff Cherie
26
Mancini, suspension of Ms. Mancinis membership with SEIU, and the imposition of an
27
28
-1-
emergency trusteeship over Local 1107 that resulted from Ms. Mancinis removal from office in
1
2 violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
3 2. SEIU imposed an emergency trusteeship over Local 1107 on April 28, 2017, based
4
on the findings included in the Internal Needs Report and Recommendation produced by SEIU
5
Executive Vice President and hearing officer, Carol Nieters, after a hearing on internal charges
6
7
lodged against Local 1107 Board members.
8 3. After the emergency trusteeship was imposed by SEIU on Local 1107, Defendants
9 breached the SEIU Constitution in the following ways: Defendants failed to hold a trusteeship
10
hearing within thirty (30) days of imposition of the emergency trusteeship; failed to notice the
11
membership, including Plaintiff Frederick Gustafson, in a timely fashion regarding the trusteeship
12
13 hearing; failed to properly notice the Local 1107 membership once the emergency trusteeship
14 hearing was set; failed to issue a decision regarding the merits of the trusteeship within sixty (60)
15
days; denied Local 1107 due process via a full and fair hearing on the merits of the emergency
16
trusteeship; failed to establish a sufficient good faith emergency basis for the imposition of the
17
emergency trusteeship; failed to address good cause for not adhering to the reasonable time periods
18
19 for these procedures; and failed to address the legitimacy and necessity of continuing the
20 trusteeship at the trusteeship hearing held on July 13, 2017, seventy six (76) days after the
21
emergency trusteeship was imposed.
22
II. PARTIES
23
4. Plaintiff Clark County Public Employees Association, dba Nevada Service
24
Employees Union aka SEIU 1107 (hereinafter Local 1107), is, and was at all times relevant
25
herein, a domestic non-profit cooperative corporation, having its main and principal office in Clark
26
County, State of Nevada.
27
28
-2-
1 5. Plaintiff Cherie Mancini is, and was at all times relevant herein, the former Local
2 1107 President and member of Local 1107, and a resident of Clark County, State of Nevada.
3 6. Plaintiff Frederick Gustafson is, and was at all times relevant herein, a member of
4
Local 1107, and a resident of Clark County, State of Nevada.
5
7. Defendant SEIU is, and was at all times relevant herein, a nonprofit corporation
6
with headquarters in Washington D.C.
7
8. Defendant Luisa Blue (hereinafter the Trustee), at all times relevant herein, is,
8
and was present in Clark County, State of Nevada.
9
9. Mary K. Henry (hereinafter Ms. Henry or SEIU President), on information and
10
belief is a resident of Washington D.C.
11
10. The true names of DOES 1 through 20, their citizenship and capacities, whether
12
individual, corporate, associate, partnership or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore
13
sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore
14
15
alleges, that each of the Defendants, designated as DOES 1 through 20, are or may be legally
16 responsible for the events referred to in this action, and caused damages to the Plaintiff, as herein
17 alleged, and Plaintiff will ask leave of this Court to amend the Complaint to insert the true names
18 and capacities of such Defendants, when the same have been ascertained, and to join them in this
19 action, together with the proper charges and allegations.

20 11. That the true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as DOE Agencies
21 1 through 20 and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to the Plaintiff,
22 who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes
23
and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE AGENCIES and/or
24
ROE CORPORATION Defendant is responsible for the events and happenings referred to and
25
proximately caused damages to the Plaintiff as alleged herein. Plaintiff will ask leave of the Court
26
to amend the Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of DOE AGENCIES 1 through 20
27
and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 20, inclusive, when the same have been ascertained, and
28
to join such Defendants in this action.
-3-
1 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 12. The United States District Court, District of Nevada has personal and subject matter
3 jurisdiction over the Defendants and claims as set forth herein pursuant to Title III, 304 of the
4
Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 464: Any member
5
or subordinate body of a labor organization affected by any violation of this title (except section
6
301) may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the
7
labor organization for such relief (including injunctions) as may be appropriate.
8
13. 29 U.S.C. 464 Venue is proper in this Court because Local 1107 operates its
9
principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada.
10
11
IV. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
12
A. Internal Charges Against Local 1107 Executive Board Members.
13
14. On September 9, 2016, Local 1107 Executive Vice President Sharon Kisling and
14
15 Local 1107 Trustee Clara Thomas filed internal charges against Local 1107 President Mancini
16 alleging numerous violations of the SEIU Constitution, which was sent to SEIU President Henry.
17
See Assumption of Original Jurisdiction and Notice of Consolidated Hearing, attached as Exhibit
18
1, at 1; see also Kisling v. Mancini (the Kisling Charges), 9/9/16, attached as Exhibit 2, at
19
1. The Kisling Charges alleged that President Mancini violated Article XVII, Section 1(1) (6)
20
21 of the SEIU Constitution, and the following provisions of the Local 1107 Constitution: Article 7,
22 Sections 6 and 10A, Article 14, Section 1, and Article 15, Sections 1A(1), (3)-(12) and (16).
23
15. On September 13, 2016, Local 1107 Vice President Brenda Marzan filed internal
24
charges with SEIU against President Mancini alleging numerous violations of the Local 1107
25
26
Constitution. See Exhibit 1, at 2; see also Marzan v. Mancini (the Marzan Charges), 9/13/16,
27 attached as Exhibit 3, at 1. The Marzan Charges alleged that President Mancini violated the
28
following provisions of the Local 1107 Constitution: Article 7, Sections 6A and 6B5, Article 8,
-4-
Sections 2B and 2C, Article 11, Section 11C, Article 15, Sections 1(1), 1(3), 1(6) and 2(A), and
1
2 Article 16, Sections 4, 6, and 10. Id.
3 16. On October 17, 2016, SEIU President Henry assumed jurisdiction over the internal
4
charges lodged against President Mancini, as well as numerous other members of the Local 1107
5
Executive Board. See Ex. 1, at 1. The Assumption of Original Jurisdiction Over Internal Charges
6
7
[and] Notice of Consolidated Hearing on Internal Charges (the Internal Charges Notice) did
8 not contain specific factual allegations regarding the specific provisions of the two Constitutions
9 allegedly breached by Mancini. Id. Instead, the Internal Charges Notice deferred to the informal
10
charging letters sent by the charging parties to SEIU President Henry. Id. Further, the notice
11
contained no mention that the internal charges hearing would be consolidated with a hearing on
12
13 the needs of the local pursuant to Article VIII, Section 7(g) of the SEIU Constitution. Id.
14 17. The consolidated internal charges hearing was held on October 29-30, 2016.
15
18. Six months later, on April 26, 2017, Hearing Officer Carol Nieters issued two
16
Reports and Recommendations relating to the internal charges hearing that was held the year prior.
17
See Internal Charges Report and Recommendation, attached as Exhibit 4, at 1; see also Internal
18
19 Needs Report and Recommendation, attached as Exhibit 5, at 1.
20 B. Nieters Internal Charges Report and Recommendation.

21 19. Hearing Officer Nieters Internal Charges Report and Recommendation (ICRR)
22 sustained several charges against President Mancini and Executive Vice President Sharon Kisling,
23 and recommended that they be removed from their respective board positions at Local 1107. See
24
Ex. 4, at 26-27.
25
20. Nieters states in the ICRR that she focused the report on the allegations that arose
26
to serious breaches of duty, and I do not discuss separately each and every conclusory statement
27
or minor allegation:
28
-5-
I do not separately address charges which, even assuming them to be true, reflect
1
poor administrative practices, mere differences in opinion, or possibly a culture of
2 disrespectful treatment. These may represent less than best practices, but I do not
find that they rise to the level of gross inefficiency or failure to perform duties
3 within the meaning of the SEIU or Local 1107 Constitutions and Bylaws, nor do
they constitute cognizable charges thereunder. Illustrative examples in Sister
4
Mancinis case include allegations of failing to prepare for or conduct Executive
5 Board meetings to the satisfaction of Charging Parties (e.g., Tr. 1 at 35-37); failing
to adopt or advance recommendations from advisory committees like the Staff
6 Hiring Committee (e.g., Tr. 1 at 127-29) . . .
7
Id. at 6-7.
8
21. Hearing Officer Nieters sustained only two of the alleged charges against President
9
Mancini: (1) disregard of Boards authority regarding staff and contracts under Article 8, Section
10
2(C) of the Local 1107 Constitution; and (2) derogation of duty to officers and bargaining
11
committee members under Article 7, Section 6(B)(5), and Article 16, Sections 4 and 6 of the Local
12
1107 Constitution, and Article XVII, Section 1(3) of the SEIU Constitution, relating to her
13
temporary postponement of a ratification vote for a recently negotiated collective bargaining
14
agreement (CBA). Id. at 26. The CBA was ratified in the time originally allotted for the
15
ratification vote, and Local 1107 has met its duties under the CBA. Id. at 14-15 (she unilaterally
16
17
reduced the proposed three-day voting period to a single day. . . Ultimately, Sister Mancini restored
18 the ratification vote, and the agreement was approved by the members).
19 22. As to the first sustained charge, Hearing Officer Nieters recommended only a
20 leadership development training course because the charges were not serious in nature, conflicting
21 provisions of the Local 1107 Constitution could have led her to believe she was within her
22 constitutional authority, and Mancini was not solely responsible for the breakdown in
23 governance. Id. at 10-11.
24 23. As to the second sustained charge, Nieters recommended that Ms. Mancini be
25
removed from her position as Local 1107 President and that her membership with SEIU be
26
suspended for six (6) months. Executive Vice President Kisling was also removed from office. Id.
27
//
28
//
-6-
1 C. Nieters Internal Needs Report and Recommendation.

2 24. Hearing Officer Neiters also issued a second Report and Recommendation on The
3 Internal Needs of SEIU Local 1107 (INRR). See Ex. 5, at 1.
4
25. Nieters asserted that the report was made pursuant to the SEIU Constitution Article
5
VIII, Section 7(g). Id. Nieters recommended that, based on the evidence presented at the hearing
6
six months prior, immediate intervention in the Local ideally in the form of an International
7
Union trusteeship is necessary to assure the performance of Local Union collective bargaining
8
duties and functions, restore effective democratic procedures in the Local, protect the interests of
9
the Local and the membership, and otherwise carry out the legitimate objects of the International
10
Union. Id. at 13. Neiters further found that:
11
It is clear from the testimony and evidence presented at the internal needs and the
12 internal charges hearings that Local 1107 has suffered a breakdown in internal
union governance and democratic procedures that has interfered with its ability to
13 serve its members and properly negotiate and enforce its collective bargaining
agreements. Without immediate intervention, the Local Union will remain in crisis
14
at the expense of its membership. Because the circumstances as they were
15 presented to me at the hearing fully justify the imposition of an emergency
trusteeship, I recommend that President Henry consult with counsel and consider
16 that course of action.
17
Id. at 2 (emphasis added)
18
26. That same day, April 26, 2017, SEIU President Henry sent out a letter to Local
19
1107s board members informing them that she was invoking her power as the International
20
Unions President to remove Ms. Mancini and Ms. Kisling from their positions as President and
21
Executive Vice President of Local 1107, pursuant to the International Union Constitution Article
22
XVII, Section 2(f). Ms. Henry further informed the members that she was sending International
23
Executive Vice President Neal Bisno and Deputy Chief of Staff Deedee Fitzpatrick to attend Local
24
1107s Executive Board meeting scheduled that evening, April 26, 2017. See Henry Letter,
25
attached as Exhibit 6, at 2. No mention of the imposition of an emergency trusteeship was
26
included in the letter. Id.
27
28
-7-
1 27. On the evening of April 26, 2017, the Board of Local 1107, at the request of the
2 SEIU officials, met in a closed session with Mr. Bisno, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and the Internationals
3 Associate General Counsel Steve Ury, forcing all non-Executive Board members of Local 1107 to
4
leave the monthly meeting. Further, due to lack of notice of the hearing, only 29 of the more than
5
40 Board members were present. Mr. Ury incorrectly advised the Local 1107 Board that because
6
Local 1107s Constitution did not contain provisions for what to do in the event that the President
7
and Vice President positions were simultaneously vacant, they had no choice other than to request
8
SEIU place them into a Trusteeship. Believing there was no other option than to move forward,
9
the Board voted to request that the International Union place Local 1107 into Trusteeship. See
10
Member Emails and Affidavits, attached as Exhibit 7 a-c.
11
28. On April 28, 2017, Ms. Henry entered and disseminated an Order of Emergency
12
Trusteeship to Local 1107 [p]ursuant to [her] authority under Article VIII, Sections 7(a) and
13
7(f), of the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws. See Trusteeship Order, attached as Exhibit 8, at 1.
14
15
29. On May 28, 2017, the SEIU President breached the SEIU Constitution by failing to
16 hold a trusteeship hearing within thirty days of appointment of the trustee.
17 30. On June 27, 2017, the Defendants breached the SEIU Constitution by failing to
18 issue a decision from the SEIU Executive Board regarding the need for the trusteeship.
19 31. On July 3, 2017, at 4:20 p.m., Defendants issued notice of a trusteeship hearing less
20 than ten (10) days before the hearing was to be held, over a holiday weekend, which contained
21 unreasonable restrictions on Plaintiffs right to a fair hearing.
22 32. On July 13, 2017, an emergency trusteeship hearing was held. The Local 1107
23
members were denied the right to be represented, the right to submit evidence, to call witnesses,
24
and to cross-examine Defendants witnesses.
25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Mancini improper notice of specific charges LMRDA Title I, 101, 29 U.S.C. 411(5))
26
27
33. Plaintiffs restate all the preceding and subsequent allegations as though fully set
28 forth herein.
-8-
34. LMRDA Title I, 101, 29 U.S.C. 411(5) provides that: No member of any labor
1
2 organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment
3 of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been (A) served
4
with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a
5
full and fair hearing. 29 U.S.C. 411(5).
6
7
35. Article XVII, Section 2 of the SEIU Constitution states that The charges must
8 specify the events or acts which the charging party believes constitute a basis for charges and must
9 state which subsection(s) of Section 1 of this Article the charging party believes has been violated.
10
If the charges are not specific, the trial body may dismiss the charges either before or at the hearing,
11
but the charging party shall have the right to refile more detailed charges which comply with this
12
13 Section. No charges may be filed more than six months after the charging party learned, or could
14 have reasonably learned, of the act or acts which are the bases of the charges. See SEIU
15
Constitution, attached as Exhibit 9, at 37.
16
36. On October 17, 2016, SEIU President Henry disseminated notice that she was
17
asserting jurisdiction over the charges against the Local 1107 Board Members, including Plaintiff
18
19 Mancini. See Ex. 1, at 1. The Internal Charges Notice was not served upon Mancini personally
20 or by registered or certified mail pursuant to the SEIU Constitution, Article XVII, Section 3. See
21
Ex. 9, at 37.
22
37. Further, the notice did not include any of the specific factual allegations against
23
Mancini that SEIU found were credible and related to the enumerated sections of the SEIU and
24
25 Local 1107 Constitutions. Id. Rather, the Notice included the informal charging documents sent
26 to SEIU President Henry by the charging board members. The majority of the factual allegations
27
28
-9-
contained in the informal charging documents are irrelevant, and were not even addressed by
1
2 Nieters in the ICRR because they were dismissed as not cognizable. See Ex. 4, at 26-27.
3 38. Only the first three bullet points in the Marzan Charges were sustained against
4
Mancini and used to remove her from office under: Article 7, Section 6(B)(5), and Article 16,
5
Sections 4 and 6, and Article 21, Section 3(3) of the Local 1107 Constitution. See Ex. 3, at 1; see
6
7
also Ex. 4, at 16.
8 39. The Marzan Charges did not include allegations for a violation of Article 21,
9 Section 3(3) of the SEIU Constitution for [g]ross disloyalty or conduct unbecoming a member.
10
Despite not being alleged, Nieters sustained the violation of Article 21, Section 3(3) regarding the
11
UMC CBA. Id.
12
13 40. The factual allegations in the Marzan Charges also did not allege a breach of Article
14 16, Section 4 relating to the UMC collective bargaining agreement sustained by Hearing Officer
15
Nieters. Rather, the Marzan Charges alleged that President Mancini violated [Article 16, Section
16
4] of the Constitution and Bylaws by not informing or allowing the members of Clark County to
17
participate in the Settlement Agreement signed by President Mancini on August 13, 2016, a
18
19 charge which was subsequently dismissed by Nieters after the hearing. See Ex. 3, at 1; see also
20 Ex.4, at 26-27.
21
41. Further, the charges themselves allege that President Mancini was unaware of the
22
status of negotiations even though the officers gave status updates during the executive board
23
24
meetings and that UMC employees/members received joint UMC management/SEIU
25 bargaining team updates with contract language and photos of the mutually interest based
26 bargaining boards put out through employer email after every bargaining session. See Ex. 3,
27
at 1 (emphasis added.)
28
-10-
42. The Marzan charges allege that President Mancinis lack of participation in the
1
2 UMC bargaining process was a violation of Article 7, Section 6, and Article 16, Section 6. Id.
3 However, participating in the negotiations with employers themselves is not expressly required by
4
the Local Constitution, and Article 16, Section 6 provides that [t]he Local President, or designee,
5
shall be the chief spokesperson for this Local Union in all collective bargaining with any
6
7
employer. See Local 1107 Constitution, attached as Exhibit 10, at 47 (emphasis added.)
8 43. Nieters also acknowledged in the ICRR that [t]he evidence was conflicting on
9 whether and when Sister Mancini attempted to exercise her constitutionally mandated role on the
10
bargaining committee. She may have made some early, if unavailing, efforts to participate, but
11
the credible evidence suggests that she was largely absent from the negotiations that took place
12
13 on a regular basis between March and July 2016. See Ex. 4, at 13 (emphasis added.) Again,
14 nothing in the Local 1107 Constitution mandates that the President take part in every collective
15
bargaining negotiation with employers, and permits the President to designate a spokesperson for
16
such negotiations, which she did. Id.
17
44. According to Nieters, the most critical[] issue that led to Ms. Mancinis removal
18
19 from office occurred after the UMC negotiations had concluded. Specifically, Ms. Nieters states
20 that Mancini unilaterally reduced the proposed three-day voting period to a single day. Id. at
21
14. This statement is misleading, however, as the ICRR and the Marzan Charges both reference a
22
bulletin that was posted on the SEIU website stating that the post-negotiation ratification vote was
23
cancelled because Local 1107 was investigating allegations against members of the bargaining
24
25 team, and that [i]n the interest of transparency, accountability, to share the most recent
26 information and gather member input, the Union will be holding meetings on Thursday, July 28 at
27
8 a.m. to 10 a.m., 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Union Hall. See Ex. 3, at 5.
28
-11-
45. The allegations referred to in the bulletin were not made by Mancini, but rather,
1
2 were alleged by nursing staff members of UMC who were concerned about the lack of
3 transparency of the UMC Collective Bargaining Unit, that the terms of the new CBA benefited the
4
stewards on the Unit at the expense of the membership, and that the agreement included a term
5
that reduced the unions access to UMC workers. See UMC Nurses Letter in Support of Mancini
6
7
Appeal, attached as Exhibit 11, at 1; see also Member Text Message to Mancini, 7/29/16,
8 attached as Exhibit 12, at 1 (This contract is awful!! Is there anyway to go back to the drawing
9 board? Can those of us with concerns meet with you before Monday?).
10
46. Nieters did not find Mancinis cancelation of the ratification vote improper. See Ex.
11
4, at 15 (As a union leader, I am enormously sympathetic to Sister Mancinis concern. Access
12
13 is a vital issue for unions. I can appreciate her strong reaction to the reduction in access her
14 bargaining committee members accepted).

15
47. What Ms. Nieters found was a violation of Mancinis duty as President was not the
16
cancelation of the ratification vote itself, but rather her precipitous cancelation of the ratification
17
vote directly through the employer, without even communicating with the bargaining
18
19 committee, because it effectively circumvented the democratic process set in place by the
20 Constitution, which vests the authority to negotiate in the bargaining committee. Id.
21
48. Nieters recommended Mancinis removal from office and suspension because of
22
her broadcast [of] unfounded, disloyal, and derogatory accusations against members of the
23
committee. This course of conduct, demonstrating a derogation of the democratic process and a
24
25 lack of presidential leadership and temperament, does warrant disciplinary measures. Id. at 16
26 (for her disloyal and conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of Article 21, Section 3[3], I
27
recommend that Sister Mancini be removed from her position as president of Local 1107 effective
28
-12-
immediately and barred from holding office in SEIU for a period of one (1) year. In addition, she
1
2 should be suspended from membership in Local 1107 for a period of six (6) months).
3 49. However, neither the Internal Charges Notice, nor the informal charging documents
4
contain factual allegations or references to a violation of Article 21, Section 3 of the Local 1107
5
Constitution. See Ex. 2; see also Ex. 3; see also Ex. 4. Further, Article 21, Section 3(3) of the
6
7
Local Constitution states [g]ross disloyalty or conduct unbecoming a member. See Ex. 10, at
8 56. This provision does not permit a President to be charged with disloyalty to the members of a
9 collective bargaining unit, especially when the actions taken were at the request of members of the
10
unit, and there is no charge for conduct unbecoming an officer in the SEIU and Local Constitutions.
11
Id.
12
13 50. Without proper notice of what specific factual allegations would be heard, and to
14 which specific provisions of the Local 1107 Constitution they were related, Mancini could not
15
know what charges and alleged conduct to defend herself against at the hearing.
16
51. Defendants failure to properly notice Ms. Mancini of the specific factual
17
allegations and specific charges against her denied Ms. Mancini her right to prepare a defense and
18
19 receive a full and fair hearing under the LMRDA Title I, 101, 29 U.S.C. 411(5) constituting a
20 denial of due process.

21
52. As a result of Defendants denial of a full and fair hearing regarding the charges
22
against her, Defendants have improperly disciplined Mancini by removing her from office and
23
suspending her membership for six (6) months. Snyder v. Freight, Constr., Gen. Drivers,
24
25 Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 287, 175 F.3d 680, 686 (9th Cir. 1999) (We note, however,
26 that union officers, like union members are protected by the LMRDA against discipline that affects
27
their rights as union members).
28
-13-
53. Mancini has filed an appeal to the SEIU Executive Board, from which she has not
1
2 received a response. However, a Trusteeship Hearing was held in Las Vegas, NV, on July 13,
3 2017, which went into detail regarding the supposed merits of her removal as Local 1107 President:
4
Former President Mancini and former [Executive Vice President] Kisling have lost their status as
5
SEIU members, but Hearing Officer Verrett will exercise her discretion to give them an
6
7
opportunity to participate in the hearing, in light of the overall facts and circumstances surrounding
8 this trusteeship and their membership status. See Notice of Trusteeship Hearing, 7/3/17, attached
9 as Exhibit 13, at 3.
10
54. Because Mancinis pending appeal to address her improper discipline would
11
constitute a third hearing on the matter, pursuing the appeal would be futile, and because of
12
13 Defendants consistent position against her, exhaustion of additional internal remedies is not
14 required. Amalgamated Clothing Workers Rank & File Comm. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers,
15
Philadelphia Joint Bd., 473 F.2d 1303, 1308 (3d Cir. 1973) (Exhaustion has not been demanded
16
. . . when resort to the internal appeals structure would be futile, Steib v. New Orleans Clerks &
17
Checkers, Local No. 1497, 436 F.2d 1101 (C.A. 5, 1971); or when the union has consistently taken
18
19 a position opposed to plaintiff and shows no inclination to change its views).
20 55. Plaintiff Mancini is entitled to an order enjoining Defendants illegal actions in

21
violation of the SEIU and Local 1107 Constitutions and the LMRDA 29 U.S.C. 411, including
22
immediate reinstatement of her membership with SEIU and her position as Local 1107 President,
23
and a permanent injunction barring SEIU from continuing to control Local 1107 via emergency
24
25 trusteeship.
26 //
27
//
28
-14-
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1
(Mancini - Discipline for engaging in protected speech in violation of LMRDA Title I 101,
2
29 U.S.C. 411(2))
3 56. Plaintiffs restate all the preceding and subsequent allegations as though fully set
4 forth herein.
5
57. LMRDA Title I, 101, 29 U.S.C. 411(2) provides: Every member of any labor
6
organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express
7
any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views,
8
9 upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the
10 meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of
11
meetings: Provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor
12
organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward
13
14
the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its
15 performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

16
58. From the judicial evolution of the scope of the LMRDA free speech protection, a
17
general rule is perceivable: a union member has the statutory right to express any views,
18
arguments, or opinions inside or outside of a union meeting, subject to only three general
19
20 limitations: (1) reasonable union rules relating to the conduct of union meetings; (2) reasonable
21 rules relating to individual responsibility to the union as an institution; and (3) reasonable rules
22
requiring members to refrain from conduct which would interfere with the unions performance of
23
its legal or contractual obligations. Fulton Lodge No. 2 of International Asso. of Machinists &
24
Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 415 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir. 1969).
25
26 59. Article 15, Section 1(A)(13) of the Local 1107 Constitution states that the President
27 has a duty to [p]ublish the Local Union newspaper and regular membership communications.
28
See Ex. 10, at 44.
-15-
60. Article 16, Section 6 of the Local 1107 Constitution states that [t]he Local
1
2 President, or designee, shall be the chief spokesperson for this Local Union in all collective
3 bargaining with any employer. Id. at 47.

4
61. Mancini, as President of Local 1107, had a duty to publish membership
5
communications and was permitted to speak with employers regarding collective bargaining under
6
7
the Local 1107 Constitution. Nothing in the Local Constitution bars or limits a President from
8 broadcasting accusations against the members of a committee to Local 1107 members via the
9 Local 1107 website or facebook account, nor does it preclude a President from communicating
10
directly with an employer about the possible cancelation of a ratification vote due to allegations of
11
member employees.
12
13 62. Further, no contractual duties were interfered with as a result of the postponement
14 of the ratification vote.

15
63. Finally, the Local 1107 constitution contains no rules barring the President from
16
canceling a post-negotiation ratification vote based on concerns of union members.
17
64. Communications inside and outside of the union that criticize union officers, or
18
19 allegations of corruption within the governing body of a union, are protected from union action
20 even if libelous. Semancik v. United Mine Workers, 466 F.2d 144, 153 (3d Cir. 1972).
21
65. Nieters acknowledged that Mancini temporary suspension of the UMC ratification
22
vote was done genuinely to protect Local 1107 members, as [a]ccess is a vital issue for unions,
23
and did not warrant the serious discipline sought by the Charging Parties of removing her from
24
25 office. See Ex. 4, at 15.
26 66. Defendants took disciplinary action against Mancini, removing her from her
27
position as Local 1107 President and suspending her membership because [s]he further abused
28
-16-
her power of her office to make and broadcast unfounded, disloyal, and derogatory accusations
1
2 against the members of the committee, which constitutes protected speech under LMRDA Title
3 1, 101, 29 U.S.C. 411(2), supposedly in violation of a charge that was never properly noticed
4
to her prior to the hearing. It is not necessary under 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2) that violation of union
5
members exercise of his free speech right be primary cause of removal from office, discharge or
6
7
discipline, it is illegal merely if violation of constitutional right was one cause of that discharge or
8 discipline. Bradford v. Textile Workers of America, 563 F.2d 1138, 1143 (4th Cir. 1977).
9 67. Mancini filed an appeal to the SEIU Executive board, from which she has not
10
received a response. However, a Trusteeship Hearing was held in Las Vegas, NV, on July 13,
11
2017, which went into detail regarding the supposed merits of her removal as Local 1107 President:
12
13 Former President Mancini and former [Executive Vice President] Kisling have lost their status as
14 SEIU members, but Hearing Officer Verrett will exercise her discretion to give them an
15
opportunity to participate in the hearing, in light of the overall facts and circumstances surrounding
16
this trusteeship and their membership status. See Ex. 13, at 3.
17
68. Because Ms. Mancinis pending appeal to address her improper discipline would
18
19 constitute a third hearing on the matter, pursuing the appeal would be futile, and because of
20 Defendants consistent position against her, exhaustion of additional internal remedies is not
21
required. Amalgamated Clothing Workers Rank & File Comm. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers,
22
Philadelphia Joint Bd., 473 F.2d 1303, 1308 (3d Cir. 1973) (Exhaustion has not been demanded
23
. . . when resort to the internal appeals structure would be futile, Steib v. New Orleans Clerks &
24
25 Checkers, Local No. 1497, 436 F.2d 1101 (C.A. 5, 1971); or when the union has consistently taken
26 a position opposed to plaintiff and shows no inclination to change its views).

27
28
-17-
69. Plaintiff Mancini is entitled to an order enjoining Defendants illegal actions in

1
2 violation of the SEIU and Local 1107 Constitutions and the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 411(2),
3 including immediate reinstatement of her membership with SEIU and her position as Local 1107
4
President, and a permanent injunction barring SEIU from continuing to control Local 1107 via
5
trusteeship.
6
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
7
(Breach of the SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) Failure to Notice that the
8
Need of Imposing a Trusteeship would be Considered at the Consolidated Internal Charges
Hearing in Violation of LMRDA Title III, 304, 29 U.S.C. 462, 464)
9
10
forth herein.
11
12 71. 29 U.S.C. 462 provides that Trusteeships shall be established and administered
13 by a labor organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and
14
bylaws of the organization which has assumed trusteeship over the subordinate body and for the
15
purpose of correcting corruption or financial malpractice, assuring the performance of collective
16
bargaining agreements or other duties of a bargaining representative, restoring democratic
17
18 procedures, or otherwise carrying out the legitimate objects of such labor organization.
19 72. 29 U.S.C. 464(c) provides, in pertinent part, that In any proceeding pursuant to
20
this section a trusteeship established by a labor organization in conformity with the procedural
21
requirements of its constitution and bylaws and authorized or ratified after a fair hearing either
22
before the executive board or before such other body as may be provided in accordance with its
23
24 constitution or bylaws shall be presumed valid for a period of eighteen months from the date of
25 its establishment and shall not be subject to attack during such period except upon clear and
26
convincing proof that the trusteeship was not established or maintained in good faith for a purpose
27
allowable under section 302 [29 USCS 462].
28
-18-
73. Article VIII, Section 7(f) of the SEIU Constitution requires a hearing on the merits
1
2 of a trusteeship be held before appointment of a trustee except in an emergency, at which point a
3 emergency trusteeship hearing must be held within thirty (30) days, and a decision on the merits
4
be issued by the SEIU Executive Board within sixty days (60) on the need of continuing the
5
trusteeship. See Ex. 9, at 20.
6
7
74. Article VIII, Section 7(g) of the SEIU Constitution permits the SEIU President to
8 send a representative to meet with the local and attend meetings to determine the internal needs of
9 the local union, and appoint a hearing officer to assess the internal needs of a local. Id. Article
10
VIII, Section 7(g) does not permit the International President to use an internal charges hearing as
11
a hearing on the internal needs of a union to circumvent the requirements of Section 7(f), which
12
13 require a trusteeship hearing be held prior to the imposition of a trusteeship. Id.
14 75. On October 17, 2016, Defendants issued notice of Assumption of Original

15
Jurisdiction Over Internal Charges, Notice of Consolidated Hearing on Internal Charges,
16
Appointment of Hearing Officer and Rules of Procedure to Local 1107 regarding the charges
17
against the Local 1107 Board members. See Ex. 1, at 1. The Notice contains no reference to the
18
19 hearing also being consolidated with a hearing on the internal needs of Local 1107 pursuant to .
20 . . Article VIII, Section 7(g) of the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws. Id.; see also Ex. 4, at 1.
21
76. Defendants failed to notice the Local 1107 membership that the Consolidated
22
Internal Charges Hearing would also address the internal needs of Local 1107 pursuant to Article
23
VIII, Section 7(g) of the SEIU Constitution, and also failed to inform Local 1107 that a trusteeship
24
25 would be discussed and could be recommended as an internal need of Local 1107.
26 77. Despite failing to properly notice Local 1107 that the imposition of an emergency
27
trusteeship would be considered at the internal charges hearing, six months after the hearing was
28
-19-
held, Nieters issued a separate INRR recommending that [b]ecause the circumstances as they
1
2 were presented to me at the hearing fully justify the imposition of an emergency trusteeship, I
3 recommend that President Henry consult with counsel and consider that course of action. See
4
Ex. 5, at 2. Nieters never met with the officials of Local 1107, never attended meetings, and no
5
notice of the internal needs hearing was ever sent to Local 1107.
6
7
78. Further, SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) provides the procedure to be
8 followed when imposing a trusteeship on a local, including the need for an emergency trusteeship.
9 Article VIII, Section 7(g) being included in a separate section of Article VIII indicates that they
10
are separate sections and cannot be utilized to circumvent the procedural requirements of the
11
Section 7(f) requiring a hearing to be held on the need for appointing a trustee before the trustee
12
13 is appointed.
14 79. Defendants failure to establish and administer the trusteeship over Local 1107 in
15
accordance with the SEIU Constitution and By Laws is a violation of the LMRDA, Title III, 302
16
29 U.S.C. 462.
17
80. Defendants failure to administer the trusteeship in accordance with the SEIU
18
19 Constitution and Bylaws destroys the presumption of validity of the trusteeship. 29 U.S.C. 464.
20 81. Defendants retroactively asserting that the Consolidated Internal Charges Hearing
21
was also a hearing on the internal needs of Local 1107 pursuant to Article VIII, Section 7(g), and
22
then using Section 7(g) to circumvent the procedural requirements of Section 7(f) requiring a full
23
and fair hearing before a trusteeship is imposed is clear and convincing evidence that the
24
25 trusteeship was not imposed for a good faith purpose.
26 82. Defendants retroactively asserting that an emergency situation exists six (6) months
27
after they learned of the supposed emergency situation in order to circumvent the procedural
28
-20-
requirements of Section 7(f) requiring a hearing be held before a trusteeship is imposed is clear
1
2 and convincing evidence that the trusteeship was not imposed for a good faith purpose.
3 83. Due to the Defendants failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the SEIU
4
Constitution for the imposition of an emergency trusteeship in violation of 29 U.S.C. 462, and
5
464, and Plaintiffs high likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive
6
7
relief ending the trusteeship, and for costs and expenses of this action, including Plaintiffs
8 reasonable attorneys fees.

9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(LMRDA Title VIII, 302, 29 U.S.C. 462 Imposition and Maintenance of Emergency
10 Trusteeship for an improper purpose)
11
12
forth herein.
13
85. 29 U.S.C. 462 provides that Trusteeships shall be established and administered
14
15 by a labor organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and
16 bylaws of the organization which has assumed trusteeship over the subordinate body and for the
17
purpose of [1] correcting corruption or financial malpractice, [2] assuring the performance of
18
collective bargaining agreements or other duties of a bargaining representative, [3] restoring
19
20
democratic procedures, or [4] otherwise carrying out the legitimate objects of such labor
21 organization.
22
86. Hearing Officer Nieters does not express a specific emergency situation
23
necessitating the need for immediate intervention into Local 1107s affairs, instead simply stating
24
that [w]ithout immediate intervention, the Local Union will remain in crisis at the expense of
25
26 membership. Because the circumstances as they were presented to me at the hearing fully justify
27 the imposition of an emergency trusteeship, I recommend that President Henry consult with
28
counsel and consider that course of action. See Ex. 5, at 2.
-21-
87. However, Nieters fails to demonstrate specific instances of conduct that properly
1
2 justify imposition of a trusteeship, let alone the need for emergency intervention without first
3 holding a hearing within the six (6) month period between the Internal Charges Hearing on October
4
29-30, 2016, and dissemination of the reports and recommendations used to justify imposition of
5
the emergency trusteeship.
6
7
88. Ms. Nieters fails to provide any examples of Local 1107 not finishing its business.
8 Nieters lists two specific instances of business not being completed: (1) financial reports were not
9 reviewed or approved at an October 2016 board meeting (Ex. 5, at 3); (2) the August 31, 2016
10
Meeting was not adjourned by motion, rather it dissipated and collapsed due to what the minutes
11
describe as situations. Id. at 4.
12
13 89. The Local 1107 financial reports were reviewed, approved and submitted to the
14 Secretary of Labor in a timely fashion, and failure to adjourn a meeting on motion is not a
15
legitimate example of a breakdown of the democratic process sufficient to warrant imposition of
16
a trusteeship. See 2016 Financial Report, 3/31/17, attached as Exhibit 14.
17
90. Nieters also argues that [t]he leadership conflicts in the Local are the root of a
18
19 pattern of instability and uncertainty that interferes with Local 1107s ability to carry out its most
20 basic collective bargaining responsibilities properly and effectively. See Ex. 5, at 4. However,
21
Nieters could not provide a single example of a collective bargaining responsibility not being met.
22
Rather, she cites that President Mancinis postponement of the UMC CBA ratification vote as an
23
example of Local 1107 failing to meet its basic collective bargaining responsibilities. Id. The
24
25 UMC CBA was ratified on July 29, 2016, within the time period originally requested. There was
26 no delay in ratification of the UMC CBA, there was no disruption in ratification, and Local 1107
27
28
-22-
has consistently met all collective bargaining obligations during Mancinis tenure as President of
1
2 Local 1107.
3 91. Nieters also argues that a wider communication breakdown in the Local has
4
interfered with the ability of members and leaders to carry out their collective bargaining duties
5
properly. Id. at 5. Again, Nieters fails to list a single example of a CBA being breached, threated
6
7
to be breached, or any CBA not being ratified in the time prescribed.
8 92. Nieters argues that [t]he record also shows that inadequate communication has
9 caused confusion and impeded staff oversight. Id. at 7. Again, Nieters does not provide a single
10
example of work not getting accomplished, and instead focuses on conflicting tasks given to Local
11
1107 employees. The Local 1107 staff is not part of the governing body of Local 1107, thus any
12
13 issues with communication with staff members has no effect on democratic procedures of Local
14 1107.
15
93. Nieters argued that [a]s detailed in my Report on the internal union charges, Sister
16
Kisling violated the Local Union Constitution by usurping President Mancinis authority to hire
17
and fire Local staff when she attempted to terminate a Local staff person while the President was
18
19 on vacation. Id. While this allegation may be true, it does not demonstrate a breakdown in
20 democratic governance, and the appropriate course of action was removing Kisling from her
21
position as Executive Vice President of Local 1107. A board member trying to fire staff is outside
22
the scope of permissible reasons to impose a trusteeship pursuant to 29 USC 462.
23
94. Conflicting provisions of a Local Constitution is outside the scope of permissible
24
25 reasons to impose a trusteeship pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 462. Congress recognized that the
26 imposition of a trusteeship is an extraordinary intrusion into the affairs of a local union. Such a
27
step should not be taken without a prior hearing, absent some necessity for immediate action.
28
-23-
Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union v. Rollison, 615 F.2d 788, 792
1
2 (9th Cir. 1980).
3 95. Defendants did not administer the emergency trusteeship on Local 1107 in
4
accordance with the SEIU Constitution, nor for any legitimate purpose delineated in LMRDA Title
5
III, 302, 29 U.S.C. 462, and are thus not entitled to a presumption of validity.
6
7
96. Defendants failure to administer and maintain the trusteeship over Local 1107 in
8 accordance with the SEIU Constitution and By Laws and for a legitimate purpose is a violation of
9 the LMRDA, Title III, 302 29 U.S.C. 462, 464.
10
97. Due to the Defendants failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the SEIU
11
Constitution for the imposition of an emergency trusteeship, failure to administer the trusteeship
12
13 for a legitimate purpose is a violation of 29 U.S.C. 462, and Plaintiffs high likelihood of success
14 on the merits, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ending the trusteeship, and for costs and
15
expenses of this action, including Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees.
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (LMRDA Title VIII, 302, 29 U.S.C. 462, 464 - Bad Faith Imposition, and Maintenance
of Emergency Trusteeship)
18
19
20
forth herein.
21 99. That pursuant to the SEIU Constitution, the President was required to appoint a
22
hearing officer and issue timely notice to the Local 1107 membership before the imposition of a
23
trusteeship unless the President determines that an emergency situation exists within the Local
24
Union. See Ex. 9, at 21.
25
26 100. That Defendants failed to notice the Local 1107 membership that the Consolidated
27 Internal Charges Hearing would also address the internal needs of Local 1107 pursuant to Article
28
-24-
VIII, Section 7(g) of the SEIU Constitution, and also failed to inform Local 1107 that a trusteeship
1
2 would be discussed and could be recommended as an internal need of Local 1107.
3 101. That despite failing to properly notice Local 1107 that a trusteeship would be
4
considered at the internal charges hearing, six months after the hearing was held, Nieters issued a
5
separate INRR recommending that [b]ecause the circumstances as they were presented to me at
6
7
the hearing fully justify the imposition of an emergency trusteeship, I recommend that President
8 Henry consult with counsel and consider that course of action. See Ex. 5, at 2 (emphasis added.)
9 102. That Defendants can provide no explanation for why they waited six (6) months to
10
impose an emergency trusteeship when the supposed emergency situation existed on October 30,
11
2016. Defendants failure to impose the emergency trusteeship until six (6) months after they were
12
13 informed of the supposed emergency situation is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith.
14 International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local Union 107 v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 935 F. Supp.
15
599, 603 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 1996).
16
103. That Defendants can provide no explanation why a trusteeship hearing pursuant to
17
Article VIII, Section 7(f) of the SEIU Constitution could not have been held within the six (6)
18
19 month time period they waited to issue the report and recommendation to place Local 1107 into
20 emergency trusteeship, and failure to hold a trusteeship hearing in the six (6) months between the
21
internal charges hearing and imposition of the emergency trusteeship is clear and convincing
22
evidence of bad faith. Id.
23
104. That Defendants can provide no explanation why they issued a ruling on the need
24
25 for an emergency trusteeship, which related to a hearing held six (6) months prior, without properly
26 noticing Local 1107 that trusteeship could be recommended as a an internal need of Local 1107.
27
28
-25-
Failure to properly notice Local 1107 that the internal charges hearing would address the need of
1
2 an emergency trusteeship is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith.
3 105. That Defendants retroactively asserted that the Consolidated Internal Charges
4
Hearing was also a hearing on the internal needs of Local 1107 pursuant to Article VIII, Section
5
7(g). Ex. 5, at 1; see also Ex. 1, at 1.
6
7
106. That Defendants retroactively utilized Article VIII, Section 7(g) of the SEIU
8 Constitution in Nieters INRR with the intent to circumvent the procedural requirements of Article
9 VIII, Section 7(f), which require a hearing be held before a trusteeship is imposed. Defendants
10
utilization of Section 7(g) to circumvent the procedural requirements of Section 7(f) is clear and
11
convincing evidence that the emergency trusteeship was not imposed in good faith.
12
13 107. That Defendants retroactively asserting that an emergency situation exists six (6)
14 months after they learned of the emergency situation in order to circumvent the procedural
15
requirements of Article VIII, Section 7(f) of the SEIU Constitution requiring a hearing be held
16
before a trusteeship is imposed is clear and convincing evidence that the trusteeship was not
17
imposed in good faith.
18
19 108. That on April 28, 2017, SEIU President Henry disseminated a trusteeship order
20 placing Local 1107 into trusteeship, which failed to assert a good faith emergency situation
21
necessitating the imposition of an emergency trusteeship before a hearing could be held. See
22
generally Ex. 8.
23
109. That the Trusteeship Order stated that [c]onsistent with the requirements of Article
24
25 VIII, Section 7(f) of the SEIU Constitution, I will request that the International Executive Board
26 appoint a hearing officer and that a notice of hearing be issued in the near future. Pursuant to that
27
provision of the SEIU Constitution, a hearing regarding the SEIUs imposition of an emergency
28
-26-
trusteeship over Local 1107 shall be held within thirty (30) days from the imposition of this
1
2 trusteeship. Id. at 3.
3 110. That Defendants failed to notice and hold the trusteeship hearing within thirty (30)
4
days of the imposition of the emergency trusteeship pursuant to the SEIU Constitution and the
5
Trusteeship Order.
6
7
111. That on June 7, 2017, a hearing regarding the removal of a law suit filed by Local
8 1107 members against SEIU to invalidate the emergency trusteeship, which was originally plead
9 in state court and under Nevada law for breach of the Local 1107 Constitution and the Affiliation
10
Agreement, was held before Judge Andrew Gordon in the United States District Court District of
11
Nevada. See Removal Hearing Transcript, attached as Exhibit 15, at 1.
12
13 112. That during this hearing Judge Gordon informed defense counsel that the thirty (30)
14 day period to hold the trusteeship hearing had expired, and the parties agreed that the hearing had
15
not been held in accordance with the SEIU Constitution and Trusteeship Order. Id. at 71:8-25.
16
Defense counsel for SEIU stated that he assumed that SEIU President Henry had extended the
17
hearing past the thirty (30) days because a hearing had not yet been held. Id.
18
19 113. That almost a month later, on July 3, 2017, the day before a holiday weekend and
20 sixty six (66) days after imposition of the trusteeship, Defendants issued an untimely Notice of
21
Trusteeship Hearing. See Ex. 13, at 1. The Notice of Trusteeship Hearing retroactively asserted
22
that the International President had found good cause to postpone the hearing two weeks before
23
the hearing before Judge Gordon when defense counsel was apprised of the fact that the thirty (30)
24
25 day window had passed:
26 On May 25, 2017, under her express authority under Article VIII, Section 7(f) of
27
the SEIU Constitution, the International President determined that good cause
existed to hold the Local 1107 trusteeship hearing more than 30 days after the
28 imposition of the trusteeship- in light of Local 1107s pending commitments and
-27-
the schedules of the individuals whose attendance at the hearing was necessary.
1
The International President also determined that good cause existed for the
2 International Executive Boards decision on the trusteeship to be made more than
60 days after the trusteeship was imposed.
3 Id. at 2.
4
114. That Defendants have provided no explanation as to what good cause warranted
5
postponing the hearing, nor why notice was not sent to Local 1107 in a timely fashion regarding
6
7
good cause to postpone the trusteeship hearing. Retroactively sending out a notice that the
8 International President found good cause to postpone the trusteeship hearing after their counsel
9 was informed by Judge Gordon that the thirty (30) day window had passed is clear and convincing
10
evidence of bad faith.
11
115. That on July 13, 2017, seventy-six (76) days after the appointment of the Trustee,
12
13 the emergency trusteeship hearing was held, and Defendants again failed to establish a good faith
14 emergency situation necessitating the imposition and continuation of the emergency trusteeship,
15
and failed to establish good cause for not holding the hearing within thirty (30) days after the
16
trustee was appointed pursuant to the SEIU Constitution.
17
116. Defendants failure to establish and administer the trusteeship over Local 1107 in
18
19 accordance with the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws, and failure to hold a full and fair hearing to
20 authorize the trusteeship over Local 1107 is a violation of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 464 that
21
eliminates the presumption of validity of the trusteeship.
22
23
Constitution for the imposition of an emergency trusteeship in violation of 29 U.S.C. 462, and
24
25 464, the clear and convincing evidence that the trusteeship was administered and maintained in
26 bad faith, and Plaintiffs high likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive
27
28
-28-
relief ending the trusteeship, and for costs and expenses of this action, including Plaintiffs
1
2 reasonable attorneys fees.
3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) Failure to Hold an Emergency
4 Trusteeship hearing within thirty (30) days of imposition of the emergency trusteeship in
violation of LMRDA Title III, 302, 29 U.S.C. 462, 464)
5
6
7 forth herein.
8 119. That pursuant to Article VIII, Section 7(f) of the SEIU Constitution, the President
9
was required to appoint a hearing officer to conduct an emergency trusteeship hearing within thirty
10
(30) days after the imposition of an emergency trusteeship. See Ex. 9, at 21.
11
12 120. That the Trusteeship Order stated that [c]onsistent with the requirements of Article
13 VIII, Section 7(f) of the SEIU Constitution, I will request that the International Executive Board
14
appoint a hearing officer and that a notice of hearing be issued in the near future. Pursuant to that
15
provision of the SEIU Constitution, a hearing regarding the SEIUs imposition of an emergency
16
trusteeship over Local 1107 shall be held within thirty (30) days from the imposition of this
17
18 trusteeship. See Ex. 8, at 3.
19 121. That on May 28, 2017, the SEIU President breached the SEIU Constitution by
20
failing to follow the procedures in the SEIU Constitution and the Trusteeship Order that required
21
the President to hold an emergency trusteeship hearing within thirty days of the imposition of the
22
emergency trusteeship. Id.
23
24 122. That Defendants also failed to issue timely notice of the trusteeship hearing, and
25 failed to establish good cause for postponing the hearing in accordance with the SEIU Constitution
26
Article VIII, Section 7(f).
27
28
-29-
123. That Defendants failure to establish and administer the trusteeship over Local 1107
1
2 in accordance with the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws is a violation of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.
3 462, and 464.

4
124. That because Defendants have failed to administer and maintain the trusteeship in
5
accordance with the procedures in the SEIU Constitution, Defendants are not entitled to the
6
7
presumption of validity of the trusteeship. 29 U.S.C. 464.
8 125. Due to the Defendants failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the SEIU
9 Constitution for the imposition of an emergency trusteeship in violation of 29 U.S.C. 462 and
10
464, and the clear and convincing evidence that the trusteeship was administered and maintained
11
in bad faith, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief ending the trusteeship, and the costs and
12
13 expenses of this action, including Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees.
14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the SEIU Constitution Failure to Issue a Decision Regarding the Emergency
15 Trusteeship within Sixty Days)
16 126. Plaintiffs restate all the preceding and subsequent allegations as though fully set
17
forth herein.
18
127. That pursuant to the SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) the SEIU
19
20
Executive Board was required to render a decision regarding the merits of the emergency
21 trusteeship within sixty (60) days after the appointment of the Trustee. See Ex. 9, at 21.
22
128. That on June 27, 2017, the SEIU President breached the SEIU Constitution by
23
failing to follow the procedures in the SEIU Constitution that require the SEIU Executive Board
24
to issue a decision on the merits of the emergency trusteeship within sixty days of the appointment
25
26 of the Trustee on April 28, 2017. Id.
27 129. That on July 3, 2017, the day before a holiday weekend and sixty six (66) days after
28
imposition of the trusteeship, Defendants issued an untimely Notice of Trusteeship Hearing. See
-30-
Ex. 13, at 1. The Notice of Trusteeship hearing retroactively asserted that the International
1
2 President had found good cause to postpone the hearing two weeks before the hearing before Judge
3 Gordon who apprised defense counsel of the fact that the thirty (30) day window had passed:
4
On May 25, 2017, under her express authority under Article VIII, Section 7(f) of
5 the SEIU Constitution, the International President determined that good cause
existed to hold the Local 1107 trusteeship hearing more than 30 days after the
6 imposition of the trusteeship- in light of Local 1107s pending commitments and
7
the schedules of the individuals whose attendance at the hearing was necessary.
The International President also determined that good cause existed for the
8 International Executive Boards decision on the trusteeship to be made more than
60 days after the trusteeship was imposed. Id. at 2.
9
10
130. However, the excuse that Local 1107s pending commitments and schedules of
11 the individuals whose attendance at the hearing was necessary, while deficient to establish good
12
cause to postpone the trusteeship hearing, does nothing to justify the SEIU Executive Boards
13
failure to issue a decision on the trusteeship within sixty days of appointment of the trustee. Id. at
14
2.
15
16 131. That Defendants failure to establish and administer the trusteeship over Local 1107
17 in accordance with the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws is a violation of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.
18
462, which provides that Trusteeships shall be established and administered by a labor
19
organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the
20
organization which has assumed trusteeship over the subordinate body and for the purpose of
21
22 correcting corruption or financial malpractice, assuring the performance of collective bargaining
23 agreements or other duties of a bargaining representative, restoring democratic procedures, or

24
otherwise carrying out the legitimate objects of such labor organization. 29 U.S.C. 462.
25
26
27
28 presumption of validity of the trusteeship. 29 U.S.C. 464.
-31-
1
2 Constitution for the imposition of an emergency trusteeship, and the clear and convincing evidence
3 that the trusteeship was administered and maintained in bad faith, Plaintiffs are entitled to
4
injunctive relief ending the trusteeship, and the costs and expenses of this action, including
5
Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees.
6
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
(Breach of the SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) Untimely and
8
Improper Notice to Local 1107 of the trusteeship hearing in violation of LMRDA Title III,
302, 29 U.S.C. 462, 464)
9
10
forth herein.
11
12 135. That on April 28, 2017, the SEIU President appointed Trustee, Luisa Blue, to take
13 over governance of Local 1107.

14
136. That Luisa Blue immediately disbanded the Local 1107 Executive Board after
15
being appointed as trustee.
16
137. That pursuant to the SEIU Constitution, the President was required to issue timely
17
18 notice of the emergency trusteeship hearing to the membership of Local 1107 within thirty (30)
19 days of appointment of the trustee. See Ex. 9, at 21.

20
138. That the Trusteeship Order stated that the trusteeship hearing would be held within
21
thirty (30) days from the imposition of this trusteeship, and that notice of the date of the hearing
22
would be issued in the near future. See Ex. 8, at 3.
23
24 139. That no notice was sent to Local 1107 and no trusteeship hearing was held within
25 thirty (30) days of imposition of the trusteeship.

26
140. That on July 3, 2017, at 4:20 p.m., seventy-six (66) days after the appointment of
27
the Trustee and disestablishment of the Local 1107 Executive Board as the governing body of
28
-32-
Local 1107, the SEIU President and the Trustee breached the SEIU Constitution by failing to
1
2 properly notice the entire Local 1107 membership of the trusteeship hearing.
3 141. That instead of sending out the Notice of Trusteeship Hearing to the membership
4
of Local 1107, Defendants sent the untimely Notice of Trusteeship Hearing only to the former
5
members of the Local 1107 Executive Board they had disbanded over two (2) months earlier, and
6
7
the day before a holiday weekend when many people were scheduled to be out of town. See Notice
8 of Trusteeship Hearing Email, 7/3/17, attached as Exhibit 16, at 1.

9 142. That the notice of the hearing was provided only nine (9) days prior to the date of
10
the hearing, one day less than the lowest minimum time period of ten (10) days for notice found
11
in the SEIU Constitution.
12
13 143. That Defendants failed to notice all the former Local 1107 Executive Board
14 members who were suing to invalidate the trusteeship that the trusteeship hearing was going to be
15
held on July 13, 2017.
16
144. That Defendants further required the disbanded executive board send the
17
Trusteeship Hearing Notice to the membership, and to secure a majority vote in less than (10)
18
19 days, and over a holiday weekend, for them to be represented by a spokesperson at the trusteeship
20 hearing who could present evidence and call and cross-examine witnesses. See Ex. 13, at 2-3.
21
145. That Defendants untimely, insufficient notice to the Local 1107 membership
22
regarding the trusteeship hearing denied the Local 1107 members opportunity to attend the
23
hearing.
24
25 146. That Defendants unreasonable requirement that the Local 1107 Executive Board
26 secure a majority vote after it was disbanded in order to be represented at the trusteeship hearing
27
28
-33-
denied Local 1107 the opportunity to present evidence, witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses
1
2 denying Plaintiffs a full and fair hearing constituting a denial of due process.
3 147. That Defendants failure to follow the procedures outlined in the SEIU Constitution
4
to provide timely and proper notice the Local 1107 membership regarding the trusteeship hearing
5
denied the majority of the Local 1107 membership the opportunity to attend the hearing, thus
6
7
denying Local 1107 a fair hearing on the merits of the emergency trusteeship constituting a denial
8 of due process.
9 148. That Defendants have failed to establish and administer the trusteeship over Local
10
1107 in accordance with the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws is a violation of the LMRDA, 29
11
U.S.C. 462.
12
13 149. That because Defendants have failed to administer and maintain the trusteeship in
14 accordance with the procedures in the SEIU Constitution, Defendants are not entitled to the
15
presumption of validity of the trusteeship in 29 U.S.C. 464.
16
17
Constitution for the imposition of an emergency trusteeship, and the clear and convincing evidence
18
19 that the trusteeship was administered and maintained in bad faith, Plaintiffs are entitled to
20 injunctive relief ending the trusteeship and the costs and expenses of this action including
21
Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees.
22
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Breach of the SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) Failure to Hold a Fair
Hearing on the Merits and Necessity of the Trusteeship)
24
25
26 forth herein.
27
28
-34-
152. That pursuant to the SEIU Constitution Article VIII, Section 7(f) In order to ensure
1
2 that no trusteeship is imposed without an adequate right to be heard or without other appropriate
3 safeguards, a fair hearing to determine whether the trusteeship was reqired. See Ex. 9, at 21.
4
153. That on July 3, 2017, sixty-six (66) days after the appointment of the Trustee and
5
disbanding of the Local 1107 Executive Board as the governing body of Local 1107, the SEIU
6
7
President noticed some of the former members of the Local 1107 Executive Board regarding the
8 July 13, 2017 trusteeship hearing, but expressly excluded noticing members they knew were
9 against the trusteeship, to wit: the Plaintiff members who sued to invalidate the trusteeship in the
10
Nevada 8th Judicial District Court. See Ex. 13, at 2-3.
11
154. That the notice, which did not go out to the Local 1107 membership, nor go out to
12
13 all the disbanded Executive Board members, placed unreasonable and unfair limitations on the
14 Local 1107s ability to designate a spokesperson to represent it at the hearing by requiring the
15
disbanded Executive Board to secure a majority vote to designate a spokesperson over a holiday
16
weekend and less than ten (10) days before the hearing was to be held.
17
155. That because of the improper, untimely and unreasonably restricted notice a
18
19 spokesperson was not designated to represent the membership at the trusteeship hearing.
20 156. That because there was no spokesperson, the SEIU President was the only official
21
party in the proceeding. Id. at 2.
22
157. That because there was no spokesperson for Local 1107, only the Board Members
23
who received notice and attended were permitted to comment on behalf of the membership.
24
25 158. That Local 1107 was denied the opportunity to present evidence in opposition to
26 the trusteeship, denying Local 1107 their right to a full and fair hearing under the SEIU
27
Constitution and 29 U.S.C. 464 and constituting a denial of due process.
28
-35-
159. That Local 1107 was denied the opportunity to present witnesses in opposition to
1
2 the trusteeship, and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the SEIU Presidents witnesses
3 in opposition to the trusteeship, denying Local 1107 their right to a full and fair hearing under the
4
SEIU Constitution and 29 U.S.C. 464 constituting a denial of due process.
5
160. That at the July 13, 2017, hearing, Defendants did not address the emergency
6
7
situation that warranted the need for immediate imposition of the trusteeship without first holding
8 a trusteeship hearing.
9 161. That the July 13, 2017 hearing did not address the good cause for not adhering to
10
the reasonable time period requirements for holding the trusteeship hearing pursuant to the SEIU
11
Constitution.
12
13 162. That the July 13, 2017 hearing did not address the necessity for the trusteeship, nor
14 the need to continue it, and instead was a second prosecution of the Local 1107 Executive Board
15
officers removed by the SEIU President.
16
163. That SEIU President Henry appointed a former SEIU Executive Board member,
17
April Verrett, as hearing officer who was not a neutral party and was biased in favor of the
18
19 trusteeship, denying Local 1107 a full and fair ratification hearing in violation of 29 U.S.C. 464
20 constituting a denial of due process.

21
22
23
presumption of validity of the trusteeship in 29 U.S.C. 464.
24
25 165. That Defendants failure to hold a full and fair ratification hearing on the merits and
26 necessity of the trusteeship was a violation of 29 U.S.C. 464 warranting injunctive relief ending
27
28
-36-
the trusteeship, and the award of costs and expenses of this action, including Plaintiffs reasonable
1
2 attorneys fees.
3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

4
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, request the following relief:
5
6
1. That this Court grant a permanent injunction ordering SEIU to immediately
7
relinquish all property, rights, powers and control of Local 1107 to the Local 1107 Executive
8 Board.
9 2. For an Order mandating Cherie Mancinis reinstatement of her membership with
10 SEIU and her position as President of Local 1107.

11 3. For attorney fees and costs relating to this action for injunctive relief; and
12 4. Any such other and further relief as may be necessary to do justice.
13 Dated this 8th day of August, 2017.
14
15 /s/ Michael J. Mcavoyamaya
16 MICHAEL MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No.: 14082
17 4539 Paseo Del Ray
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
18
Telephone: (702) 299-5083
19
Michael.mcavoyamaya@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-37-

Cherie Mancini Vs SEIU's Trusteeship of SEIU Nevada: 8-9-2017

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cherie Mancini Vs SEIU's Trusteeship of SEIU Nevada: 8-9-2017

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:17-cv-02137-MMD-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 37

MICHAEL J. MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ.

8 CHERIE MANCINI, individually, and

2 violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).

19 action, together with the proper charges and allegations.

1 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 Article 16, Sections 4, 6, and 10. Id.

19 Needs Report and Recommendation, attached as Exhibit 5, at 1.

20 B. Nieters Internal Charges Report and Recommendation.

1 C. Nieters Internal Needs Report and Recommendation.

16 hold a trusteeship hearing within thirty days of appointment of the trustee.

14 bargaining committee members accepted).

20 denial of due process.

19 a position opposed to plaintiff and shows no inclination to change its views).

20 55. Plaintiff Mancini is entitled to an order enjoining Defendants illegal actions in

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15 performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

3 bargaining with any employer. Id. at 47.

14 of the ratification vote.

25 office. See Ex. 4, at 15.

26 a position opposed to plaintiff and shows no inclination to change its views).

69. Plaintiff Mancini is entitled to an order enjoining Defendants illegal actions in

2 of a trusteeship be held before appointment of a trustee except in an emergency, at which point a

13 require a trusteeship hearing be held prior to the imposition of a trusteeship. Id.

14 75. On October 17, 2016, Defendants issued notice of Assumption of Original

25 would be discussed and could be recommended as an internal need of Local 1107.

25 trusteeship was not imposed for a good faith purpose.

8 reasonable attorneys fees.

2 (9th Cir. 1980).

2 would be discussed and could be recommended as an internal need of Local 1107.

2 an emergency trusteeship is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith.

25 day window had passed:

2 reasonable attorneys fees.

3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 trusteeship. See Ex. 8, at 3.

3 462, and 464.

13 expenses of this action, including Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees.

14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26 of the Trustee on April 28, 2017. Id.

22 correcting corruption or financial malpractice, assuring the performance of collective bargaining

23 agreements or other duties of a bargaining representative, restoring democratic procedures, or

28 presumption of validity of the trusteeship. 29 U.S.C. 464.

13 over governance of Local 1107.

19 days of appointment of the trustee. See Ex. 9, at 21.

25 thirty (30) days of imposition of the trusteeship.

8 of Trusteeship Hearing Email, 7/3/17, attached as Exhibit 16, at 1.

20 constituting a denial of due process.

3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9 2. For an Order mandating Cherie Mancinis reinstatement of her membership with

10 SEIU and her position as President of Local 1107.

15 /s/ Michael J. Mcavoyamaya

16 MICHAEL MCAVOYAMAYA, ESQ.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi