## Facts

- The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with the United States Postal Service (USPS) for postal employees in multiple bargaining units.
- A 1972 APWU constitutional amendment provided for ratification of the union’s “national” collective-bargaining agreement by a majority vote of covered employees.
- Headquarters Local 6885 represented employees working in USPS headquarters and other non–mail-processing positions that were covered by an APWU–USPS agreement.
- APWU negotiated an agreement governing Headquarters Local 6885’s bargaining unit but declined to submit that agreement to Local 6885’s membership for a ratification vote.
- Other APWU-represented employees were permitted to vote to ratify comparable agreements affecting their terms and conditions of employment.
- Local 6885 and individual members sued APWU and USPS seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, alleging (among other theories) that denying the vote violated the equal-rights provision of the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and contravened union constitutional obligations.
- The district court rejected the claims and entered judgment for APWU and USPS, and the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether APWU’s refusal to allow Headquarters Local 6885 members to vote on ratification of the agreement governing their unit, while allowing other members to vote, violated LMRDA § 101(a)(1)’s guarantee of “equal rights and privileges.”
2. Whether APWU could treat the Headquarters Local agreement as outside its constitutional ratification provisions based on the agreement’s label or the unit’s size and history.
3. What relief, if any, was appropriate if the denial of a vote violated LMRDA § 101(a)(1).

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed in part.
- The court held that denying Headquarters Local 6885 members a ratification vote, while granting such votes to other similarly situated APWU members, violated LMRDA § 101(a)(1).
- The case was remanded for remedies consistent with vindicating the members’ statutory equal-rights claim.
- One judge concurred in part and dissented in part.

## Legal Principles

- LMRDA § 101(a)(1) does not require unions to adopt contract-ratification voting, but it protects members against discriminatory denial of voting or referendum rights once the union provides such participatory mechanisms.
- A union may regulate member participation through “reasonable rules and regulations,” but disparate treatment of similarly situated members in access to union voting procedures can be unreasonable and unlawful under § 101(a)(1).
- A parent union cannot avoid equal-rights obligations through formalistic characterizations of an agreement when, in substance, the agreement functions like other contracts for which members are afforded ratification rights.
- Centralized bargaining discretion is limited by statutory equal-rights protections when the union’s procedures confer voting rights on some members and deny them to others without a sufficient, nondiscriminatory basis.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that APWU violated LMRDA § 101(a)(1) by refusing to allow Headquarters Local 6885 members to participate in ratification voting that other comparable APWU members were permitted to exercise, and it remanded for appropriate remedial relief.


Am. Postal Workers Union, Headquarters Loc. 6885 v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 665 F.2d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1981)