## Facts

- George W. Hardeman was a member of a local lodge of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.
- Hardeman believed the local business manager responsible for hiring-hall referrals was not referring him for work.
- After a dispute at the hiring hall, Hardeman assaulted the business manager.
- The union filed internal disciplinary charges alleging (1) creating dissension and acting against the local’s harmony and interests, and (2) threatening and using force to restrain a union officer in the performance of duties.
- A union trial resulted in a general finding of “guilty as charged,” and Hardeman was expelled for an indefinite period.
- Hardeman sued in federal court under LMRDA § 102, claiming the union violated LMRDA § 101(a)(5) by disciplining him without a “full and fair hearing.”

## Issues

1. Whether a union member’s LMRDA Title I suit challenging union discipline is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act because the underlying dispute could implicate unfair labor practices.
2. Whether LMRDA § 101(a)(5) authorizes courts to decide what conduct warrants union discipline (as opposed to enforcing procedural safeguards).
3. What “full and fair hearing” requires under LMRDA § 101(a)(5), including whether a union’s disciplinary finding must be supported by evidence and, if so, how much.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Hardeman.
- The Court held the LMRDA claim was not preempted by the NLRA because the case concerned statutory member-rights protections and damages, not the legality of conduct under the NLRA.
- The Court held § 101(a)(5) does not permit courts to review whether the disciplined conduct warranted discipline as a matter of union policy.
- The Court held a “full and fair hearing” requires that the charging party present “some evidence” at the union hearing to support the charges.
- Because there was sufficient evidence supporting the assault-related charge, the union proceeding satisfied § 101(a)(5), and the damages award could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have jurisdiction over LMRDA Title I claims even when the underlying dispute overlaps factually with matters that might also be raised before the NLRB; such claims are not automatically NLRA-preempted.
- LMRDA § 101(a)(5) is directed to procedure (written charges, time to prepare, and a full and fair hearing), not to substantive judicial review of whether the member’s conduct justified discipline.
- The “full and fair hearing” requirement includes a minimal evidentiary component: there must be “some evidence” in the record supporting the union’s disciplinary finding.
- Courts may confirm the existence of “some evidence” but may not reweigh the evidence or function as an appellate body over the union’s disciplinary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that LMRDA § 101(a)(5) guarantees procedural protections in union discipline and requires at least “some evidence” supporting the charges, but it does not authorize courts to second-guess the merits of union disciplinary decisions; the member’s LMRDA suit was not NLRA-preempted, and the damages judgment was reversed.


Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman, 401 U.S. 233 (1971)