## Facts

- Solomon Salzhandler, a member of Local Union 442, distributed a leaflet accusing the local’s president of mishandling or misappropriating union funds.
- A union trial board found the accusations false and defamatory and concluded Salzhandler had “untruthfully accused” the president of larceny.
- The board found Salzhandler violated union-constitution provisions banning “conduct unbecoming,” acts “detrimental” to the union, and “libeling” or “slandering” officers.
- The union disciplined Salzhandler by suspending him from union office for five years and barring him from participation in union affairs, including attending meetings, speaking, and voting.
- Salzhandler sued in federal court under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), alleging the discipline violated § 101(a)(2)’s speech and participation protections.
- The district court dismissed the complaint; Salzhandler appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether LMRDA § 101(a)(2) permits a union to discipline a member for internal criticism of union officers’ handling of funds when the criticism is deemed defamatory.
2. Whether union constitutional provisions authorizing discipline for “libel” or “acts detrimental” are enforceable when applied to member speech criticizing union leadership.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim for relief under the LMRDA sufficient to survive dismissal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that § 101(a)(2) protects a member’s right to criticize union officers about union finances without union reprisal, even if the statements are alleged to be libelous.
- The court held union-constitution provisions that subject such criticism to discipline are unenforceable to that extent.
- The court concluded Salzhandler’s allegations stated a claim under the LMRDA and entitled him to pursue statutory remedies.

## Legal Principles

- LMRDA § 101(a)(2) secures members’ rights to assemble and “express any views, arguments, or opinions,” subject only to limited allowances for reasonable meeting-conduct rules and members’ responsibilities not to interfere with the union’s legal or contractual obligations.
- Internal criticism of union management, including accusations about financial handling by officers, is core protected activity under § 101(a)(2).
- A union may not use its disciplinary process to punish member speech criticizing officers, even if the union characterizes the speech as defamatory; defamation claims, if any, must be pursued through civil litigation rather than union discipline that suppresses statutory rights.
- “Reasonable rules” cannot be construed to permit broad suppression of internal dissent or debate about union governance and finances.
- Severe sanctions that strip a member of meaningful participation rights indicate a substantial infringement of statutory protections.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the LMRDA’s union-member free-speech guarantee bars unions from disciplining members for internal criticism of officers’ financial conduct, even when the criticism is alleged to be libelous, and it reinstated the member’s federal claim challenging the disciplinary sanctions.


Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1963)