Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/252

 502us1$$9Z 08-21-96 15:22:40 PAGES OPINPGT

94

WOODDELL v. ELECTRICAL WORKERS Syllabus

under § 301 and a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation—controls this case. Pp. 97–98. 2. The subject-matter jurisdiction conferred on the district courts by § 301(a) extends to suits on union constitutions brought by individual union members. Wooddell charged a violation of a contract between unions within the meaning of § 301, since union constitutions are an important form of contract between labor organizations, Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 334, 452 U. S. 615, 624, and since Wooddell alleged that the IBEW Constitution requires locals to live up to collective-bargaining agreements, that that constitution and the local’s bylaws are contracts which are binding on the local, and that the defendants had breached such contracts by discriminating against him in referrals. Moreover, § 301 is not limited to suits brought by a party to an interunion contract, but extends to individual union members when they are the beneficiaries of such contracts. Cf. Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195, 200–201. If such members could not sue under § 301, but were required to resort to state court and state law, the possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon the negotiation and administration of interunion contracts. Cf. ibid. There is no merit to respondents’ contention that construing § 301 in this fashion signals an unwarranted intrusion on state contract law, since there is no indication in the later enacted LMRDA that Congress meant to narrow § 301’s reach. Also unconvincing is respondents’ submission that this construction of § 301 will inundate the federal courts with trivial suits dealing with intraunion affairs, since there is no evidence of such a result in the various Federal Circuits that have adopted the interpretation. Pp. 98–103. 907 F. 2d 151, reversed and remanded. White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Thomas, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Theodore E. Meckler argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Paul Alan Levy and Alan B. Morrison.