A federal judge has ruled that because a candidate for union office in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 did not first allow the union to complete an internal investigation into alleged intimidation of candidates, part of the secretary of labor’s lawsuit against the union had to be dismissed.

In an April 14 decision, U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said that the lawsuit was filed without giving IBEW a chance to run an internal investigation into claims that its boss, John Dougherty, and other union officials threatened those running for office within IBEW who were critical of its leader.

This decision comes while Dougherty defends himself against federal criminal charges involving his alleged embezzlement of $600,000 of union money as well as extorting a contractor.

The lawsuit filed by Secretary of Labor Martin Walsh centered on allegations made by election hopefuls Charles Battle, Timothy McConnell and Michael Coppinger. The secretary claimed that each of the three were targeted with intimidation tactics by high-ranking union members in order to dissuade them from running.

According to McHugh, Battle claimed that union business representative Robert Bark showed up to his house uninvited on numerous occasions to “‘put the fear of God [into] his wife and family,’” according to McHugh. Battle was so disturbed by the visits that he contacted the FBI.

McConnell decided not to run because of threats to his job and to the work prospects of family members in the trade. According to McHugh’s opinion, Dougherty allegedly told McConnell “it’ll be a long three years if you lose” and “if you ain’t with me, you’re against me.”

Coppinger was allegedly told that his career would be finished if he ran for office within the union, McHugh said. He decided not to run.

The union argued that the lawsuit had to be dismissed because McConnell and Coppinger did not file their own internal complaints and Battle did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

McHugh said it was not necessary for McConnell and Coppinger. “There is no requirement for every union member affected by ‘improper interference’ in an election to lodge their own internal complaint. Otherwise, every voting member would be required to file his own complaint when the candidate of his choice was deprived of the right to pursue their candidacy.

However, McHugh agreed with the union that there were several deficiencies in Battle’s internal complaint, first dealing with his allegations that members of the union engaged in onsite intimidation against Battle and his supporters at a nomination meeting.

“The union is correct that this allegation about intimidation by Business Manager Dougherty’s supporters is nowhere to be found in Battle’s internal complaint. Such facts clearly would have been known to Battle when he filed it. According to the secretary’s complaint, Battle was present himself while he waited for the nomination meeting to begin,” McHugh said.

“Because Battle necessarily knew of these facts and yet did not include them in his internal complaint, the union was deprived of a fair opportunity to consider and redress them,” McHugh said.

Additionally, McHugh dismissed the secretary’s claims that a longstanding pattern of internal election interference in IBEW 98 existed for lack of specificity.

“If instead the secretary’s intent was to advance these facts as separate violations, they would be exhausted, because the complaint avers that Battle had knowledge of this historical pattern, but it was not raised in Battle’s internal complaint,” McHugh said. “The union is therefore correct in arguing that these allegations cannot form the basis for a violation.”

Joseph Podraza of Lamb McErlane represents the union and declined to comment.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to comment on the case.

April 16^th, Legal Intelligencer article by P.J. D’Annunzio.