Question: Fontana, the president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 1100, attended a union seminar in Las Vegas, Nevada. Another union officer in attendance reported back to other Branch officers that Fontana had failed to attend classes at the seminar and had charged personal expenses on his union credit cards. The Branch officers subsequently accused Fontana of misappropriating union funds. Political tensions grew, and Fontana filed numerous charges against other officers for insubordination and violations of the Branch's by-laws. Those other Branch officers brought charges against Fontana, and the Branch membership found Fontana guilty and removed him as Branch president. Fontana retained his membership in the Branch. Several months later, three Branch members filed additional charges against Fontana, charging him with "misconduct based on his disrupting the Branch by repeatedly filing frivolous charges against other members", and "misuse of his position of influence."

The written charges did not cite any specific incidents or actions, but rather made only general allegations. Committees were appointed to investigate these charges and present reports of their findings to the Branch membership. One month later, the Branch membership found Fontana guilty of the additional charges and suspended his membership. Fontana appealed the decision to the national union, and the national's Committee on Appeals reversed Fontana's suspension with respect to the charges, but continued the suspension, however, because he had failed to pay union dues while the appeal was pending. On May 10, 1994, Fontana brought suit in federal court against the Branch, individual members of the Branch, and the national union under the LMRDA. Did the union's disciplinary procedures here satisfy the requirements under Section 101(a)(5) of the LMRDA? Explain your answer. See Johnson v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers Branch 1100 [182 F.3d 1071 (Cal. 1999)].