Appellants are twenty-four members of the local stereotypers’ union of Los Ange-les 1 who dispute the manner of determining seniority and priority upon which the local union (their bargaining representative) and their employer2 3 have agreed. By this action they seek a declaration of their rights contrary to the agreement and an injunction against violation of those rights.

Prior to 1962 the employer had published two newspapers: The Los Angeles Examiner and the Los Angeles Herald-Express. Its employees who were represented by the local union were separated by the union into two “chapels” bearing the names of the respective newspapers upon which such employees performed most, but not all, of their services. Separate seniority and priority lists were established for the members of each chapel. Appellants were members of the Examiner chapel.

The collective bargaining contract did not provide what the rights of employees should be under such circumstances but the practice prior to 1962 had been that an employee transferring from one chapel to another went to the bottom of the list in the chapel to which he transferred regardless of his standing in his former chapel.

'Following cessation of publication of the Examiner the local union, following prescribed procedures of determination and review,3 requested the employer to *475place members of the Examiner chapel on its priority and seniority board below the members of the Herald-Express chapel. The employer agreed to this arrangement and has since carried it out.

It is this arrangement which appellants attack. First, they assert that the collective bargaining agreement establishes in the appellants vested priority and seniority rights based upon the length of time of union membership without regard to chapel affiliation.4 Second, they assert that the initial decision of the local union which was in favor of appellants should govern the employer’s practices in spite of the fact that the decision was reversed at the International Union Convention.

The District Court rejected appellants’ contentions and rendered judgment in favor of appellees. We agree.

Appellants' argument that the collective bargaining agreement gives them priority and seniority rights lacks merit. These agreements do not purport to deal with seniority rights under the circumstances of this case.

The procedures utilized by the union in solving this problem which culminated in the decision at the International’s convention were properly and fairly conducted.5 It is conceded that this decision was reached by the union in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute between its members and that there was no hostile discrimination. Under these circumstances the mere fact that certain disputants are adversely affected will not render invalid a union decision.6

Judgment affirmed.