# Opposition — Jasinski v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1253%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 424 U.S. 909 ## Text J ] ) J ] ] ] ] J J j } J | ow. —_— IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1975 MATHEW S. JASINSKI, et al., Petitioners, versus NTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, Respondent. BRIEF AND APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Plato E. Papps J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr. 1300 Connecticut 600 Rhodes-Haverty Bldg. Avenue, N.W. 134 Peachtree Street Washington, D.C. Atlanta, Georgia 3033 20036 Counsel for Respondent Of Counsel January 1976 eS ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ele Gund a... | — — IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1975 NO. 75-634 MATHEW S. JASINSKI, et al., Petitioners, versus INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, Respondent. BRIEF AND APPENDIX IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Plato E. Papps J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr. 1300 Connecticut 600 Rhodes-Haverty Bldg. Avenue, N.W. 134 Peachtree Street Washington, D.C. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 20036 Counsel for Respondent Of Counsel January 1976 i SS eS ee — t Gao Gal _ —m iL. £1 Bepne pee 2 8 INDEX Index to Appendix .....--+ +--+. il Authorities Cited .......+ +. iv Opinions Below .....++e++-e+-. 1 Statement of the Case .....-- 2 Summary of Facts ° 4 Discussion 1. The Courts Below Did | i a a oe ae ee ee ee 7 2. Petitioners State No Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted ......-.- 15 a a ae BempenmGin «+ «ee ee ee oe © o RS (1) 2 ; F —— 6 need —— — a | a | —2 geet (tll kD ——.—J INDEX TO BRIEF APPENDIX _ NMB Decision No. R-3639, 4 NMB Determinations 14 . NMB Certification No. R-3639 NMB Decision No. R-3712, 4 NMB Determinations 54 . NMB Certification No. R-4270 NMB Certification No. R-4336 . Reynolds, et al. v. I.A.M., 87 LRRM 2133 (M.D. N.C., 1973, unpublished decision) . Reynolds, et al. v. I.A.M., 498 F.2d 1397 (4th Cir. 1974, unpublished per curiam decision) .... Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers, etc., 75 L.C. 410313 (N.v. Gees “Serer «¢ 8 © © © ee Petitioners’ Application to NMB in C-4294 ...... EAL Statement of Position NMB Letter to I.A.M. re: Application of Airline Mechanics Association... I.A.M. Statement of Position (ii) A-57 A-58 an a - Sa se he Oe eee ee | Index to Brief Appendix NMB Dismissal Petitioners’ Complaint in the District Court Motion to Dismiss (iii) -__ a Ee ee eee ealtaeltoalta@atal=a BHRnmRHmnHHh — om oe on = = Ee ee ee ee ee ee AUTHORITIES CITED Opinions Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. N.M.B. 380 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. den. 289 US 912 (1967) Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Asso. v. N.M.B., 294 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1961), cert. den. 369 US 810 a a Amalgamated Asso. of Street, Electric Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Lockridge, -403 US 274 (1971) Balowski v. United Automobile, etc. Workers, 372 US 829 (6th Cir. 1967) Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc. v. N.M.B. 374 F.2d 269 (D.C. Cir. 1966) Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc. v. United Transportation Service, etc., 320 US 715 (1943) Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc. v. Virginian Ry. Co., 125-F.2d 853 (4th Cir. 1942) Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman 345 US 330 (1952) (iv) 18 17 17 18 16 cen HE een TO cee A cee ce SO ce ee ce ce Se eB eB eB sn f fF ff 8 FF ee Fs ee ee ee ee ee ee Li! ...! Opinions Gainey v. Brotherhood of Ry. Employees, 313 F.2d 318 (3rd Cir. 1960) General Committee of Adjustment, etc. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 320 US 323 (1943) Hardcastle v. Western Greyhound Lines, 303 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1962) ‘-. 6 8 *« « 6 2 Hess v. Petrillo, 259 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1958) s * * Homan Mfg. Co. v. Russo, 233 F.2d 547 (7th Cir. 1956) Humphrey v. Moore, 375 US 335 (1964) International Asso. of Machinists, etc. v. Street, 367 US 740 (1961) Leedom v. Kyne, 358 US 184 (1958) Long v. Georgia Kraft Co., 238 F.Supp. 605 (N.D. Ga. 1971), aff'd 455 F.2d 331 (Sth Cir. 1972) , Order of Ry. Conductors v. N.M.B., 141 F.2d 266 (D.C. Cir. 1944) (v) 17 17 17 17 16 16 15 17 Opinions Reynolds, et al v. Int. Asso. of Machinists, etc., 87 LRRM 2133 (M.D. N.C. 1973), aff'd per curiam in unpublished decision, 498 F.2d 1397 (4th Cir. 1974) (both deci- sions reprinted in Brief Appendix, Dn «6 « 6 6 8 + & & © eS 6 6 © eee Rose, et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc., 181 F.2d 944 (4th Cir. 1950), cert. den. 340 US 851 (1950) .... 9 Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 US 192 (1944) a a a Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers, etc., 75 L.C. 910313 (N.D. Calif. 1974) (decision printed in Brief Appen- Game SMENGF ce ec se eseeneee te s ae Switchmen's Union v. N.M.B., 320 US 297 (1943) nate * & = & & Fenn UNA Chapter, Flight Engineers Int. Asso. v. N.M.B., 294 F.2d 903 (D.C. Cis. 19613) . «© ese ee eee F Vaca v. Sipes, see US A72 (2967) «© se we we eo eo oe eo co SE (vi) = eS eS See ee enn mmm mmm em a um i LJ tf £./j) J C/ Le! tee! Ce C Le Oe! CULL OCU Ooh LJ J ; ™ FF SSeS ee Oe ee eee ses eS ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee _ oa - Li} tin! Tel Statutes National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 USC 15l, et seq. Section 8(b); 29 USC 158(b) : se <2 ae Railway Labor Act, SS GO 39h. @C OO8s «© «© we sc vovne 6 Section 2, Ninth; oS a a a a Official Publications Determination of Craft or Class of the National Mediation Board, Vol. 1 and 4, G.P.O. In the Matter of Representation of Employees of Erie Railroad Co., Case No. R-185l, 1 NMB Determi- mations 4986 .<«-e-eeeeecevevcee In the Matte of Representation of Employees of Eastern Airlines, Inc., (1) Mechanics and Related Employees (2) Stock-Clerks (3) Print Shop Employees, Case No. R-3639 (1963), 4 NMB Determi- nations 14 (Reprinted in Brief AGPONGIN, 19EFG) « « © « « co oc ow wo Seka (vii) = oe SES SSeS Se Eo ol NS ee ee ee ee ee ee ee i ' Official Publications In the Matter of the Application of Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Asso., etc., Involving Employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc., etc., Case No. R-3712 (1965), 4 NMB Determinations 54 (Reprinted in Brief Appendix, infra) ..... . 4,12 (viii) =a = = SS = = SS FS SS —_ ss Oe oe he he oe es Oe oe Oe Oe ele Pe ia eS ee ee ee ee ee ee IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1975 NO. 75-634 MATHEW S. JASINSKI, et al., Petitioner, versus INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, Respondent. BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OPINIONS BELOW The per curiam affirmance of the Dis- trict Court opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, issued July 29, 1975, is unpublished but is reported at 517 F.2d 478. The opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, entered February 4, 1975, was not published in the West System but is unofficially re- ported at 90 LRRM 3021. The Court of Appeals and District Court decisions are printed in the Appen- dix to the petition for certiorari at pages 31 and 22, respectively. STATEMENT OF CASE Plaintiffs (Petitioners) filed civil action for alleged individual damages in the District Court under the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. §151, et seg.], alleging that the Machinists Union had violated the Act and its duty to fairly represent plain- tiffs by including the craft or class of Airline mechanics and related employees of Eastern Airlines, of which plaintiffs are members, under the same collective bargain- ing agreemer.t with other employees of Eas- tern who are members of other crafts and classes. Brief Appendix, infra, A61-A71. Defendant (Respondent) filed motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Brief Appendix, infra, A72. The District Court granted the mo- tion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, saying: . . This is a dispute between che union and its [represented] employees over the propriety of including various crafts and classes of employees in one bar- gaining unit. Such a determina- tion lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National =S = = = SSS |S SSS Se a a oe hoe he he he ce me he he he he ia Nal em bees bes amd arn) ba hace §— mms) erm hi hd lh kd ll “Sj = | h SS eae. ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Oe ee SF 3 3 3 FS SS SS SI 9 a ee ee ee ee ee ee Mediation Board, as the Court has noted above. The failure of the National Mediation Board to char- acterize this case as the plain- tiff urges, and as this Court holds, is a matter to be pressed upon the Board by the plaintiffs in subsequent proceedings. .. .- (Appendix to the petition for certiorari, 29; explanatory bracket and emphasis supplied). Thus, the District Court held that the power to determine what crafts and classes of employees are to be included in a unit appropriate for collective bar- gaining under the Railway Labor Act lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and that, if the National Mediation Board improperly refused to exercise its statutory juris- diction in this case, such is a matter to be attacked directly, rather than colla- terally as plaintiffs attempt to do in this proceeding. The District Court therefore dismis- sed plaintiffs' action for want of juris- diction and did not pass upon the union's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, per curiam, without a written opinion. a = | | | | SS ee - ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee hme. Lr a Pe ee ee ee ee ee ee ee (= SUMMARY OF FACTS The history of bargaining between Eastern Airlines and the Machinists Union is complex. That history is traced in NMB Case No. R-3639 (C-3355), decided December 5, 1963, 1/ and in Case Nos. R-3712, R- 3713, R-3714, decided July 14, 1965, 2/ and in other materials contained in Brief Appendix, infra. The Machinists Union has become the representative of several classifications of EAL employees, either through voluntary recognition or certification beginning December, 1937, and: Over the years since 1937, under IAM representation all of these employees gradually through suc~ cessive negotiations have been included under a single collec- tive bargaining agreement. (NMB Decision No. R-3639, December 5, 1963, 4 NMB Deter- minations, at 17). In 1965, Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association sought separate representation 1/ Volume 4, Determination of Craft or Class of the National Mediation Board, page 14; decision reprinted in Brief Appendix, infra, at Al. 2/ Volume 4, Determination of Craft or Class of the National Mediation Board, page 54; decision reprinted in Brief Appendix, infra, at Al3. ee ce Oe Oe ee ee ee ce ee ee ee ee | hn ree iets Eee Ee ee ee ee ee of mechanics and related employees. An imminently qualified disinterested com- mittee, appointed by MNB pursuant to Sec~ tion 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act, 3/ in Case Nos. R-3712, R-3713, R-3714, found that the separate representation requested by AMFA was inappropriate. 4 NMB Determi- nation 54, July 14, 1965, at 66, et seg. That determination broadened the classifi- Cations of employees included within the Craft or class of airline mechanics and related employees from the determination two years earlier in R-3639. AMFA declin- ed to participate in an election in the broadened unit. Op. Cit; supra, at 66. In March, 1974, Jasinski, et al., filed application with the National Medi- ation Board asking for a determination that EAL and Machinists were acting im- properly by including all Machinists- represented employees under a single con- tract; but as the basis of their complaint, Jasinski, et al., requested NMB to revert to the craft or class of airline mechanics defined in R-3639. 4/ Thus, petitioners’ claim in this case substantially reiter- ates the 1965 request of AMFA and requires a determination of craft or class as an essential element of the relief requested. Upon request for comments by NMB, EAL responded that the appropriate unit 3/ 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth. 4/ Petitioners' application was docketed by NMB as No. C-4294 and is reprinted in Brief Appendix, infra, at A49. ~ | had been defined in R-3712 and that the Complaint should be dismissed. 5/ IAM concurred in that opinion. 6/ Neither EAL nor IAM suggested that NMB was with- out jurisdiction to adjudicate Petition- ers' Complaint. = = ee ee ee e_ The Executive Secretary of the Na- tional Mediation Board administratively dismissed Petitioners’ application for want of jurisdiction in the NMB, to determine the manner in which a carrier and a union, certified for one or more crafts or classes, bargain, and thus the questions which you raise are not properly resolved by the Mediation Board, but may be more effectively resolved by direct conferences between the affected parties. .. . (Brief Appendix, infra, at A59). Rather than launch a direct challenge in the District of Columbia to the refusal of NMB to assert jurisdiction, petitioners elected to attack the NMB action collater- ally by civil action for individual dam- ages in the Northern District of Georgia. 5/ See letter of response, Brief Appen- dix, infra, at A55. 6/ Brief Appendix, infra, at A58. See also A57. en El ee EE ee BE es ee ee ee Oe ses cs — aad a NN ee ee ee ee ee — ae ee ee ee ee, ee, Be ce ce, Be ee ce, es ee Be om, Lod Ne ee ee ee ee v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, COMMENTS 1. The Courts Below Did Not Err In Switchmen's Union of North America 300, 301 (1943), this Court said: The Act in §2, Fourth writes into law the 'right' of the ‘'major- ity of any craft or class of em- ployees' to ‘determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act'. That ‘right is protected by §2, Ninth which gives the Medi- ation Board the power to resolve controversies concerning it and as an incident thereto to deter- mine what is the appropriate craft or class in which the election should be held. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 88 F.2d 757; Bro- therhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 135 F.2d 780. A review by the federal dis- trict courts of the Board's deter- mination is not necessary to pre- serve or protect that ‘right’. Congress for reasons of its own decided upon the method for the protection of the ‘right' which it created. It selected the pre- cise machinery and fashioned the tool which it deemed suited to that end. Whether the imposition of judicial review on top of the Mediation Board's administrative 7. =,* oon i oes OO oes BO ee Be oe ee — Led het determination would strengthen that protection is a consider- able question. All constitu- tional questions aside, it is for Congress to determine how the rights which it creates shall be enforced. Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-577. In such a case the specification of one remedy normally excludes another. See Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Pro- ducts Refining Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 404. The Court went on to rule that: ‘ Under this Act Congress did not give the the Board dis- cretion to take or withhold ac- tion, to grant or deny relief. It gave it no enforcement func- tions. It was to find the fact and then cease. Congress pre- scribed the command. Like the command in the Butte Ry. case it contained no exception. Here as in that case the intent seems plain -- the dispute was to reach its last terminal pcint when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law. (320 U.S., at 305). aI mamrImrananannaniinait nm. ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ed bed i hes es es ee ile like CO ll That ruling has been adhered to and followed with uniformity. See, e.g., General Committee of Adjustment, etc. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 320 U.S. 323 (1943); Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc. v. United Trans- rtation Service, etc., 320 U.S. 715 r1943); Rose, et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc., 181 F.2d 944 (4th Cir. 1950), cert. den. 340 U.S. 851 (1950); UNA Chapter, Flight En- ineers' Int. Assoc. v. N.M.B., 294 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1961); Brotherhood of Rail- way and Steamship Clerks, etc. v. N.M.B., 374 F.2d 269 (D.C. Cir. 1966); Aeronauti- cal Radio, Inc. v. N.M.B., 380 F. (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. den. 289 U.S. 912 (1967); Reynolds, et al. v. Int. Assoc. of Machinists, etc., 8? LRRM 2133 (M.D. N.C. 1973), aff'd. per curiam in an un- published decision, 498 F.2d 1397 (4th Cir. 1974). 7/ One of the principal determinants which NMB has always considered in defin- ing an appropriate craft or class is the history of bargaining between the carrier and unions with respect to the affected employees. In other words, when it is asked to consider what employees shall be included in a craft or class, NMB looks to what classifications of employees the parties themselves have regarded to be 7/ Copy of the District Court and Court of Appeals decisions in the Reynolds case are contained in the Appendix to this Brief, infra, at A32 and A39, respectively. 9. cohesive, interrrelated classifications of employees with a community of interest appropriate for inclusion under a single collective bargaining agreement. If the grouping of employees under a single a- greement has resulted in a history of suc- cessful bargaining over a period of years, great weight is given to that history in determining the appropriate class or craft. For example, in Case No. R-1851, 8/ which was very similar on its facts to the present issue, the Board said: The reasons advanced by the MMP for now desiring a segregation of the craft or class are: first, the licensed personnel are men in charge of the vessel and as such their conditions of employment are separate and distinct from the unlicensed personnel; second- ly, that by reason of the larger number of unlicensed men employ- ed, this latter group can always out-vote the licensed officers in an election. It is clear that the first rea- son constitutes a reversal of the position taken by MMP in R-337 where it contended that ‘the un- licensed deck hands were in train- ing for the licensed positions of 8/ In the matter of Employees of Erie Railroad Company, Case No. R-1851l, 1 Determination of Craft or Class of NMB 488. 10. _—s = Piss Rene nd » masters, mates or pilots and, therefore, were part of the same craft.' Even assuming, however, that the facts tend to support this argument, it certainly can- not be said that it is entitled to any greater weight than the argument advanced more than ten years ago. In reaching a deter- mination, therefore, as to which of the two diametrically opposed views will tend to promote in- dustrial peace resort must be had to the history of collective bargaining on the property. When this is done, it becomes abun- dantly clear that the findings set forth above support a con- clusion that the composite craft or class produced a minimum of friction. rn i ; i ‘ * : . * ‘ >» ‘ - ‘ . “ “ » 4 J ; The second reason assigned for a change in the craft or class finds its basis solely on a de- sire on the part of the licensed personnel to bargain separately from the unlicensed personnel. It is true that the desires of the employees are always an im- portant consideration in fixing craft or class lines. In this instance, however, that factor is outweighed by the record of successful bargaining by the larger craft over a period of years. (1 NMB Determinations, at 491). ll. iI Lo ’ o =a = = = Sat et bed tof ol el el el el ef De dd ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee Similar weight was given to histor- ical bargaining considerations in Cases Nos. R-3639 (C-3355) and R-3712. 9/ The impartial committee in R-3712 said: This policy of primary reliance on ‘the customary groupings of the employees into crafts and classes as it has been estab- lished by accepted practice over a period of years. .. .' has remained the policy of the Board since its establishment. (4 NMB Determinations, at 60). Thus, the NMB, having exclusive authority so to determine, considers the grouping practices historically utilized by the carrier and the union when it de- fines classes and crafts of employees which are appropriate for bargaining. Underlying petitioners’ claim in the District Court is the threshold contention that IAM and EAL are bargaining with res- pect to an inappropriate unit (craft or Class) of employees; but there are three extant and possible definitions of what employees should be included in the craft or class of which petitioners are members. 9/ 4 NMB Determinations 14, 16-22, Brief Appendix, infra, A3-9, and 4 NMB Determi- nations 54, 60-66, Brief Appendix, infra, A19-A25. pate 12. fam md fy sd fd Pad ~ Pad Pano Pood Doc Dood Dod Pend Dent Yam Po Re The craft or class of airline mechanics and related employees defined in 1963 in Case No. R- 3639; 2. The enlarged craft or class of airline mechanics and related employees defined in 1965 in Case No. R-3712; De The still larger group of em- ployee classifications which have historically been grouped under one contract by EAL and IAM since 1937. 10/ Only the Mediation Board may deter- mine which of these definitions, or some other, is the appropriate one. Thus, assuming without conceding that a district court can entertain a claim that IAM is guilty of an “unfair labor practice" 11/ for including sever- al certified crafts or classes under one contract, a court could not do so until the Mediation Board has adjudged that such combination of employee classifica- tions has not, by virtue of the long and 10/ See discussion in Case No. R-3712, 4 NMB Determinations, at 57, 58, Brief Appendix, infra, Al6, Al?. 11/ The Railway Labor Act does not de- fine any union unfair practices compar- able to those contained in Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [29 U.S.C. 158(b)]. 13. pa Be Bec SS ee ee ee ee ee geeks: E> | emh Rach ead Pad ef es ir successful history of bargaining for such combined group, become an appropriate class or craft. The recent case of Reynolds, et al. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, et al., 87 LRRM 2133 (M.D. N.C., CA #C-179-WS-73, Nov. 8, 1973), aff'd per curiam in an unpublished decision, 498 F.2d 1397 (4th Cir. 1974) was very similar to the instant case. 12/ There a group of building maintenance em- ployees contended that they were members of a craft or class of employees certi- fied by NMB but had been wrongfully ex- cluded from the coverage of the collec- tive bargaining agreement subsequently agreed between Piedmont Airlines and the Machinists Union. The plaintiffs sued the union for unfair representation by failing to include them under the con- tract. The District Court said: 3. If plaintiffs are members of the craft or class of ‘Airline Mechanics and Related Employees’ of Piedmont Airlines, defendants are bound by statute to represent them. However, if plaintiffs are not members of that craft or class, defendants owe them no duty of representation. 4. The primary issue presented by the complaint is whether 12/ Decisions reprinted in Appellee's Brief Appendix, infra, A32 and A39. 14. — plaintiffs are members of the craft or class of ‘Airline Mech- anics and Related Employees’ of Piedmont Airlines. re FS Se lhc x * * 6. The primary issue presented by the complaint is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board and this Court, therefore, is with- out jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Upon appeal in the Reynolds case, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, saying: Per Curiam: After oral argument we affirm on the opinion of the district court. Plaintiffs have the right, under 45 USC §152, Ninth, to obtain a decision from the National Mediation Board as to whether they are included within the bargaining unit for which an employment contract has been negotiated. (Brief Appen- dix, infra, at A39, A40). 13/ 2. Petitioners State No Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted. This Court has consistently recog- nized that, through passage of the Railway 13/ Cf. Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958). 15. Deak Da Palast Da ad Deal ea eat Lad Ged Ge eed | ee Ce i Ce Clee SC Cd 2S Clee CO CC! Clk rc ee fF - — |S het bem bd fd Sd sd hel bm tm) tm). =smd), th, te ~_™ = s"s" ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee heed Labor Act, Congress sought a regulatory scheme which would effectively stabilize labor relations in the industry. The suc- cess of the scheme depended on an effec- tive system of collective bargaining and mediation by representatives of the par- ties in dispute. A necessary adjunct to the scheme involved strengthening union status in relation to both carriers and employees. See Int. Assoc. of Machinists etc. v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 759, (1961). Congress saw fit to clothe the bargaining representative with “powers comparable to those possessed by a legis- lative body both to create and restrict the rights of those whom it represents.” Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 202 (1944). Pursuant to that authority, IAM and Eastern have historically included all EAL employees represented by IAM under a Single collective bargaining agreement. The NMB gives great weight to the success of such bargaining in defining appropriate crafts and classes, thus recognizing a discretion vested in unions as bargaining representatives. Aside from the factual issue concern- ing what may be the appropriate craft or class of employees which includes peti- tioners, discussed ante, IAM clearly has the discretion, absent bad faith, discri- mination, or other invidious motivations, to include all groups of EAL employees represented by it under one contract. Cf., Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1952); Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335 (1964); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967); 16. = a oC ee Ss = a eee i Se a = a | | — — ——— =— — — a — | a ——— I ee ee ee | ete ete Amal. Asso. of Street Electric Ry. and Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 (1971). If not, the history of bargaining criterion traditionally utilized by NMB (and NLRB) is irrelevant and erroneous. It is not necessary here, therefore, to decide whether NMB has authority to issue craft or class determinations with- out request for an election. Petitioners alleged only a factual diminution of voting strength as the ba- sis of their claim for relief. They set -. forth no factual allegations which give rise to a litigible issue of bad faith or invidious motivation on the part of IAM in negotiating the single agreement with EAL. Cf., Balowski v. Int. Union, UAW, 372 F.2d, 829, 835 (6th Cir. 1967); Gainey v. Bro. of Ry. Employees, 313 F.2d 318 (3rd Cir. 1960). “Mere unsupported conclusions of fact or mixed fact and law are not admitted by a motion to dismiss". Hess v. Petrillo, 259 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1958). Cf., Homan Mfg. Co. v. Russo, 233 F.2d 547 (7th Cir. 1956). “Conclusory words. . . without a concomitant showing of lack of good faith do not set forth a claim". Hardcastle v. Western Greyhound Lines, 303 F.2d 182, 196 (9th Cir. 1962). Allegation of loss of individual voting strength by virtue of absorption into a larger unit of employees does not, without more, suffice to show actionable breach of duty. Long v. Ga. Kraft Co., 238 F.Supp. 605 (N.D. Ga. 1971), aff'd 17. (oe RO eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee | a eet le ee ee ee ee = = =. Si 455 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1972); Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers, etc., 75 LC 410, 313 (N.D. Calif. 1974), [decision printed in Brief Appendix, infra, at A4l]. By refusing to assert jurisdiction in this case, the Board held that the carrier and the union have the discretion to in- clude all units of employees for which the union is the representative under a single contract. 14/ Absent a showing of discri- minatory or invidious motivation, the union has that discretion under the law. We return to the words of this Court in Switchmen's Union v. NMB, with regard -to determinations of craft or class by NMB: - - A review by the federal district courts of the Board's determination is not necessary to preserve or protect that "right’. . « « (320 U.S. at 301). 14/ Union representation of more than one craft or class of employees is not prohibited. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc. v. Virginian Ry. Co., 125 F.2d 853 (4th Cir. 1942); Air- Line Stewards and Stewardesses Asso. v. N.M.B., 294 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1961); Order of Ry. Conductors v. N.M.B., 141 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1944). 18. ff 2 oe eS es he he he Se Ue he ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee eee eee eee ee ee CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, the petition for certiorari should be denied. Respectfuliy submitted, pho ad, R. GOLDTHWAITE, JR. By: 600 Rhodes-Haverty Bldg. 134 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Counsel for Respondent Plato E. Papps 1300 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Of Counsel 19. eSaqO~rFa mea mna ema rea rraiare ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee — ini eto eS ee ee es ee eee es ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee | A-1 APPELLEE'S BRIEF APPENDIX In the Matter of Representation or Emptorees or Eastern Air Lines, Inc., (1) Mecuanics anp Retateo Emptoyress (2) Stock Cuierks (3) Paint Suop Euproyess Case No. R-3639 (C-3355)—Decided December 5, 1968 Finpinos Upon INVESTIGATION On April 16, 1965, the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, (IBT), filed an application with the National Mediation Board pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, alleging the ex- istence of a representation dispute involving employees of East- ern Air Lines, Inc., (EAL), performing duties of (1) Mechanics and Related Employees, (2) Stock Clerks, and (3) Print Shop Employees. At the time the application was filea these employees were represented for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act by the Internationa! Association of Machinists, (IAM). During preliminary investigation of this application, issues were raised which the Board found required a recorded hearing. Accordingly, a public hearing was held on July 1 and 2, 1963, at which ali concerned were provided an opportunity to submit testimony and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Both of the labor organizations party to the dispute and the carrier submitted briefs which, following an extension of time, were due on August 5, 1963. POSITION OF THE PARTIES The applicant organiza*ion, the IBT, contends that the following employees of Eastern Air Lines constitute separate crafts or classes for purposes of representation under the Railway Labor Act, as amended, a. Mechanics and Related Employees b. Stock Clerks ce. Print Shop Employees a. As to the emplovees designated as Mechanics and related Employees, the IBT contends this group embraces the following classifications: Inspectors Lead Mechanics (Line or Shop) Apprentice Lead Cleaner Cleaners Lead Shop Laborers BEResasa taka ex SS ee ee ee ee ee ee cy haul e2kel het = heed a? a =a= Ne ee ee A=-2 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 15 Shop Laborers Shop Janitresses Lead Ground Communication and Flight Simulator Technician Ground Communications and Flight Simulator Technician In addition, the IBT contends that the alleged craft or class of “Mechanics and Related Employees” should include ramp service employees who perform the following duties on a pre- ponderance of work basis: the fucling, oiling and ADI servicing of airplanes, not including the changing and/or adding of engine vil in conjunction with maintenance interphase or phase checks, oil tanks or engine changes. For ready reference, the employees referred to above may be designated as Fuelers. Such Fuelers are classified by the carrier as Ramp Service Employees, which is a group totaling 1,630. Although there are some 637 Ramp Service Employees qualified to work as Fuelers, the IBT contends for only 180 of this number on the grounds that they work a preponderance of time in that capacity. The IBT does not contend for representation of the balance of employees classified as Ramp Service Employees. ‘ — position of IAM is described on Page 4 of their brief as ollows: No question arose at the hearing concerning the propriety of the Teamsters’ desired placement of EAL emplovees in jobs covered by the EAL-IAM agreement titled In- spector, Lead Mechanic, Mechanic, Apprentice, Helper, Lead Ground Communication and Flight Simulator Technician, Ground Communication and Flight Simulator Tech- nician, those Cleaners, Shop Laborers, Janitresses and their Leads assigned to clean shops, hangers or ramps and those Ramp Service Employees and Leads driving and operating fuel trucks and related equipment utilized for fueling, oiling and ADI servicing of aircraft within the Airiine Mechanic Craft or Class for voting and certitica- tion purposes. However, conflict arose over the Teamsters’ desired exclusions from the Airline Mechanics Craft or Class and the Clerical, Office, stores, Fleet and Passenger Service supioyens Craft or Class, us those crafts or classes have been determined in Cases No. R-144 \ eee Airlines), R-1706 (National Airlines) and R-2783 (Northwest b. As to the group of Stock Clerks, the IBT observes that industry practice and numerous NMB certifications for separate representation of Stock Clerks support their position to treat such employees as a separate craft or class. The IAM contests proposed grouping of Stock Clerks as a separate bargaining unit and points to the fact that the Board, in Case R-1706, determined such employees to be a part of the craft or class of Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service Emplovees. c. The IBT contends that the group designated as Print Shop Employees, including Lead Pressman, Pressman, Assistant Press- man, Lead Bindery Clerk, Bindery Clerk, may be appropriately es ee OO ee BE ee | Se a Oe me 1d we Be = ee oe | i ee ee ee ee S ks A-3 16 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS considered as a separate craft or class for representation pur- poses, Here again the IAM opposes the applicant’s position and argues that the IBT seeks the establishment of a new craft or class, Eastern Air Lines, that carrier here involved, contends for a grouping of employees contrary to either of the contesting unions. It should be observed that under the Railway Labor Act, a carrier is not a party in representation disputes, However, in the Board’s investigation of such matters under Section 2, Ninth, of the Act, it must rely on the carrier for information needed in considering the dispute. Accordingly, the views of the carrier on matters of this nature have been received and taken into account, It is the position of EAL that all three of the groups contended for by the IBT should be combined into one unit for represen- tation purposes, The position of EAL is based on the collective bargaining history of these employees on this property and the alleged interrelation of the work of these employees on Eastern. The IBT reviews extensively the representation of similar employees on other airlines and the Board's past determination of craft or class in support of its contentions in this case. The IAM does not take an affirmative position on how the employees should be grouped for purposes of representation but contents itself with the negative position of opposition on the basis of past findings of the Board to the groupings proposed by the IBT. Their position, simply stated, is that the IBT petition should in all particulars be dismissed. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HISTORY The collective bargaining history of the various groups of employees involved in this dispute extends back over a period of 25 years. On December 18, 1937, Case No. R-407, the Board certified the IAM to represent the craft or class of Airline Mech- anics on Eastern. At that time there were 221 such employees. On November 3, 1939, Case R-576, a second certification was issued for Airline Mechanics, Specialists, their helpers and ap- prentices. Including the Specialists, the craft or class had grown by that time to 347 employees. On May 10, 1946, Case R-1617, a certification was issued in favor of the IAM to represent Cargo Handlers in addition to Stock Clerks and Commissary Clerks, which during the interim had gained IAM representation by voluntary recognition; the Stock Clerks on December 30, 1939, and Commissary Clerks on June 1, 1944, At the time of the certification in R-1617, the Stock Clerks and Commissary Clerks were covered by a separate labor agreement between IAM and the carrier. In the certification issued in R-1617, the Board called parti- cular attention to the fact that it had made an interim finding in Case R-1471, issued October 4, 1945, regarding representation _—} ees heed 2 | Ff ee ee hood La. 2 — = hd ee ee ee | = = = §] &S eX ee oe. Le ee a Gel Go Go Go —_ hon ee ee eee A-4 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 17 of various employees of Trans Continental & Western Airlines, Inc. (now known as Trans World Airlines), in which Stock Clerks, Commissary Clerks and Cargo Handlers were voted as a single unit, although possibly part of a larger craft or class of Clerical, Office, Station and Storehouse Employees, not then in dispute. The Board followed the precedent set in R-1471 in its certification issued in R-1617, by adding the Cargo Handlers, through a card check, to the Stores and Commissary personnel already represented on Eastern by IAM through recognition. The certification in R-1617 stated specifically that - “This certi- fication does not establish a precedent or preclude an ultimate determination in any future dispute as to the proper classifi- cation of Cargo Handlers for representation purposes.” On February 11, 1948, a certification was issued, Case R-1976, to IAM to represent Airline Mechanics (including Shop Laborers and Janitors). This certification covered some 45 Shop Laborers and Janitors and was an addendum to the certification in R-576, issued on November 3, 1939, the basic certification in behalf of IAM for Mechanics. The pur,ose of the certification in R-1976 was to round out the craft or class of Airline Mechanics on Eastern by adding the Shop Laborers and Janitors working in and around shops and hangers, to make it conform with the craft or class of Air- line Mechanics which the Board had found to be the appropriate grouping in its Findings issued in case R-1447, decided October 1, 1948, on Americar Airlines. Case R-144/7, has been generally a my as the controlling decision defining the Mechanics’ craft or class. On February 24, 1950, in Case R-2247 a certification was issued for IAM to represent Print Shop Employees. Over the years since 1937, under IAM representation all. of these employees graduaily through successive negotiations have been included under a single collective bargaining agreement. Where, in 1937 the IAM bargaining group totalled 221, this group increased to a total of 5,889 as of May 17, 1963. This number is subdived by groups involved in this case as follows: Mechanics, Cleaners, Laborers and Simulator Technicians............... 3,940 — ee eee ea mae 306 ie eeeeeeeersegsesseesesssessonseooeceese 1,630 GS LLL LLL 13 Desbedesccesscceconscsessocesesocccssscsosoccoccoeseses 5,889 Section 2, Fourth, of the Railway Labor Act, gives employees subject to its provisions “the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shal! be the the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act.” A-5 18 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS Section 2, Ninth, requires the National Mediation Board to investigate disputes which arise among a carrier’s employees over representation, and to certify the duly authorized represen- tatives of such employees. In determining the c:ioice of the ma- jority of employees under this section, the Board is required to designate who may participate as eligible voters in the event election is required. The craft or class of Airline Mechanics is well defined, having been determined during 1945 as a result of Board’s investigations of representation disputes on a number of airlines. The principal findings on this question were issued in C2se R-1447. October 1, 1945, involving employees of American Airlines. Findings applica- ble to other airlines were also issued by the poard auring Ucvover 1945 and dealt with similar problems of craft or class. As thus determined and reviewed in Case R-1706 on January 31, 1947, the craft or class includes: A. Mechanics who perform maintenance work on aircraft, engine, radio or accessory ui ment. ae. Ground service personne! who perform work generally described as follows: Washing and cleaning, airplane, engine, and accessory parts in overhaul shops. fueling of aircraft and ground equipment; maintenance of ground and ramp equipment; maintenance o! buildings, hangars, and related equipment; cleaning and maintaining the interior and exterior of aircraft; servicing and control of cabin service equipment; sir conditioning of aircraft; cleaning of airport hangars, buildings, hangar and ramp equipment. C. Piant Maintenance personnei—inciuding employees who perform work consisting of repairs, alterations, additions to and maintenance of bulidings, hangars. and tne repair, maintenance and operation of related equipment including automati: equip- ment. In the years since 1945 this craft or class findings for Airline Mechanics has not been seriously challenged. On the contrary, throughout the industry this grouping of employees constitutes the prevailing pattern for representation in collective bargaining relationships between carriers and unions. The main differences as to personne! included in this craft or class, and the positions involved in the present dispute center around Ground Service personne! in the determinations referred to above and personnel in this case designated as Ramp Service employees. The work of Ramp Service employees on EAL is defined in the current labor agreement between the carrier and IAM: (J) RAMP-SERVICE: The work of Ramp-Service employees shall consist of non- mechanical duties in connection with the operation and servicing of aircraft while on the ground. These duties shall be the loading. unloading. pas and securing carg> in planes, in accordance with Company procedure; the handiing of cargo between hangars, shops, mail, a'r freight and express rooms or trucks. baggage rooms and field ticket offices; the handling of loading steps. ground power units. baggage carts. laniing gear safety pins, wheel checks and other ground handling equipment, fire extinguishing uipment, fuel trucks and equipment. air conditioners, cargo truck, and the fueling, iling and ADI servicing of airplanes. not including the changing and ‘or adding of engine oil in conjunction with maintenance interphase or phase checks, oil tank or engine es es ee ee ee ee ee | _ = ff ff 2 se ee ee eo ee eee eee Se ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-6 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 19 Employees in this classification may be used to clean airplanes and perform other non-mechanica! duties in connection with che preparation ul aircrait for tight. How- ever, at no time wil! this become a permanen: tui lime assignment. At the outset in considering differences between the parties here involved as to occupations included in th: established craft or class of Airline Mechanics, it should be noted that the terms “Fleet Service,” “Ramp Service,”’ and “Ground Service” em- ployees are not precisely meaningful designations. What are re- ferred to as Fleet Service employees on one airline may be called Ground Service employees on another, On Eastern Air Lines the Ground Service functions included in the craft or class of Airline Mechanics are performed by so-called Ramp Service or Fleet Service employees. The current agreement between Eastern Air Lines and IAM lists the various employee groups represented by IAM in Article 4 - Classifications of Employees; as follows: Mechanical Employees A. Inspectors B. Lead Mechanics C. Mechanics D. Apprentice E. Helper Fleet Service Employees IL Lead Ramp-Service Man J. Ramp Service Employees K. Lead Cleaner L. Cleaners Shop Laborers and Shop Janitresses Lead Shop Laborer Shop Laborers Shop Janitresses Lead Ground Communications and Flight Simulator Technician U. Ground Communications and Flight Simulator Technicians The description of the work of Ramp Servicemen shown above includes the duties of loading. unloading, packing and securing cargo in planes in accordance with company procedure; the handling of cargo between hangers, shops, mail and express rooms or trucks, baggage rooms and field ticket offices; handling load- ing steps, baggage carts and cargo trucks. Such work is generally recognized as that of “cargo handlers.” who are included in the craft or class (Case R-1706 et. al.) of Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service Employees, as personnel who “load and unload baggage and cargo.” The other duties assigned to Ramp Service Employees and defined above in the IAM agreement consist of “non-mechanical HOZe en es ee ee ee ee ee 2 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee fe Fee eS -_ . A-7 20 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS duties in connection with the operation and servicing of aircraft on the ground.” Such work has been found by the Board in its determinations in Cases R-1447 and R-17U6, quoted above, as being “Ground Service” work, non-mechanical in nature but a part of the work performed by airline employees in the generally recognized craft or class of “Airline Mechanics.” On EAL the following twelve functions ali of which fall natur- ally in the work classified as “Ground Service,” may be per- formed either by Ramp Service employees or Mechanics de- pending on circumstances.' Gly cling Placing and Removing Chocks Sumping Tanks Placing and Removing Gear Pins Cleaning Windshields Fueling Aircraft Engines with Oil Cleaning Ramps Fire Watch when Starting Engines = Signalling when Starting Engines and Moving Air- craft Attaching and Removing of Power Pull Fueling Ground Equipment Preventive Maintenance on Motorized Ground Equipment (Changing Oi!, Checking Water, etc.) The application of the IBT for an election among the craft or class of “Mechaniis and Related Employees” runs counter to the well established craft or class of Airline Mechanics as deter- mined by the Board’s findings in Case R-1447. Although the IBT includes most of the generally recognized classifications in the craft or class applied for, it excludes all Ramp Service employees except so-called Fuelers. There is no separate job title of Fueler on EAL. Such workers are classified as Ramp Service employees. The IBT contends for some 180 employees who perform fueling functions a preponderance of their time. The record shows there are some 637 * employees qualified to perform the fueling func- tion and who may do such work on a given day and may also alternately, do other ramp service work such as handling the battery carts, contro] blocks, landing gear safety pins, wheel chocks, or fire extinguishing equipment. The record, however, is barren of any information on how much of the time of these 637 is spent in the fueling function, or in other types of ground service functions just mentioned. The IBT has not advanced any persuasive reasons why the particular group of 180 Ramp Service employees (fuelers) should ' Board Exhibit No. 4. * Board Exhibit No. 2°. ; ) Poo 7, tos. F? fF. ee ee ee eee aan a=a en ee ee | i — el ee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-8 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 21 be separated from other Ramp Service employees in considering those eligible to vote in the craft or class of Airline Mechanics, and leave out all others performing ground service functions. Cleaning and janitorial service in and arouna shops, hangars, and ramp areas has long been considered as work included with- in the craft or class of Airline Mechanics, and this is recognized by IBT in the listing of classifications covered by their application. On the basis of the entire record before it, the Board finds no reason to depart from the well! established craft or class of ‘‘Air- line Mechanics.” The Board tinds further, on the basis of investi- gation heretofore conducted, that a representation dispute ex- ists among the craft or class of Airline Mechanics of Eastern Air Lines, and that such dispute should be resolved by a ballot box election using a list of eligible voters including employees in that craft or class as heretofore determined in Cases R-1447 and R-1706 et al, and as reviewed herein, The list of eligibie voters shall include all Fleet Service Employees who perform ground service and cleaning functions a preponderance of their time, and shal! exclude Fleet Service employees performing pre- ponderantly as cargo handlers, as above described. Such employees are a part of another craft or class, not here in dispute. The record before the Board indicates that EAL no longer has employees known as Commissary Clerks, for whom IAM was recognized as representative by FAL in 1944, The second group of employees which the IBT seeks to vote separately are Stock Clerks. They argue that the community of interest, duties, functions, and nature of the work of Stock and Stores employees differ sufficiently from that of Mechanics on the one hand and Office, Clerical and Passenger Service employees, on the other as to support their position that Stock Clerks should be recognized and designated as a separate craft or class. The IAM reviewed previous determinations respecting Stock Clerks and affirmed its long standing opposition to the inclusion of Stock Clerks in the Clerical and Office craft or class. By their own statements on the record before Emergency Board 122, Stock Clerks on EAL are a separate craft or class, In 1945, Case R-1447, and in 1947, Case R-1706, Stock Clerks were determined to be a part of the Clerical and Office craft or ’ class. This was in recognition of the clerical aspects of the job and also the fact that the duties of Stock Clerks are not mech- anical in nature. At that time there was considerable diversity on the various airlines in the manner by which Stock Clerks were grouped for coilective bargaining. In the years since those Determinations, this diversity has continued. Moreover, in most cases this trend is contrary to the early determinations. At the present time there is considerable variance in the Stock Clerks collective bargaining pattern. While on some lines they are in- cluded with the clerical craft or class, on many more they are a > —=—= —4 —— gee Be ee Be ee Be ee EE ee SS ee ee mo a ‘S88 oe ee re") a ee eo ee ee ee A-9 22 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS either a separate group or bargain together with the Mechanics. On EAL, the IAM was voluitarily recognized to represent Stock Clerks by a separate action on December 30, 1939. In the vast majority of representation elections for Stock and Stores personnei conducted by the National Mediation Board they have been voted as a separate group.’ In view of the lack of consistent pattern in the collective bargaining relationships for Stock Clerks, it would appear that there is no strong basis to disturb a separate grouping for these employees in this case. Accordingly, a representation election will be conducted among Stock Clerks. The third group contended for by the IBT, designated as Print Shop Employees, is a group of approximately 13 in number. This group has been represented by the IAM since 1950 under a certification based on a check of authorizations, This is a pro- cedure sometimes used by the Board in determining the desires of employees for representation in situations where employees secure representation for the first time and there is no contesting organization. According to information supplied by the carrier these are not Print Shop employees in the general commercial sense but in- stead they operate the usual kind of duplicating machines used in large offices. None of the employees in this group was trained in the printers’ craft but instead they were transferred or promoted to the Print Shop from other jobs on the airline such as Cleaners and Mail Room. Job titles in the Print Shop include Pressmen and Bindery Clerks of various grades. The job content of these em- ployees and their occupational titles suggest they might reason- ably be considered a part of the Clerical and Office craft or class, However, no contest for representation of that craft or class is at issue here. Accordingly, it appears that Print Shop employees should be considered for a separate group for purposes of a representation election which is hereby authorized as was done in 1950 (R-2247) when these employees first secured represen- tation by the IAM. CONCLUSION On the basis of the entire record the Board concludes that File C-3355 is hereby cocketed as Case No. R-3639 for formal investigation under the pvovisions of Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act. In such investigation the groupings of em- ployees for determining representation should be in accordance with the findings discussed herein and summarized under the following headings: 1. Airline Mechanics 2. Stock Clerks 3. Print Shop Employees *IBT Ex hibit No. 7. | es | we A-10 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 23 A mediator will be assigned to continue investigation of this case in accordance with the findings and determinations set forth herein. =a—— = = = 75 49 4 ee ee ee ee ee eee ee = ee es | al = a a a | ——— = BeBe SS. 8.. | ae eC, ry hed heed hed cd heed hia ha ™ A-1l NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WASHINGTON #3/ 201364 ipo In the Matter of -—- - + «* CASE NO. R-2639 CERTIFICATION April 15, 1964 — — £9 He ad o? CASTERN AIR LINES, DIK. 1) Airline Mechanics 2) Stock Clerks 3) Print Shop Employees i. NS ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee The services of the National Mediation Beard were invoked by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division, to investigate and deterzine who may represent for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, es provided by Section 2, Ninth, thereof, the crafts or classes of (1) Airline Mechanics (2) Steck Clerks, and'(3) Print Shop Exployees, employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc. At the tize of application these empl ,ees vere represented oy tre International Association of Machinists, AFL-CID. The case was aseigned to Mediator William H. Pierce, and subsequently to »ediator Werren S. Lane for investigation. During the course of the investigation issues were reised es to who should participate in this dispute. A public hearing was held on the questions raised by those issues and, on December 5, 1963, findings upon investigation were issued by the Boerd outlining the grouping of employees for determining of representation in this case. March 11, 1964, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters amended their appiication to exclude the craft or class of Airline Mechanics. A secret balict election was conducted in the remaining crefts or classes. April 6, 1964, prior to the count of bellots in this case the Inter. nationsl Brotherhood of Teexsters withdrew its application to investigate s repre- sentation dispute azong Print Shop Exployees. folloving is the resuit of the election among Stock Clerks as recomed oy ‘ha edtator end sitested by representatives of the contesting organizations Sa tots 33 Soservers. A-12 -2- Case i'o. 2-339 International Brothernood of International Fusber of Tesceters, Cuaurfsurs, rare- Associatisa T=uployees nousemes ¢. Helpers of America of lachinists Cther E1igi>.= Stoce Clerks ug 25% 1 3ho The Mational Mediation Beard further finds that the carrier sod ecployees in this case are, respectively, a carrier and employees within the ceaning of the Pailway Labor Act, es amended; that this Board had jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and that the interested parties were given due notice of Lovestigatian. CERTIFICATION Therefore, tte Natiorml Mediation Board certifies that the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO has been duly designated and authorized to ccntinue to represent, for the purposes of the Fatlwey Labor Act, the craft or class of Stock Clerks, exployees -f Lastern Air Lices, Inc. By order of the HATIONAL MEDIATIO? DCAAD. E. C. Thompson Feecutive Secretary _ —_ Boa kata kanheaw ee rms ee ee ee ee ee | 4 | ee ee ee Oe ee ee ee ee wheel hl hak hs A-13 In the Matter of the Application of: Arrcrarr Mecnuancis FrRa- TERNAL AssociaTION, ALLEGING REPRESENTATION Disputes Pur- SUANT TO SecTION 2, NINTH OF THE Rattway Lasor Act, INvoLy- inc Emptorees or Eastern Arr Lines, Inc., anp Unitep AIR Lines, Inc., anp SEABOARD Wortp Arrutnes, Inc., By a Com- MITTEE APPOINTED BY THE NATIONAL MEDIAT:ON BoarD Case Nos. R-3712 R-3713 R-3714—Decided July 14, 1965 On July 13, 1964 the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, pursuant to Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act, filed a request for an investigation of a representation dispute involving the following classifications of employees on Eastern Air Lines, Inc. which the AMFA maintains should constitute one craft or class it terms “Aircraft Mechanics:” The craft or class of Aircraft Mechanics and Radio Electric Mechanics (Aircraft), including Inspectors, Lead Mechanics (Line and Shops), Mechanics (Line and Shops), Apprentice Mechanics, Lead Flight Simulator and Flight Simulator Employees.) This case was docketed as R-3712. On September 22, 1964 the AMFA filed request for an investi- gation of a representation dispute involving the following classi- fication of employees on United Air Lines, Inc.: The craft or class of Aircraft Mechanics (includes Lead Mechanic, Aircraft Inspector Lead Flight Simulator Technician. Flight Simulator Technician, Shop Inspector, Mechanic, Apprentice Mechanic) Radio and Electric Mechanic (Aircraft). This case docketed as R-3713. Subsequently, the AMFA made a similar application, docketed as case No. R-3714, with respect to the following employees of Seaboard World Airlines, Inc.: The craft or class of Aircraft Mechanics (includes Lead Mechanics, Mechanics, Senior Mechanics, Inspectors, Mechanic Helpers, Radio and Electric Mechanics— Line and Shop). In its post-hearing brief the AMFA finally stated that: The employees who belong in the craft ur class which AMPA seeks to represent are those .. . who “are trained to ind possessed of sufficient skill to do and who in fact do mechanical work on the aitcrast and its components and who are personaily and divectly responsible for the airworthy concition of the aircraft ana its components.” The employees in the classification claimed by the AMFA em- ployed on Eastern Air Lines and United Air Lines presently are 54 oe ee ee ee ee, 1 oe ee ee ee ee =, 7“ a ee ee ee ee ee A-14 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 55 represented by the International Association of Machinists and on Seaboard World Airlines by the Transport Workers Union of America. They are part of the present craft or class of ‘Airline Mechanics and Related Employees” first established in Case No. R-1447 (American Airlines) decided October 1, 1945. In its preliminary investigation of these applications the Board found that “The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association con- tends that the craft or class grouping as presently established in the airline industry by the Board’s decision in Case No. R-1447, issued October 1945, is inappropriate;” and that “the incumbent organizations, on the other hand, contend that the employees covered by these applications constitute only a part of the craft or class of airline mechanic as determined by the National Medi- ation Board in Case No. R-1447 which remains appropriate.”’ On November 4, 1964 the National Mediation Board issued an order pursuant to Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act which provides: Ninth. If any dispute shall arise among a carrier’s employees as to who are the re- presentatives of such employees designated and authorized in aceordance with the uirements of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Mediation Board. upon request of either party to the dispute, tu investigate such dispute and to certify to both parties, in writing, within thirty days after the receipt of the invocution of its services. the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated und authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the sume to the carrier. Upon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat with the representa- tive so certified as the representative of the craft or class for the purpeses of this Act. In such an investigation. the Mediation Board shall be authorized to tuke a secret ballot of the empiovees mvyvived, or tu utilize any other appropriate method of as- certaining the names of their duly des:guated and authorized representatives in such manner as shail insure the chwice of representatives by the emplovees without inter- ference, influence, or cvercion exercised by the carrier. In the conduct of any election for the purposes herein indicated the Buard shali designate who may participate in the election and establish the rules tu govern the election, of may appoint a committee of three neutral persons who after hearing shall within ten days designate the empivvees who may participate in the election. The Board shall have access to and have power to make copies of the books and records of the carriers and tu obtain and utilize such in- formation as may be deemed necessary by it to carry out the purposes and provisions of this paragraph.” Pursuant to the Board’s order the undersigned Committee of three neutral persons was appointed with the responsibility . .. to conduct a public hearing on these cases to afford all interested parties an op- portunity to present pertinent data. evidence and argument in support of their respee- tive position, and, therefore, . . . designate the employees who may participate in any elections which may be ordered by the National Mediation Board pursuant to its rules and regulations.* Thereafter, Eastern Air Lines, Inc.; the International Brother- hood of Teamsters; the Air Line Employees Association, Inter- national; Pan American World Airways, Inc.; United Air Lines, Inc.; the Air Line Dispatchers Association; the Air Transport &. National Mediation Board Order, Case Nos. R-8712, R-3713, R-3714, November 4, 1964. ee ee er ee ee ee co — en ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee . A-15 56 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS Association of America; Seaboard World Airlines, Inc.; the Trans- port Workers Union of America; and the Iaternational Associa- tlon of Machinists notitied the Hoard of their interest in these disputes and of their desire to be heard and to participate in any hearings which might be heid. The Neutra! Committes held public hearings in New York City on December 4, 1964, January 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15, March 10, 11, 12, and June 7, 1965, All parties in interest were given an oOp- portunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and oral or written testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present argument in the form of briefs. The AMFA submitted its brief on June 18, 1965 and Eastern Air Lines, United Air Lines, the Internationa! Association of Machinists, Seaboard World Airlines, the Transport Workers Union, and the Air Transport Association submitted their briefs on July 2, 1965, After their receipt by the Committee the record was declared closed as of July 6, 1965. THE ISSUES The basic issue before the Committee is to determine whether, for election purposes, the craft or class of “Aircratt Mechanic” sought by the AMFA on Eastern Air Lines, United Air Lines, and Seaboard World Airline is a proper craft or class for pur- poses of representation as contemplated by the Railway Labor Act. Further, it is the task of the Committee to determine which classification of employees in what is now commonly known as the craft or class of “Airline Mechanics and Related Employees” should be entitled to vote in any election which the Board may see fit to order under its rules and regulations. FINDINGS OF FACT On the basis of the entire record we find: 1. The employees involved in this dispute are “employees” with- in the meaning of Section 1, Fifth and Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act. 2. The carriers—Eastern Air Lines, United Air Lines, and Seaboard World Airlines—are carriers as defined in Section 201, Title II and Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act. 3. The Internationa! Association of Machinists, herein re- ferred to as “IAM,” is a labor organization and representative as defined in Section 1, Sixth and Section 2, Ninth of the Rail- way Labor Act. 4. The Trarsport Workers Union of America, herein referred to as “TWU,” is a labor organization and representative as de- fined in Section 1, Sixth and Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act. 5. The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, herein re- ferred to as “AMFA,” is a labor organization as defined in Sec- tion 1, Sixth and Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act. A-16 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 57 6. The National Mediation Board on October 1, 1945 issued its decision in Case No, R-1447. This decision had the effect of establishing the craft or class of what has come to be known in the industry as “Airline Mechanics and Related Employees.” The decision in R—1447 is the basic determination in the airline indus- try today with respect to the proper craft or class for represen- tation purposes among mechanics and related personrel. 7. Through the years the National Mediation Board in its determination of craft or class matters has consistently given great weight to the historical relationships established by em- ployees and the carriers. 8. From its early days the National Mediation Board has re- fused to create arbitrary craft or class groupings, and impose them upon the employees and the carriers. Rather, it has sought, in so far as possible, to determine the proper craft or class on the basis of the patterns of organizations and collective bar- gaining relationships which had developed. Likewise, the Board has generally declined to divide and carve up existing craft or class groupings and thus to multiply subcrafts and subclasses. 9. The National Mediation Board has on numerous occasions since 1945 reaffirmed its basic craft or class determinations in R-1447 with the result that such a craft or class is a fact of life on ten of the nation’s domestic trunk carriers and on the United States flag international carriers. (The mechanical employees are unorganized on Deita Airlines, the eleventh domestic trunk air carrier.) 10. The petitioner involved herein, the AMFA, takes the posi- tion that the decision in R-1447 is outdated and that it no longer provides an adequate basis for establishing the craft or class within which mechanics who work on the aircraft or its components should choose a representative. 11. The AMFA states that under current conditions represen- tation should be selected for a craft or class which it calls Air- craft Mechanics. The AMFA proposes that craft or class be comprised of the following classifications on each of the three carriers involved in this proceeding: EASTERN AIR LINES a. Aircraft Inspectors b. Aircraft Mechanics, line and shop (not including Auto- motive or Building Maintenance Mechanics), licensed and unlicensed c. Apprentice Mechanics d. Flight Simulator Technicians e. Leads in these classifications UNITED AIR LINES a. Aircraft Inspectors b. Shop {nspectors a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ae ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe se ee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-17 58 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS c. Line, hanger and shop Aircraft Mechanics (not including Automotive or Building Maintenai.ce Mechanics). licensed and unlicensed d. Apprentice Mechanics e. Flight Simulator Technicians f. Leads in these classifications SEABOARD WORLD AIRLINES a. Aircraft Inspectors b. Aircraft Mechanics and Senior Mechanics, line and shop (not including Automotive and Building Maintenance Mechan- ics) licensed and unlicensed c. Off-route Station Mechanics d. Mechanic Helpers, line and shop e. Leads in these classifications. 12. It appears from the AMFA applications and from the evi- dence that if the craft or class of Aircraft Mechanic were established, the following classifications presently covered by the craft or class of Airline Mechanics and related Employees or other crafts or classes would be excluded: EASTERN AIR LINES a. Building and Maintenance Mechanics b. Automotive Mechanics ce. Ground Communications Technicians d. Cleaners e. Sho» Laborers f. Shop Janitresses g. Print Shop employees h. Ramp-Service employees i. Stock Clerks j. Leads and Seniors in these classifications UNITED AIR LINES a. Ground equipment employees b. Ramp-Servicemen c. Flight Kitchen employees d. Utility employees e. Fuelers f. Seamstresses g. Plant Maintenance employees h. Stores employees i, Security Guards j. Crew Car Drivers k. Ground Communications Technicians l. Mechanic Helpers m. Leads in the above ciassifications = = - S- —_ — ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Ge ee A-18 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 59 SEABOARD WORLD AIRLINES a. Cleaners b. Cabin Servicemen c. Stock Clerks d. Cargo Servicemen e. Leads in the above classifications. 13. There is presently no clasification of “Aircraft Mechanic” on any of the subject airlines or in the air transport industry. 14. The record shows that on each of the involved airlines the groupings of employees proposed by the AMFA constitute a majority in the existing Airline Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. 15. The parties opposed to the petition, namely Eastern, United, Seaboard World, the ATA, the IAM, and the TWU make the following contentions: a. The grouping of employees in a craft or class of Aircraft Mechanics proposed by the AMFA does not conform to the concept of craft or class embodied in the Railway Labor Act. Neither does it meet the standards long recognized in craft or class determination made by the National Mediation Board. b. The record does not support the contention of the AMFA that technological changes in the airiine industry have so changed the duties and functions of airline mechanics as to justify a repudation of the principles of R-1447 and the creation of a new grouping of classifications for represcnta- tion purposes. The carriers contend that the fundemental skills of the classifications involved have not changed signifi- cantly since R-1447 was decided in 1945. The organizations, without subscribing to that contention, join the carriers in maintaining that skill levels alone have not been deemed basic in craft or class determinations. c. The proposed grouping of employees for representation pur- poses is Unnecessary to protect the interests of these em- ployees. .hey are not a submerged minority in a sea of un- skilled classifications, DISCUSSION Section 2, Fourth of the Railway Act accords “The majority of any craft or class of employees the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class....” The Act does not define the term “craft or class;” in the opinion of the drafters of the 1934 amendments those words had a meaning long estab- lished in labor parlance that was not likely to produce disputes and if they did, these could be resolved by the machinery erected in on 2, Ninth. The National Mediation Board, however, soon was constrained = ~ = — Oe ele ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eS - | | = A-19 60 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS to give more precise content to this general phrase. In its First annual report the Board stated: _In making rules to govern elections and in designating the employees who may parti- cipate in such elections, the Board in must cases has been confronted with disuptes as to whether the employees invuived constitute one craft or class, or whether they are several distinct crafts for eacn of which sepurate represer tatives are to be chosen by separate majorities. So far as possible the Buurd has followed the past practice of the employees in grouping themseives for representation purposes aud of the carriers in agreements with such representatives. This approach emerged from a background of a long history of collective bargaining in the railroad industry predating the Act, during the course of which employees had voluntarily group- ed themselves for representation purposes and carriers had made agreements with the representatives of these groups. Despite the existence of a history of representation on the railroads, however, the Board was confronted with requests from particular clas- sifications for the establishment of separate crafts or classes. It soon found it necessary to stem a tendency toward the frag- mentation of previously established groupings. In its First Annual Report the Board stated that it: “. . . is impressed that the tendency to divide and further subdivide established and recognized crafts and classes of empioyvees has arleady gone too far, and threatens to defeat the main purposes of the Railway Labor Act, namely the making and maintain- ing of agreements .. . and the avoidance of iavor uisputes. ‘The Board is inclined, therefore, during the coming year to avoid unnecessary multiplication of subcraits and subclasses. und to maintain, so far as possible, the customary grouping of employees into crafts and classes as it has been established by accepted practice over a period uo! years in the making of wage and rule agreements.”’ This policy of primary reliance on “the customary groupings of the employees into crafts and classes as it has been established by accepted practice over a period of years...” has remained the policy of the Board since its establishment.”’.* The Board has also applied the following principles in making craft or class determinations: extent and nature of the collective bargaining arrangements developed by the parties; duties, re- sponsibilities, skill, training, and experience of the employees involved and the nature of their work; usual practices of pro- motion, demotion and seniority observed or developed for the employees concerned; nature and extent of community of in- terest among the employees. In R-1447 the Board restated its reliance on the principle of historical groupings as its chief guide in craft or class deter- minations. It stated that: “... @ ‘craft or class’ in the air transport industry means a well-knit and cohesive oceupaticnai group which has been developed over a neriod of years in the course of b. First Annual a: tofthe Vattonal “/ediahon Poard, p. 21 @. Chicago & V. W. Ry. Co., 1 NB Determinations 52 (1937): Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.. 1 NMB Determenations 167 (1940); Chicoyo V. 3. & NR. Co... |} NMB Determinations 101 (1953); and Chicago M., &. P.& P. Ry. Co., 3 N MB Determination: 120 (1955). A-20 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 61 general voluntary assuciation of the employees in collective bargaining unite. .. . Accordingly it becumes necessary Lo examine the uccupauionasl groupings as tbey have emerged over a period uf yeurs in the airline industry, and the determine whether such groupings are umilurim to Lhe extent Lut Lucey might vow be termed ‘cralts or clasves’ under the provisions ul the Kauway Lauvor Act.” In the then young air transport industry the Board found no clear-cut preexisting pattern of groupings of classifications for representation and coliective bargaining purposes. Hence it turned to an examination of the history of organization ar-ong airline employees in its search for natural and logical groupings of em- ployees for representaion purposes. Here it found that “practically without exception airline mech- anics were the first occupational! craft or class to be organized and covered by agreements with the air carriers,” but that in succeeding years other groups, including plant maintenance force, fleet service personnel and ground service personnel secured representation and coverage by agreements. In some cases this coverage was under agreements with mechanics; in others they were covered by separate agreements. The Board also observed that on the airlines (in contrast to the railroads) “no hard and fast jurisdicational divisions have de- veloped among airline mechanics,” and that the airline mechanic is “an all-around mechanic capable of performing any kind of maintenance work required on an aircraft, engine, or accessory equipment.” Furthermore, the Board found that such employees as aircraft cleaners, parts washers, plant maintenance mech- anics and the service groups known variously as “ground service,” “fleet service,” or “utility” were closely associated with the air- lines performing specialized tasks which on the smaller carriers was “in the main performed by the mechanical forces.” On the basis of the trends and tendencies observed by the Board in the history of organization among airline employees, it found that: “The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that employees of airlines who perform work such as is described above belong naturally with the mechanical or maintensnce group, and should be included, with the airline mechanics in one craft or class for representation purposes, since jurisdictional craft lines are historically absent among the maintenance of equipment employees of the air carriers.” In summary, the National Mediation Bcard in R-1447 con- sidered and specifica!ly rejected the type of alternative presented in the AMFA petition now before us of setting up mechanics who work on the airplane or its components, as distinct from those who work on plant or ground equipment maintenance or from those who perform ihe semi-skilled or unskilled tasks related thereto, as a separate craft. It specifically rejected a narrow c-aft concept es unsuited to the airlines industry and as foreign to the historical deveiopment of its job structure and its pattern of seif-organization. Thus as early as September 1945 in Case No. R-1368, the Board rejected a plea by the IBEW that = = ” ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Rall A-21 62 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS mechanic employees of American Airlines be deemed a separate craft or class and found them to be part of the craft or class of airline mechanics. Instead of narrow craft units, the Board in R-1447 found the proper unit to be the class of “maintenance of equipment em- ployees,”” composed of the airline mechanic classification, the ground service classification, the plant riaintenance personnel classification and the fleet service personnel classification. Each of these classifications in turn consisted of a variety of occupations or sub-specialists varying in scope from airline to airline. The Board since R-1447 has made craft or class determinations in the airline industry on this basis with certain modifications not here relevant. The AMFA in the petition before us asks that this basic pat- tern of craft or class determinations be scrapped. It contends that the craft or class grouping established in the airline industry by R-1447 is outdated and no longer fills the public need. It claims that the expansion of the industry and the technological changes that have taken place in it have created a need for a new approach to collective bargaining representation. It asks for the establish- ment of a craft or class consisting of those who: are trained to and possessed of sufficient skill to do and who in fact do mechanical work on the aircraft and its components and who are personally and directly respon- sible for the airworthy condition of the aircraft and its components. We find that there is no justification for granting the AMFA petition. Our reasons are set forth below: 1. There is no histurical basis for the grouping the AMFA seeks. As pointed out above, a statutory “craft or class of employees” is that grouping of employees who have historically been as- sociated with one another in making and administering agree- ments with carriers. The Board has consistently held that where there is an established, customary, or historical craft or class it is without power to subdivide it or create new ones.* At the present time in the airlines industry there is a historical grouping of employees for representation purposes. It grew out of the pattern of self-organization and collective bargaining in the industry that the Board found to exist at the time of R-1447. That grouping, established by R-1447, has constituted the his- torical framework for collective bargaining for mechanics and related personnel in the air transport industry since that date. The AMFA now asks that a portion of the classification of this grouping be carved out and be deemed to constitute a distinct craft or class. The grouping it seeks has never been viable in the industry. Functions performed by mechanics on the aircraft da. Ibid. nn ee eee eee pital ala — heed Le A-22 SECTION I—-AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 63 have always been regarded as closely related to those performed by mechanics on ground equipment or in plant maintenance. The basic nature of the skills required, the aptitudes for the work, the previous educationai levels required, the periods of training or apprenticeship are about the same. There may or may not be differences in the skill requirements of mechanics who work on aircraft and those who work on ground equipment or in plant maintenance. But in any event such differences would not in and of themselves justify the creation of a separate craft or class for representation purposes. The related employees in the present craft or class, while of different skill levels from the mechanics, nonetheless are closely related to them in that they are engaged in a common function— the maintenance function on an airline of which the mainten- ance of airplanes and the maintenance of mobile ground equip- ment or of fixed facilities are all integral parts. The grouping the AMFA now seeks to split has become, over a period of twenty years, the established, recognized or custom- ary craft or class that constitutes the structure for representa- tion of mechanical and related employees in the industry. The Board’s policy, reflecting the intent of the Railway Labor Act, is to honor such customary groupings in class or craft deter- minations absent a showing of markedly changed conditions or other good cause to justify alteration of the established pat- terns of bargaining. 2. The changes that have occured in the industry since 1945, have not produced significant changes in duties and functions so as to justify a change in the existing groupings. It is not to be inferred that once a craft or class determination is made it is thereafter immutable and sacrosanct. The Railway Labor Act does not function in a static industry nor in an un- changing economy. The airlines industry is constantly under- going changes in technology or in the organization of work. Changed conditions could conceivably render obsolete an existing craft or class grouping for purposes of collective bargaining. But the changed conditions, in order to constitute justification for a revision in a craft or class grouping would have to result in changed duties or functions which so alter the nature of the classifications as to make their inclusion in the existing grouping no longer appropriate. The AMFA has failed to produce credible evidence of a change in the functions and duties of the classifications it seeks to have segregated into a separate craft or class that would justify such a split-off. Its references to the increased speed and changed design of modern aircraft and engines point, at most, to changes in the skill requirements of the job of mechanic and even this point was contested by the carrier representatives. In any case, we need not pass on it for the existing grouping of classi- A-23 04 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS fications into the current craft or class of Airline Mechanics and Reiated Employees was not made on the basis of an identity ] of skill requirements. Changes in the skill requirements of the classifications in the present grouping, if they have in fact occured, may contitute a basis for negotiation of wage differen- tials in collective bargaining but they do not constitute justi- ] fication for the creation of a separate craft or class. 8. The AMFA petition would place into separate bargaining units employees who have long had a community of interest. The AMFA suggested that the employees it seeks to represent ] have a community of interest among themselves, but not with other employees in the present craft or class, It has emphasized the matters of “common skill and common responsibility” and ] “of speaking the same language occupationally.” However, the community of interest concept which must concern us here goes to the considerations which affect all members of the unit, and not just those performing particular functions within the mech- ] anic classification. Mechanics engaged in various functions, such as instrument and radio work, painting, and other line and shop activities, do not necessarily speak the same language occupa- tionally, nor are they necessarly bound together by a common ] skill and responsibility. The significant community of interest relates to the fact that all members of the present craft or class are engaged in per- forming the same gencra! function—maintenance of the air- ] line, whether it be maintenance of aircraft, of buildings, or of equipment. This interest is tied together by seniority rights in bumping in the case of employment cutbacks, in bidding for ] different jobs at the same occupational level, and in the filling of promotional opportunities. Spliting the unit could result in the elimination of these contractual rights. It goes without saying that both groups have similar interests ] under particular contracts in such matters as overtime rates, paid holidays, vacations, sick leave, shift starting times, rotating versus fixed shifts, and insurance programs. This long estab- lished community of interest could be seriously disturbed if ] there were different unions and different contracts. Instability of labor relations rather than the stable situation which the Act seeks to establish could result. On this point the Board said ] as early as 1942: “The Board views with some concern the tendency to divide established and well recognized crafts or classes. . . . Once the bars are down. there is no logical ing place and such a course would ultimately defeat real collective bargainin as contemplated by the law. On the other hand. stabilization of weil recogniz crafts orc as they have heen generally established on carriers under the act by the employccs anc management aiier tong years of negutiaticns will... tend to stabilize collective bargaining re ®, 8th Annual Kevort of the National M edvation Board. (1942), p. 6 ee ee ee Ce Cee ee ee ee es es ou on. iot A-24 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 65 4. The AMFA petition if granted would frustrate rather than effectuate the vusic purposes of the Ruilway Lubor Act, which imposes the vbliyalion tu muke und maintuin agreements, by producing jurisdictional disputes for which no remedial mech- anism is available. One of the busic purposes of the Railway Labor Act is to stabi- lize employee-empivoyer relations through collective bargaining. The achievement of this purpose requires a collective bargain- ing arrangement which wil! result in minimiziag or settling disputes which may arise. A serious possible conseyuence of granting the AMFA petition is the likely increase in jurisdictionul disputes. While the AMFA has expressec the view that this danger is exaggerated by the opponants of the petition, it has nevertheless taken positions, expressed by its spokesmen in this proceeding, regarding work assignments and job classifications which could resuit in numer- ous jurisdictional disputes. While the Railway Labor Act provides for a variety of dispute- settling procedures, it does not establish any arrangement for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes where two or more unions are involved as representatives of different craft or class units. The AMFA’s contention to the contrary is ill-informed and not in accordance with long experience under the Act. It is common knowledge that work assignment disputes arise between individuals and between groups. One of the virtues of the existing craft or class is that it allows considerable flexi- bility in making work assignments. Furthcrmore, when disputes arise concerning work assignments they can be resolved by the dispute-settlemnent provisicns of tie celieccive bargaining agree- ment. By the terms of Title II of the Railway Labor Act, all such agreements must provide for the establishment and main- tenance of System Boards of Adjustment. Disputes between representatives of different crafts or classes are not covered by such procedures. The jurisdictional diffi- culties which may arise vetween different crafts and classes are well illustrated by the history of the so-called “third party” issue before the divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Over a period of years this issue has frustrated the settlement of dispute over work assignment and work juris- diction between different bargaining agents on the railroads. It is obvious that if the AMFA petition were granted, such dangers would be greatly magnified to the disadvantave of the employees, the carriers, and the public. Having found that the AMFA position as to craft or class cannct be sustained, we now address ourselves to the matter of determining which classifications of employees in the craft or class of Airline Mechanics and Related Employees should be en- titled to vote in any election which the Board may see fit to order om | os ee es oe ee od ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a as A-25 66 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS pursuant to its rules and regulations. The IAM and the TWU (supported by Eastern Air Lines for Ramp-Service employees and Stock Clerks, and by Seaboard Worid Airlines for Cargo Service personnel) have aiso requested that the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class as now established be expanded 4 include employees performing fleet service and stockroom uties. The state of the record does not permit a determination whether stockroom employees should be added to the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees at Eastern and United, or whether print shop employees should be added to that craft or class at Eastern, or whether fleet service should be added to that craft or class on United Air Lines. Therefore, any requests to expand the existing craft or class to include any of the above classifications will be dismissed without prejudice to any future proceedings. In the particular circumstances of the cases before us an en- largement of the craft or class of Mechanics and related Em- ployees is indicated for Eastern Air Lines and for Seaboard World Airlines as to include all Ramp-Service employees employed by Eastern and Ramp Service personne] at Seaboard World. The question of whether elections should be held following these proceedings is, under the law, a matter for the Board to decide. However, we note for the Board’s consideration the IAM con- tention that ordering an election would not be appropriate in the event the AMFA’s position as to craft or class is rejected. The 1AM argues that no election should be conducted at Eastern or United inasmuch as the AMFA cannot, under its own constitution and by-laws, provide representation for the entire craft or class of Airline Mechanics and Related Employees. The Committee notes in passing that the record is clear that up to now the AMFA has explicitly stated that it does not seek to represent employees in a unit broader than the one it has urged in these proceedings. ' CONCLUSIONS 1. The request of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association for the establishment of a separate craft or class of “Aircraft Mechanic” is denied. 2. Tle proposal! to expand the existing craft or class of Air- line Mechanics and Related Employees” to include the stock- room and fleet service employees of United Air Lines, Inc. are dismissed without prejudice to any future proceedings. 8. If the Board should order an election, the following class- ifications of employees on each airline shall be voted together on one ballot for each airline respectively for the purpose of represen- {. Testimony of O. V. Delle Fensine, AMF A Exhibit 18, pp. 25-27, and Tr. p. 1612. A-26 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 67 tation under Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act amended: EASTERN AIR LINES, INC.—CASE NO. R-3712 Inspectors Lead Mechanics (line or shop) Mechanics (line or shop) Apprentice Mechanics Lead Ramp-Service Men Ramp-Service employees Lead Cleaners Cleaners Lead Shop Laborers Shop Laborers Shop Janitresses Lead Ground Communication and Flight Simulator Technicians Ground Communication and Flight Simulator Technicians UNITED AIR LINES, INC.—CASE NO. R-3713 Lead Mechanics Aircraft Inspectors Shop Inspectors Mechanics Mechanics’ Helpers Apprentice Mechanics Ground Communications Technicians Utility Employees Cleaning Women Lead Fuelers Fuelers Seamstresses Flight Simulator Technicians Lead Flight Simulator Technicians SEABOARD WORLD AIRLINES, INC.—CASE NO. R-3714 Inspectors Lead Mechanics Senior Mechanics Mechanics Off-route Station Mechanics Mechanic Helpers Lead Cleaners Cleaners Cabin Service Men Stock Clerks Lead Stock Clerks yA = = = Oe ee ee ( rw ff 2 Ff = f . Fs f=. Foe F } —" ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-27 68 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OB CLASS Cargo Service Men Lead Cargo Service Men Signed Saul W illen Chairman, Neutral Committee Ronald W. Haughton Member, Neutral Committee Paul N. Guthrie Member, Neutral Committee G.P.0.—J-297-417 A-28 NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20572 In the matter of CASE NO. R-#270 REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES CERTIFICATION of Jaauary 26, 1972 EASTERN AIR LINES, INC. P , & af Rh Flight Dispatchers and Assistants hy p 7s The services of the National Mediation Board were invoked by the Transport Vorkers Union of America, AFL-CIO on November 24, 1971, to investigate and determine who may represent for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, as provided by Section 2, Ninth, thereof, the craft or class of Flight Dispatchers and “sssistants, employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc. At tne time application was received, these employees were represested by the Air Line Dispatchers Association. The Board assigned Mediator Warren S. Lane to investigate. FINDINGS On December 14, 1971, application was received from the Internationa. £.s30ciation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO to intervene in rhis Cisoute. The investigation disclosed that a dispute existed among the emaloyees concerned and by direction of the Board, the mediator was instructed to conduct en e'ection by secret ballot, using an agreed to eligible list to determine th em.ployees' representation choice. Toe following is the result of the election as reported by Mediator sdert B. -i, WAO was assigned to count the ballots in this case and attested thereon 2 Lcty observers, -_— ee ee — = —y — = ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Number of Employees Voting: j:t'l Association of Machinists & Aero- A-29 = Transport Workers Union of America, Case No. R-4270 Air Line Dis- patchers Any Other Void a". -* wurmectr Organ. or Ballots of space Workers, AFL-CIO Association Individual Employee: AFL-CIO Eligible Flight Dispatchers & Assistants 89 5 17 | l 123 The National Mediation Board further finds that the carrier and employees in rhis case are, respectively, a carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein: and that the interested parties were given due notice of iavestigation. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 2 Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, has been duly designated and authorized to CERTIFICATION Ninth, of the Railway Laoor Act and based upon its investigation pursuant thereto tne National Mediation Board certifies that the International Association of Machinists and represent for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act the craft cr clasas of Flight Disvatchers and Assistants, employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc., its successors anc assigas.° By order of the NATIONAL MEDLATION BOARD. -_— = Thomas A, Tracy- — - “ Executive Secretary A-30 NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20572 In the matter of : REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES =: CASE NO. R-4336 of ° CERTIFICATION EASTERN AIR LINES, INC. : April 25, 1973 - : wh Ground School Instructors : id J pe The services of the National Mediation Board were invoked by the Airline Division-International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeures, Warehousemen and Helpers of America on October 10, 1972, to investigate and determine who may represent for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, as provided by Section 2, Ninth, thereof, Ground School Instructors, employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc. At the time application was received, these employees were reor=:sen‘ted by the Air Line Employees Association. The Board assigned Mediators Warren S. Lane and Charles H. Callenan to investigate. ° FINDINGS The investigation disclosed that a dispute existed armong the employees concerned and by direction of the Board, the mediator was instructed to conduct ar election by secret ballot, using an agreed to eligibie list to determine the employees’ representation choice. The following is the result of the election as reported by Mediator Caliahan, who was assigned to count the ballots in this case and attested thereon by the party observers. Number of Employees Voting: Sic Line Employees Int'l Brotherhood Any Other Org. Number of Empioyees \330ciation, Int'l of Teamsters or Individual Shigible - Ground School Instructors 9 7 29 31 2; ‘vrite in ballots were cast for the International Association of Mactinists and -sos2ace Workers, AFL-CIO. The Nationa! Mediation Board further finds that the carrier and employee: in this case are, respectively, a carrier and employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and that the interested parties were given due notice of investi- gation. CERTIFICATION NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act and based upon its investigation pursuant thereto, the National Meciation Board certifies that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, has been duly designated and authorized to represent for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, Ground School Instructors, employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc., its successors and assigns. This certification does not establish a precedent or preclude an ultimate determination in any future representation dispute as to the proper classification of these employees for representation purposes. By order of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD. —_ Tnermas A. Tracy Executive Secretary ey I ee ce es De eee ce ee ce ee ee DE ee DO ee BE ee | | — | a a LL ee ee ee. ee. ee a eee ee Lied end 96 heed AFL-CIO, A-32 IN Thit UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT / FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH! CAROLINA WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION 1973 > c. ROBERT E. REYNOLDS and DARIUS MOLES, JR., Plaintiffs, Vv. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. C-179-WS-73 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and LOCAL UNION NO. 2444, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, Defendants. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case came before this Court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss with an affidavit attached and on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Each party filed memoranda in support of their respective motions. Since defendants’ motion was directed to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the complaint, it was considered prior to plaintiffs' motion. The Court heard oral argument by counsel for each of the parties. The Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. a —) = a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-33 °o @« FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiffs are employees of Piedmont Aviation, Inc. in the "building and maintenance” and "general aviation" departments or divisions of that company. 2. The defendants are the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated labor organization, and its affiliate, Local Union No. 2444. 3. Following an election conducted by the National Mediation Board, the defendant International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, on December 3, 1970, was certified by the National Mediation Board as having “been duly designated and authorized to represent, for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, the craft or class of Airline Mechanics and Related Employees, employees of Piedmont Airlines, its successors and assigns." 4. On January 20, 1971, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers served a notice upon Piedmont Airlines, pursuant to Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, of its desire to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to its certification by the National Mediation Board. S. During the ensuing conferences between the IAMAW and Piedmont, disputes developed on a number of issues, including the employces to be covered, which resulted in an impasse. 6. On April 26, 1971, Piedmont invoked the mediation services of the National Mediation Board pursuant to Section S of the Railway Labor Act and on May 7, 1971, the bourd docketed the dispute as NMB Case No. A-9054. _ s Se eS a eee ee A-34 “= F 7. Thereafter, mediation was conducted by Board Mediator C. A. Peacock. The mediation efforts were unsuccessful and the IAMAW set a strike date for October 11, 1971. 8. The Board proffered its further mediation services, which proffer was accepted by the parties. 9. On October 29, 1971, the IAMAW and Piedmont signed a Mediation Agreement, effective November 8, 1971, witnessed by Mediator Peacock, disposing of the dispute. On November 29, 1971, the Board closed its file on NMB Case No. A-9034. 10. The agreement covers employees of Piedmont Airlines "in the inspection, maintenance and overhaul functions of the airline division in its shops, hangars, Or locations... ." 1l. The agreement does not cover employees of Piedmont Aviation, Inc. in its "building and maintenance" and "general aviation" divisions and therefore does not cover plaintiffs. 12. Plaintiffs claim to be members of the class or craft of “Airline Mechanics and Related Employees" on Piedmont which defendant IAMAW was designated by the Board to represent. 13. Plaintiffs claim that their exclusion from the collective bargaining agreement, executed under the auspices of the Board, constituted an “illegai, invicious and hostile act by defendants against plaintiffs." 14. Plaintiffs seck injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages. 15. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending this Court lacks jurisdiction of this action ~~ - ara mrarer Fe = ma. = — ——e a omens = omens — — —_— a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee | rs F= -= Fs F= Ss A-35 because jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiffs are members of the craft or class of "Airline Mechanics and Related Employees" on Piedmont Airlines is exclusively that of the National Mediation Board and plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties as parties defendant herein, namely, Piedmont Airlines and those individual employees of Piedmont who are within the coverage of the agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l. The plaintiffs' claim of violation by defendants of the latter's duty to fairly represent plaintiffs can prevail only if it is established that defendants have a statutory duty to represent plaintiffs. 2. Defendants are required by the provisions of the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.] to represent all employees of Piedmont Airlines who are members of the craft or class of "Airline Mechanics and Related Employees". 3. If plaintiffs are members of the craft or class of "Airline Mechanics and Related Employees" of Piedmont Airlines, defendants are bound by statute to represent them. However, if plaintiffs are not members of that craft or class, defendants owe them no duty of representation. 4. The primary issue presented by the complaint is whether plaintiffs are members of the craft or class of "Airline Mechanics and Related Employees" of Piedmont Airlines. 5S. Decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for this Circuit have firmly sa marr - es ce A a De ee, BO es ce, ice, ces, = SS ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a A-36 e § « established that the resolution of such issues are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297 (1943); General Committee, Etc. v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 320 U.S. 323 (1943); General Committee, Etc. v. Southern Pacific Company, 320 U.S. 338 (1943); Division No. 14, The Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17 (4th Cir., 1962); Rose, et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Etc., 181 F.2d 944 (4th Cir., 1950), cert. den., 340 U.S. 851 (1950). In - the Rose case, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit ruled as follows: "In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that the effect of this statute was to vest in the Mediation Board exclusive jurisdiction over the certification of bargaining agents, the determination of bargaining units and the classification of employees for the purposes of bargaining. And it is equally clear that the exercise of discretion by the board with respect to such matters is not subject to review by the courts. Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95, 88 L.Ed. 61; General Committee etc. v. M-K-T. R. Co., 320 U.S. 323, 64 S.Ct. 146, 88 L.Ed. 76; Brotherhood of Railway Clerks etc. v. United Transport Service Employees, 320 U.S. 715, 64 S.Ct. 260, 88 L.Ed. 420; Order of Railway Conductors of America, etc. v. Penn. R. Co., 323 U.S. 166, 65 S.Ct. 222, 89 L.Ed. 154; Steele v. L. & N. R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 205, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173. And see Slocum v. D. L. 6 WW. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 760 S.Ct. $77." In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals relied upon the following quotation from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Steele v. L. & N. R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944); "There is no question here of who is entitled to represent the craft, or who are members of it, issues which have been relegated for settle- ment to the Mediation Board, . .. (fmphasis by the Court of Appeals.) — ieee ee es ee —— a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee _—lU[rxE.hlUceelUh A-37 6. The primary issue presented by the complaint is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board and this Court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 7. In light of this Court's decision on the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board to resolve the primary issue presented by the complaint, we do not reach the remaining issues raised by the motion to dismiss or plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. 8. Defendants' motion to dismiss, having an affidavit attached thereto, will be treated as a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., and as such, is granted. An appropriate a order will be entered accordingly. United States District Judge er Needed ee a= | | ee ew eB er eee Oe te [7 - ; A-38 ' IN Til. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLAES WINSTON-SALLM DIVISION ROBERT E. REYNOLDS and DARIUS NOLES, JR., Plaintiffs, Vv. INTERNATIONAL ASSUCTATION O1 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and LOCAL UNION NO. 2444, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND ALROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-C1O. CIVII. ACTION FILE NO. C-179-WS-73 Defendants. NN a a a a a et JUDCMENT AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT This cause having cone on before this Court on the motion of defendants to dismiss, with attached affidavit, and the motion of plaintiffs for preliminary injunction, and the Court having read the memoranda submitted and heurd the arguments of counsel; It is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendants’ motion is granted and the conplaint be, and it is hereby, dismissed. — Wb) pf United States ijistrict Judge y ro a Ay 1973 Testo: 9 - Sitirs Cicr-s Ys Ubi pie oe Y Caro: J- A-39 UillTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2% 2 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 74-1211 Robert E. Reynolds and Darius Miles, Jr., versus International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 2444, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Appellants, Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, at Wnston-Salem. Hiram =. District Judge. argued June 7, 1974. Pat-rs WIETER. eriserrr ana Freryn Cc Decided June 2 ~ and Thomas J. Larry L. Eubanks (W. Britton Smith, Jr., Balch on brief) for Avppellants; Willian G. Mahoney (Hi 1S “iahonev; Rena Drum; Drum, Liner and Redden on brie sav —_— PAY coe AE coe con EE ce OE ee cee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-40 PER CURIAM: After oral argument, we affirm on the opinion of the district court. Plaintiffs have the right, under 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, to obtain a decision from the National Mediation Board as to whether they are included within the bargaining unit for which an employment con- tract has been negotiated. | {ny ’ 4 70 {" ic (reamed) = ee me ye ee ee ee ee he eee a ce ee ee ee ee ee aS = SS 17,068 Labor Rel.tions Cases A-41 iil 104-74 Strong v. Sheet fetal Workers 6. On December 28, 1972, pli: inti? TWA and it IAM entere- into working agreements pur » the RLA embody- ing the rates of pay, working conditions of the TWA employees aforesaid classes or crafts. Fach of sai agreenicnts provided that the azreement “shall remain in full force and effect to and including August 31, 1973, ane there- after shull be sub: ct to change as pro- vided in Section 6 of the Labor Act, as amended”. 7. Pursuant to the said provisions of said agreements, one or nore of the parties pro- posed changes in said agreements, and from no later than June 24, 1974 until the pres- ent time, a negotiating committee of IAM District 142 and TWA have been in media- tion before the National Mediation Board concerning the disputes arising over said proposed chanyes, no agreement having yet been reached. 8. Commencing on or about August 1974 and continuing to date, TWA ployees represented by IAS! and me of [AM at TWA’s Technical Servic ter at the Kansas City Internation; engaved in concerted slowdowny interrup- tions and stoppages of work anf other con- certed interference with TWA's normal operations. 9. On August 12, 19 sentatives met with th committee concerning August 15, 1974, TWA representatives again brought the aioresA.! actions to the atten- tion of IAM reprfsentatives at Kansas City International Affport, ani said IAM repre- sentatives advfred TW A that such actions had not be , the IAM, but that the IAM did net inten action to end such actvity by the afore- said members of the iAM. 10. On Aueust 14, 137+, the IAM, through IAM District 142 and its negotiating com- mittee, including defendants Kerr and Bay, ers Cen- Airport . TWA repre- Union's full-time Sid probiem, and on issved a bulletin to the members of the IAM employed by TWA which encouraged the aioresaid employees and IAM members throughout the TWA system to engage in the activities above-described. . Services Center in 12. The aforesaid actiyjerfs have already delays in TWA jury to TWA. Conclusions of Law f TWA, its employees, the IAM, IAM istrict Lodge 142, [AM Local Lodge 1650 and their ofncers, agents are subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended (“RLA”). 2. So long as the dispute over proposed changes in the TWA-IAM workine agree- ments date’ December 28, 1972 is in me‘lia- tion before the National Mediation Board pursuant to Section 5 of the RLA, and for 30 days aiter termination of such media- tion services by the National Mediation Board, the RLA prohibits activities by IAM members and organizations of the character descrtbed in paragraphs 8 & 10 of the Findings herein, and the IAM repre- sentatives of said employees are obligated under Section 2, First [paragraph] of the RLA to exert reasonable efforts to end any such activities by [AM members in viola- tion of the RLA. 3. Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary . nm against future violations of the RLA, am sting of a notice by TAM District 142 a 3 locals, otfi- cers, members of their obligations under the RLA, as provided in the annexed Order for Preliminary Injunction. (7 10,313] John G. Strong et al., Plaintiffs v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association et al., Defendants. Local Union 75, Intervenor. No. C-73-1710. Doug!as C. Olsen, etc., Plainti€ v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association et al, Defendants. No. C-73-1529. United States District Court, Northern District of California. February 4, 1974. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act Rights of Union Members—Merger of Local Unions—Effect on Local Membership. —The merger of San Francisco Bay area loca! anions into one local union, resuiting in the transfer of members of a particular local into one local union, was not done in retalia- tion for the local’s rejection of 2 stabilization agreement of the sheet metal industry or for its entering into another industrial agreement, but, rather, was implemented for the q 10,223 © 1974, Commerce Clearing House, Inc. 7a Pm Pe eS PS PS SE ee SE eS ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee A-42 111 104-74 Labor Cases—Cited 75 LC Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers 17,089 purpose of increased operating efficiency and avoiding competition among the many sheet metal worker locals in the area, which had an adverse effect upon the development of the union sector of the sheet metal industry. Apart from the merger itself, there was no evidence of any action by the international that restricted the members’ right of voting, assembly and speech guaranteed them as members of a union by federal labor law, and the merver itself was proper under the union constitution. LMRDA, Section 101. Back reference.—* 7477.15. Rights of Union Meintbers—Disciplinary Action—Diminution of Voting Strength Through Merger.—In light of the safeguards to protect fully the political and the con- tractual rights of members of a local union who were transferred to other locals following a merger, and in the absence of proof establishing an intent on the part of the international and its presilent to punish the locals involved, the mere diminution of voting strength resulting from the transfers did not constitute “discipline” in violation of the Act. LMRDA, Section 101(a)(5). Pack reference.— 7477. Rights of Union Members—Merger of Locals—Evidence of Bad Faith.—\Wohere the evidence faile? to establish that an international and its president acted in bad faith or adverscly to the interests of the international and its membership as a whole in ordering a merger of locals in a particular area, federal labor law does not permit a court to sub- Stitute its own view of whar is in the best interests of a labor organization for the decisions of the officers or bodies of that organization which are charged under the union coa- stitution with the responsibility for making such decisions. LMRDA, Section 101. Back reference.—* 7477.47. Rights of Union Memhers—Internal Anneals Procedures—Stay Pending Appeal.- In effecting the merger of local unines an! in refusing to grant a ctay ponding appeal under internal union appeal procedures, an international and its general president did not violate their contractual duties to a local under the international’s constitution, and therefore, the local was not entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. The complaining members had demonstrated neither the irreparable harm nor the probability of success om the merits, which are prereguisiies to the issuance of a preliminary injunction. LMRDA, Section 102. Back reference.—* 7479.20. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Francisco. In the Lecal 75 case, similar Law and Order relief was sovght tu resirain action of the = ~~. “CR; Internationai transferring members of an- een Nae ee. > Sor — other affiliate, Local 75, into Locals 104 of and No. C-73-1700-CBR. referred to here- San Francisco and 216 of Oakland on the ‘ following basis: (a) The members of Local 75 who reside in Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, and Marin Counties to be transferred into Local 104, and (b) The members of Local 75 who reside in Napa and Solano Counties to be after as the “Local 75 case,” were con- solidated for hearing on the issue of an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.’ [In tie Local 497 case a preliminary iniunction wes sought to restrain an international labor union, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO, referred to here- transferred into Local 216. after as the “International,” from merging This action has been brought under vari- its affiliate Local 497 (with territonal ous sections of the Labor-Management Re- jurisdiction over Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties) into Local 104 of San porting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Lan- drum-Griffin Act), 29 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., ‘By stipulation of the parties to the Local 75 action. dated September 25, 1973, a temporary restraining order was issued on that date to enjoin further dissolution of Locwu 75 and trans- fer of its men:bers pending the Court's devision on plaintiffs’ motion for a pretiminary injurction By stipulation cnd order dated January 21, 1974, Labor Law Reports the heartag on the preliminary injunction con- Stituted the trial on tne merits in both cases. As a result of this stipulation and order piain- tiffs have e@fevtively waived their claim for money durnages since no evidence of such dam- age was presented at the hearing. = =| = _— — = i — er ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe oe oe ee ~ 17,090 Labor Relations Cases A-43 il 104-74 Strong v. Sheet Metal U'orkers specifically the sections dealing with equal rights and free speech [§$4l1(a)(1) and (2)], due process in disciplinary proceed- ings (§ 411(s)(5)], and the fiduciary obli- gations owed to union members by their officers [$501]. In addition, there are al- legations of the violation of the duty of fair representation enforceable under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act), 29 U. S. C. § 185, and of violations of the union constitution enforceable by Local 75 under 29 U. S. C. § 185. The cases came for hearing on De- cember 3, 4, 5 and 6, 1 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1253%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.