# Opposition Brief — Jasinski v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_1796%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 424 U.S. 909 ## Text LibisaAr 4 , Bupreme Court, U. aypRrMe COURT i. F | JAN 26 1976 ie one 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 —? - — 2 ———| —4 + ---- > > ~ - > - > 2 . 2 rs ro ae 4 7 ew &ewsS fee weet tee lf ll Opinions Reynolds, et al v. Int. Asso. of Machinists, etc., 87 LRRM 2)].33 (M.D. N.C. 1973), aff'd per curiam in unpublished decision, 498 F.2d 1397 (4th Cir. 1974) (both deci- sions reprinted in Brief Appendix, Sees a Wt =e 48 a ke 4 A 8 eee Rose, et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc., 181 F.2d 944 (4th Cir. 1950), @eert. den. 340 US 851 (1950) ....s 9 Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 US 192 (1944) cs ee. eRe Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers, etc., 75 L.C. 910313 (N.D. Calif. 1974) (decision printed in Brief Appen- dix, infra) Co ae ek. oe ee ee oe ae ee Switchmen's Union v. N.M.B., 320 US 297 (1943) Ke ele he ere a we ee UNA Chapter, Flight Engineers Int. Asso. v. N.M.B., 294 F.2d 905 (Ob. ¢. Cir. 1961) . . . . . . . . 9 Vaca v. Sipes, Dee ee Bae SOOT) 4 es 6 See «2 (vi) Statutes National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 USC 151, et seq. Section 8(b); 29 USC 158 (b) . «se Railway Labor Act, 45 uSC 151, et seq. “Jo ae Section 2, Ninth; MR a CN. ee rr 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-1851l, 1 NMB Determi- ee ee. ew ce eS In the Matter 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 Appendix, infra) (vii) ee 10 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) - . .. © EER ETI OA BNE I A EE it APA SS EIGER TTC RA IIE OFS —— plaintiffs are members of the craft or class of ‘Airline Mech- anics and Related Employees' of Piedmont Airlines. x k & 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% | i —_—. ] REINER OMEN TE or AOS OREN RENAE MORE LETTE MN 1 SEB EREN INS” "s 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, 36/ U.S. 7/40, 7/59, 7/60 (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. "s Amal. Asso. of Street Electric Ry. and Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 (i971). 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 Cis 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 ce — Nee ee | 455 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1972); Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers, etc., 75 LC q10, 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 "SAGNE* Ss os 4320-628. 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. Gees et eet i ee etl let et Cl eee eee eel ee Eee CU CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, the petition for certiorari should be denied. eo! Respectfully submitted, J£ R. GOLDTHWAITE, JR. 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. A-1 APPELLEE'S BRIEF APPENDIX In the Matter of RepresENTATION oF EmpLoyees or Eastern AIR Lings, Inc., (1) Mecuanics anp Retatep Empuoyess (2) Stock Cuierks (8) Print Suor EmpLoyees Case No. R-3639 (C-3355)—Decided December 5, 1963 Finpincs Upon INVESTIGATION On April 16, 1965, the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, (IBT), filed an application with the Nationa! 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 emplovees 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 14 B-E-Eoe: — se hie | PISSSSES TI" 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 comjuncuon 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 Empioyees. — position of IAM is described on Page 4 of their brief as follows: 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 these Ramp Service Employees and Leads driving and operating fuel trucks and related equipment utilized for fueling, oiling and ADI servicing of aircraft w ithin 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 Clericai, Ottice, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service Employees Craft or Class, as those crafts or classes have been determined in Cases No. — Airlines), R-1706 (National Airlines) and R-2783 (Northwest irlines 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 emplovees to be a part of the craft or class of Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service Employees. 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 A-3 16 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS considered as a separate craft or class for representation pur- poses, a 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 representatien 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 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 possibiy 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 Handiers 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 purpose 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 ciass 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, 1945, on American Airlines. Case R-1447, has been generally — as the controlling decision defining the Mechanics’ craft or class. On February 24, 1950, in Case R-2247 « 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 I Roca: oda uckncncunauhodonscduageabccdshubuheasaeawsooua 306 SD SNUNID BRUis. wa cans nwicuncenteccetacthebedankhiiientesances 1,630 Teen Ee ce ee. ca ncmanenscnaeenne 13 Wn 0ig Gabba kclnkckedesnddckdncd Vacbdckanenheekekenexwnaebn 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 shall be the the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act.” Be a un =? La Ae Ce ee \ i = oe - i ® 4 ~~ ] ] ] J ] J J J ] ] j J J l 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 Gesignate 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 1345 as a result of Board’s investigations of representation disputes on a nuniber of airlines. The principa! findings on this quest ion were issued in C2se R-1447. October 1, 1945, involving empioyees of American Airlines. Findings applica- ble to other airlines were aiso issued by the board 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: . Mechanics who perform maintenance work on aircraft, engine, radio or accessory wan »ment. B. Ground service personnel 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; air conditioning of aircratt; cleaning of airport hangars, buildings, hangar and ramp equipment. C. Plant Maintenance personnel—including employees who pertorm work consisting of repairs, alterations, additivns to and maintenance of butidings, nangars. 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 personnel included in this craft or class, and the positions involved in the present dispute center around Ground Service personnel 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. packing and securing carg> in inane, 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. landing gear safety pins, wheel chocks and other ground handling equipment, fire extinguishing uipment, fuel trucks and equipment. air conditioners, cargo truck, and the fueling, oiling 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 changes. saan 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 ihe preparation ul aircraft for tight. How- ever, at no time will this become a permanen: tui time 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 I. 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 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 cd woz 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 foliowing 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.‘ Glycoling 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 Cockpit Signalling when Starting Engines and Moving Air- craft Attaching and Removing of Power Pull Fueling Ground Equipment Preventive Maintenance on Motorized Ground Equipment (Changing Oil, 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 classitications in the craft or class appiied for, it exciudes 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 qualinied 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, control blocks, landing gear safety pins, wheel chocks, or fire extinguishing equipment. The record, however, is barren of any in*ormation on how much of the time of these 637 is spent in ‘he rueling function, or in other types of ground service functions just mentioned. The IBT hes not advanced any persuasive reasons why the particular group of 180 Ramp Service employees (fuelers) should * Board Exhibit No. 4. * Board Exhibit No. 2°. 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 eiigible 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 eligible voters shall include all Fleet Service Employees who perform ground service and cleaning functions a preponderance of their time, and shall 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 EAL 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 inciusion 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 collective bargaining. In the vears 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 = — — — — — o 2 - - Han, te je “f = — — Har fs aS a a aa a a a 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 reiationships 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 empioyees 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 provisions 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 Exhibit No. 7. ewe SRS TE ae A-10 SECTION I—AIRLiINE EMPLOYEES 23 A mediator will be assigned to continue investigation of this case in accordance with the findings and determinations set forth herein. he Se ATER aera Sok? eS A-1ll NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WASHINGTON i2° 20 7364 ipo In the Matter of HEPRESSNTATION OF EMPLOYEES CASE NO. R-2639 “+ 8 oe oe oe oe CERTIFICATION CASTER AIR LINES, INC. April 15, 1964 (1) Airline Mechanics (2) Stock Clerks — / - oS of Ji ee (3) Print Shop Employees & 4 Yn 0 F- 7 , The services of the National Mediation Beard were invoked by the international Brotherhood of Tearsters, Airline Division, to investigate and Geterzine 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 time of application these emol ees were represented oy tre International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. The case was assigned to Mediator William H. Pierce, and subsecuently t2 ediator Werren S. Lane for investigation. FINDINGS During the course of the investigation issues were raised 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 Board outlining the grouping of employees for determining cf representation in this case. March 11, 1964, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters amended their application to exclude the craft or class of Airline Mechanics. A secret balict election was conducted in the remaining crafts or classes. April 6, 1964, prior to the count of ballots in this case the Inter. natisnal Brotherhood of Tearsters withdrew its application to investigate a repre- sentation dispute among Print Shop Exployees. Jolloving 15 the resuit of the election ancog Stock Clerks as rerorted oy Sha :eddlator and astested by representatives of the contesting organizations -) 2022 33 observers. 1 URRED COPY A-12 - Case i'o. 2-2539 wibec of Employees voting: International Brothernood of International Musber of Association “nplovees Tearcsters, Chaurfveurs, weree Cther Eligto.s housemen ¢. Helpers of America of }'achinists 49 26k 1 340 Stoce Clarks The National Mediation Beard further finds that the carrier and ercployees in this case are, respectively, a carrier and erployees within the reaning of the Votlwmy Labor Act, as amended; that this Board had jurisdiction over the disvute involved herein; and that the interested parties were given due notice of Lavestigatian. CERTIFICATION Therefore, the Natiorml Mediation Board certifies that the International \asoctation of Machinists, AFL=CIO has been duly designated and authorized to continue to represent, for the purposes of the iiatimy labor Act, the craft or Casas of Stock Clerks, employees .f Lastern Air Lines, Lic. by order of the HATIOCUAL MEDIATIO/ DOAAD, E. C. Thompson Peecutive Secretary jIIippren @Crpyv A LMR A MAE GP LIEN AE 5 UME NONE WLR RAPA TITRE FONE PI ie A A-13 In the Matter of the Application of: Arrncrarr Mecuancis FRa- TERNAL Association, ALLEGING REPRESENTATION Disputes Pur- SUANT TO SEcTION 2, NINTH OF THE Ratpway Lapor Act, INvoty- InG Emptoyers oF Eastern Air Lines, Inc., ano Unirep AIR Lines, Inc., AnD Seapoarpo Wortp Arrives, Inc., By a Com- MITTEE APPOINTED BY THE NATIONAL MEDIAT:ON BoarpD 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 ny ae Lead Mechanies (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 Sinulator Technician, Shop Inspector, Mechanic, Apprentice Mechanic) Radio and Electric Mechanie (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, Mechanies, Senior Mechanics, Inspectors, Mechanic Helpers, Radio and Electric Mechanics— Line and Shop). In its post-hearing brief the AMFA finally stated thet: The employees who belong in the craft ur class which AMFA seeks to represent are those ... who “are trained to ind possessed of sufficient skill to do and who in fast do mechanica! work on the aircrait and its Components and who are personaily and directly responsible for the airworthy condition of the aircrart 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 Barre “getopaplye td » A-14 SECTION I—AIRL’NE 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” tirst 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 emplovees 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 emplovees designated and authorized in accordance wit! the uirements of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Mediation Board, upon request of either party to the dispute, to investigate such dispute and tu certuly to both parties, in writing, within thirty davs after the receipt of the invocation of its services. the name or names of the individuals or organizanions that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the same to the carrier. Upon receipt of such certification the carrier shali treat with the representa- tive so certified as the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of Chis Act. In such an investigation. the Mediation Board shall be authorized to take a secret ballot of the empiovees involved, or tu utilize any other appropriate method of as- certaining (he names of their duly des:gaated and authorized representatives in such manner as shail insure the choice of represeniatives by the emplovees without inter- ference, influence, or coercion exercised bv the carrier. In the conduct of any election for the purposes herein indicated the Board shall designate who may participate in the election and establish the rules to govern the election, or may appoint a committee of three neutral persons who alter hearing shall within ten days designate the empwvees who may participate in the election. The Board shail have access to and have power to make copies of the books and records of the carriers and to 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 particiate 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-$712, R-$718, R-$714, November 4, 1964. ; 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- tion of Machinists notied the board of their interest in these disputes and of their desire to be heard and to participate in any hearings which might be held. The Neutral 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 Op- 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 International 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 tor 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 pheidedbedid cd CR RR 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 cratt 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 cratt or class fcr 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 elevenih 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 Simulater Technicians e. Leads in these classifications UNITED AIR LINES a. Aircraft Inspectors b. Shop {nspectors ° - > . e | . ico: Gea Sr Ae OS Bes a ee oe (Oa he Oey Oe hy ey a en ee 1 q —- —- — — TESTERS SYS - — NYS DAAL ERERLELLORNAS EOL ES RI NE NORE - —— _ DfT IS EAL ALAMO EE EO LGR ELI IR ISDE sal 2 . j vis eS EMBER CIR AL I OT LE ESE METEOR MEE TEM fe ie ee POE RRO E : pe a has Fis lk iss oa ee bes ail an 4 - 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 . Building and Maintenance Mechanics . Automotive Mechanics Ground Communications Technicians . Cleaners Shop Laborers Shop Janitresses . Print Shop employees Ramp-Service employees . Stock Clerks . Leads and Seniors in these classifications Hw OQ ho Ae ow UNITED AIR LINES . Ground equipment employees Ramp-Servicemen Flight Kitchen employees . Utility employees . Fuelers . Seamstresses . Plant Maintenance employees . Stores employees . Security Guards Crew Car Drivers Ground Communications Technicians - Mechanic Helpers . Leads in the above classifications Baron om moan oe ; ’ ' s] . ' : ’ ; ee ee ee ee ee ee | ca - Gea tao oe 1 FA FS PS. eS hee ee i] frol TO er i SS ee ee C 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 emplovees 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 ciassiiications for representa- tion purposes. The carriers contend that the fundemental skills of the classifications involved have not changed signiti- 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. They 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 Section 2, Ninth. The National Mediation Board, however, soon was constrained LIRR LO TAA GOEL LOD, TILE OL EP 1a Sah . . - oo - — » er mada Bo a 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 most cases has been zonfronted with disuptes as to whether the employees involved constitute one craft or class, or whether they are several distinct crafts for eacn of which separate represe: Latives are to be chosen by separate majorities. So far us possible the Huard has followed the past practice of the employees in grouping themseives for representation purposes and of the carriers in making 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 employees 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 iabor uisputes. “The Board is inclined, therefore, during the coming year to avoid unnecessary multiplication of subcrafts and subelasses, and 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 of 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 clsss’ in the air transport industry means a well-knit and cohesive oceupaticnal group which has been developed over a veriod of years in the course of b. Firet Annual Rep: ‘ofthe Vational “Jediation Poard, p.21 - Chicago & cab vioue: On 1 von ae, 3 (1937): Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co..1 NMB eterminations ( CV; Chicago N.S. & N.R. Co., 1 NMR Decerminations 101 (1953); and Chicago, M., St. P.& P. Ry. Co.,3 NM B Determination: 120 (1955). ” PEEL EIA ER od ea ea ae Mw Ses 5 3: PANG sat WY. eo, & “" Tne NEM 25 eek tee ey me PRS: aR: ERT? my 4 na “at Type PE. eae A-20 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 61 general voluntary association of the employees in collective bargaining units... . Accordingly it becumes necessary lu exatnine the occupauionul groupings as Lbey have emerged over a period of years in the uirline industry, and the determine whether such groupings are umilurm tu Lhe extent tat Luey might now be lermed ‘cralts or Classes’ under the provisions of the Kuuway Labor 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 among 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 occupationa! 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 Maintenance group, and should be included, with the airline mechanics in one craft or class for representation purposes, since jurisdictional craft lines are historicaily absent among the maintenance of equipment employees of the air carriers.’ In summary, the National Mediation Beard in R-1447 con- sidered and specifically rejected the type of aiternative 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 craft concept es unsuited to the airlines industry and as foreign to the historical deveiopment of its job structure and its pattern of self-organization. Thus as early as September 1945 in Case No. R-1368, the Board rejected a plea by the IBEW that ae 2 ew eo -06hCUes 8 > a re | sry a aa ee i i 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 tills 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 aireraft and its components. We find that there is no justification for granting the AMFA petition. Our reasons are set forth below: 1. There is xo histurical basis for the grouping the AMFA seeks. As pointed out above, a statutory “craft or class of employees” is that grouping of emplovees 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.4 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 he 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 d. Ibid, L i 4 i i " eS ge } oa Ss ae re Boe | i i i i i i Sey OTS - eR a: | Pevcome US 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 ure 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 tunction— 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 empluyees 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- = EER SE UE OE EL LOE SPE » $ F SEER LIE GIA aN IN ELLE PTI GE ORD LANE AL AE IR INE 5 ay i oa A — IE ELLIE ELE LLELE SIGE ELDON EOP TE : Sea CROLL IFES A-23 64 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS fications into the current craft or class of Airline Mechanics and Related 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 estakiish 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 stopping place and such a course would ultimately defeat real collective bargaining as contemplated by the law. On the other hand. stabilization of weil recognized crafts or classes as they have been generally established on carriers under the act by the employces and management after long years of negotiations will... tend to stabilize collective bargaining relationships.’’* *, 8th Annual Kevort of the National Mediation Board. (1042), p. 6. : ne ple: Sik Sy ae ee: eee an | tines, aia cee, OMI) ee, Ce cu, CY cee, eRe cee, SE ween I i ee ee, Aes Se GR, Some) j | i | i | ‘ \ A-24 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 65 4. The AMF A petition if granted would frustrate rather than effectuate the busic purposes of the Railway Labor Act, which imposes the vbliyatiton tu make und maintain agreements, by producing jurisdictional disputes for which no remedial mech- anism is available. One of the basic purposes of the Railway Labor Acct is to stabi- lize employee-empluyer relations through collective bargaining. The achievement of this purpose requires a collective bargain- ing arrangement which will result in minimiziag or settling disputes which may arise. A serious possible conseyuence of granting the AMFA petition is the likely increase in jurisdictional disputes. While the AMFA has expressed 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 AMF A’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-settlement provisicns of the cclieccive 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 disadvantayve of the employees, the carriers, and the public. Having found that the AMFA position as to craft or class cannot 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 Empioyees should be en- titled to vote in any election which the Board may see fit to order cpeboheheneseneteceegs S-Sa8 8 Sea Saad vo BR Se” Moe Se* a 0? ee et a a ae ae ee, Se 5 Pett EI mie eee - 4 RLY Magner PAR: OHNE SARUM, in aE RNS IS CO he PEER SES Bay Ee Be = . ' ESSN RAA EAR SELD RAPE F A-25 66 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS pursuant to its rules and regulations, The IAM and the TWU (supported by Eastern Air Lines tor 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 to include employees performing fleet service and stockroom duties. 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 personnel 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 Reiated 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. The 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. 3. 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- f. Testimony of O. V. Delle Femine, AMFA Exhibit 18, pp. 25-27, and Tr. p. 1612. —- - * ———_ ’ acme, a . —-_ - ® a * oe =— - -~ - _-_ = -” . neg _— * ny —* ay — | _ | . - 1 «¢ —_— 4 : Sr ee R. . > ee | « we > SE PIN vor — tation under Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act amended: A-26 SECTION I—AIRLINE EMPLOYEES 67 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’ Heipers 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 Mechanic. Mechanic Helpers Lead Cleaners Cleaners Cabin Service Men Stock Clerks Lead Stock Clerks ges SO eae Se ae oe 1 { | ( A-27 68 DETERMINATION OF CRAFT OR CLASS Cargo Service Men Lead Cargo Service Men Signed Saul W illen Chairman, Neutral Committee Ronald W. Haughton Member, Neutra! Committee Paul N. Guthrie Member, Neutral Committee G.P.0.—J-297-417 Coe So Roles wa »3ociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO to intervene 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. Js 2 > a ta Flight Dispatchers and Assistants rhe ht on ane 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 a assistants, employees of Eastern Air Lines, Inc. at tne time application was received, these employees were represected by the Air Line Dispatchers Association. The Board assi soak gned Mediator Warren S. Lane to investigate. FINDINGS gute On December 14, 1971, application was received from the Internationa Rm thas The investigation disclosed that a dispute existed among th soned and by direction of the Board, the mediator was instructed t e ction by secret ballot, using an agreed to eligible vyees' representation choice. emobloy “es ) conduct list to determine the e following is the result of the election as reported by Mediator beri B. Oo was assigned to count the ballots in this case and attested t+: Se et. Oe Oo ie Se a Oe ee ae eee a6 he ae Pee oe (RUsRSURSSsOeUeGatale a"etate a hse eR Bae oeast | - ons = piace TAR vie er ‘ ee Case No. R-4270 Number of Employees Voting: “t'| Associationot Transport Workers Air Line Dis- Any Other Void Nhume Machinists & Aero- Union of America, patchers Organ. or Balllots of «pace Workers, AFL-CIO As sociation Individual oe oyee: AFL-CIC Eligible Flight Dispatchers & Assistants 89 5 17 | j 123 The National Mediation Board further finds that the carrier and employees 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 Lavestigation. CEP TIFICATION NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Secti 2, Ninth, . Laoor Act and based upon its investigation pursuant thereto tae Nationa! Mediation Board certifies that the International Association of Machinists ana Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, has been duly designated and authorized to epresent for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act the craft or class of Flight Dispatchers and Assistants, employees of Eastern Air Lines. Inc. , tS Successors _ and assigns. By order of the NATIONA L MEDIATION BOARD, a Thomas A. Tracy canes Executive Sec retary é —_ ater oe ee ee ee = =|=—_— = | a iol = = = on aah as be ee ee ee a a a oe od co Pe OC ie eh cas | 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 ee Ground School Instructors je 3 jr av 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 renr-sented by the Air Line Employees Association. The Board assigned Mediators Warren S. Lane and Charles H. Czllenan to investigate. - FINDINGS The investigation disclosed that a dispute existed among the employees concerned and by direction of the Board, the mediator was instructed to conduct an election by secret ballot, using an agreed to eligible list to determine tue emolovrees' representation choice. The following is the result of the election as reported by Mediator Caiizhar, who vas assigned to count the ballots in this case and attested thereon ty the party observers. Number of Employees Voting: Employees Int'l Brotherhood Any Other Org. s3Ociation, Int'l otf Teamsters or Individual Stlizgible Ins tors > 7 29 is 2; ‘vrite in ballots were cast for the Internationa! Association of Maciinists and [dace Workers, AFL-CIO. «5 eaten ane@pen An 2 oe 2 s ) , The Nationa! Mediation Board further finds that the carrier and empioyee: 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 preciude an ulrimate determination in any future representation dispute as to the proper classification of these employees for representation purposes. By order of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD. Tacmas A. Tracy Executive Secretary ge —s “ -_ — * _ “ ~~) - -—— “ —) -« C med - —y * aw | - ~y* —_ . —,;, * , a -— + . _ - mmm * cee —) s MIE SNS ORANG SFT ROR IEI RLS eR OLN ERM NII NRE PES PTE AE LIF ¥ 3 ae aes A-32 =~ ea AY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT fey ©. a FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAY ~ ~~ & WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION | Nov3 tay 3 ROBERT E. REYNOLDS and DARIUS MOLES, JR., Plaintiffs, Vv. CIVIL ACTION FILE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NO. C-179-WS-73 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and LOCAL UNION NO. 2444, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Defendants. SS SS 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 neard oral argument by counsel for each of the parties. The Court now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lar. A-33 Pa ge 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. 5. 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 5 of the Railway Labor Act and on May 7, 1971, the board docketed the dispute as NMB Case No. A-9034. og, 73 gama OP" amy OF gms aE on gam ON ve OE em > en Se aes Be A-34 ee 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 employces of Piedmont Airlines "in the inspection, maintenance and overhaul functions of the airline division in its shops, hangars, OF LOCREIONE o 6 3s 11. 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, invidious 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 ‘ee Se oe ee ee ee ee ee see ee ee 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 1. 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. 5. Decisions of the United States Supremc Court and the Court of Appeals for this Circuit have firml) nig Bg ag a pe gs Sis Ss = pees aera bck BE eae Ne ed ee A-36 co 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 Cleras 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. Re Ge., $23: 0.5. 166; 65 S.Ct... 222, 88 L.Ed: 154; eceere Vi L. O°. 8. Co. , 323: U.S. 192; 205,. 65 BvCt. 226, 89 2. ta. 173.. And see Siocun v. D0. L. fe pee Ui... 259, 10 S.Ct. 5775" In the sane 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 Boerd, ©..." (imphasis by the Court of Appeals.) Ley 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 il order will be entered accordingly. United States District Judge ae ae OT ae ee a _— = -~ es _- = ~_— me i —_ ’ ~~ : —~— rs ~ : —.) s ~~ “ engi am! ~, * a owg * owl —p ~! «4 _ . —e - -_—* SAI OE, PAT EGS AL, ’ ye ame ; A-38 IN Til UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRt/=> FOR THE MUDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLEVA WINSTON-SALEM DIVISION \ KOBERT E. REYNOLDS and DARIUS MOLES, JR., Plaintifts., Vv. INTERNAT LONAL ASSUCTATION O01} MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACH WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and LOCAL UNION NO. 2444, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND ALROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-C10. Defendants. ew UU PELR SD * Sa a* bee Hoy 9 1973 © € ‘ . . CIVII. ACTION FILE NO. C-179-WS-73 JUDGMENT 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 heard the arguments of counsel; It is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendants’ motion is granted and the complaint be, and it is hereby, dismissed. United States Dis TEartos Ly: Ee ae trict Judge 4 Trua Copy araon Je Stir Car. ra J. ER Me fur ae [fhe pis flo / — +) A-39 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS “4% 4 122, FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Miles, Jr., versus x ocal 4, I rnational Association of Machinists & Aerospace orker ee ee ee ee ee ee — Pa i “ee it BS J RS et ee ee ee ee ee es eet a) Gar an 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. 17,0688 Labor Rel.tions Cases 111 104-74 Stron7 v. Shect “Letal Workers 6. On December 28, 1972, plaintiff TWA and Ie nt JAM enterel into working agreements pur y the RLA embody- ing the rates of pay, rite working conditions of the TWA employees aforesaid classes or crafts. Fach of saic agreenionts provided that the azreement “shall remain in full force and effect to and including August 31, 1973, ard there- after shall be sub: .t to change as pro- vided ir Section © of the Labor Act, as amended”. 7. Pursuant to the said provisions of said agreements, one or snore of the partics pro- posed changes in said agreements, and from n® later than june 24, 1974 until the pres- ent tinie, a negotiating commiciee of JAM District 142 and TWA have been in media- tion before the Nacional Mediation Board concerning the disputes arising over said Proposed chanwes, no agreement having yet been reached. 8. Commencing on or about August 1 1974 and continwag to date, ployvees represented by TAM of TAM at TWA’s Techaical ter at the Kansas City Internationg engaved in concerted slowdowny tions and stoppages of work a Airport interrup- other con- : certed interference with TWaA's normal operations. 9. On August 12, 194, TWA repre- sentatives met with th committee concerning Autd probiem. and on August 15, 1974, TWA representatives again brought the ajoresAil actions to the atten- tion of IAM reprfsentatives at Kansas City International Ayfport, arei said IAM repre- sentatives advfSed TNA that such actions had not bee y the IAM, but that the PAX did net inten ; action to end such actvity by the afor:- said members of the IAM. 10. On Aueust 14, 197+, the TAM, through IAM District 142 and its negotiating com- mittee, including defeadants Kerr and Bay, Union's full-time issved a bulletin to the members of the IAM employed by TWA which encouraged the aforesaid employees and IAM members throughout the TWA system to engage in the activities above-descnbed. The aforesaid actions have already resuiter ss of substantial production to TW. at the ical Services Center in Kansas City, Missoun created safety hazards for personnel workindyat the base. 12. The aforesaid activjefs have already increased the number delays in TWA operations and will Montinue to do so at an increased rate ifMe activities described are not discontinséd, resulting in serious and Conclusions of Law f TWA, its employees, the IAM, IAM istrict Lodge 142, [AM Local Lodge 1650 and their oficers, agents are subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended (“RLA”). 2. So long as the dispute over proposed changes in the TWA-IAM working agree- ments dated December 28, 1972 iz in metia- tion before the Naiional Mediation Board pursuant to Seciion 5 of the RLA, and for 30 days after termination of such media- tion services by the National Mediation Board, the RLA prohibits activities by IAM members and organizations of the character described 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 IAM members in viola- tion of the RLA. 3. Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary jon acainst future violations of the RLA, au osting of a notice by TAM District 142 adVts j 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-i329, 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 !ucal into one local union, was not donc in retalia- tion for the local’s rejection of 2 stabilization 2creement of the sheet metal industry or for its entering into another industrial agreement, but, rather, was implemented for the q 30,223 © 1974, Commerce Cleariz:z House, inc. eet PLS SOON LONE NB IIE TE OR ". SNES P ETE & oo” ” “—s -— - oom -- - — -- : Pay en] A-42 104-74 Labor Cases—Cited 75 LC 17,089 Strong v. Sheet Metal Workers 1 purp4se 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’ nght of voting, assembly and speech guaranteed them as members of a union by federal labor law, and the merver itseli was proper under the umon constitution. LMRDA, Section 101. Back reference.—® 7477.15. Rights of Union Mernters—Disciplinary Action—Diminution of Voting Strength Through Merger.—In Nicht of the safeguards to protect fully the politica! and the con- tractual rights of members of a local union who were transferred to other locals following a mercer, and in the absence of greof establishing an intent on the part of the international and its presijent to punish the locals involved, the mere diminution of voting strength resulting from the transfers did not constitute “discipline” in violation of the Act. LMKDA, Section 101(a)(5) Pack reference —° 7477. Rights of Union Members—Merger of Locals—Evidence of Bad Faith.—\Where the evidence failed to establish that an international and its president acted in bad faith or adversely to the interests of the international and its membership as a whole in ordering 2 merger of locals in a particular area, federal labor law does not permit a court to svb- stitute its own view of what 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 con- stitution with the responsibility for making such decisions. LMRDA, Section 101. Back reterence.—* 7477.67. Rights of Union Memhers—Internal Anneals Procedures—Stay Pending Appect. lin refusing to grant 2 stay pendisc appeal under internal union appeal procedures, an international and its general president dit 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 probalil:ty of success om the merits, which are prere juisiies to the issuance of a preliminary injunction. LMRDA, Section 102. Back reterence.--© 7479.20. and Francisco. In the Leca!l 75 case, similar relief was sovzht tu resirain action of the Internationai transferring members of an- other affiliate. Local 75, into Locals 104 of San Francisco and 216 of Oakland on the following basis: Findings of Fact, Conclusions o1 Law and Order Two separate cases, No C-79-1829-CBR, referred io hereafter a: the “Local 4"7 case.” and No. C-73-1700-CBER, reterred to here- after as the “Local 75 case,” were con- solidated for heamng on the tssue of an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary ir, (a) The members of Local who reside in Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, ard injunction should not issue.’ In the Local Marin Counties to be transferred into 497 case a preliminary iniunction wes Local 104, and sought to restrain an international labor (b) The metmbers of Local 75 who union, Sheet Metal Workers’ International reside in Napa and Solano Counties to be Association, AFL-CIO, referred to here- after as the “International,” from merging its affiliate Local 497 (with territonal jurisdiction over Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties} into Local 104 of San transferred into Local 216. This action has been brought under vari- ous sections of the Labor-Management Re- porting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Lan- drum-Griffiin Act), 29 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., ‘By stipulation of the parties to the Local 75 action. dated September 25, 1973, a temporary festraining order was issued on that date to enjoin further dissolution of Local 75 and trans- fer of its men.bers pending the Court's decision on plaintif's’ motion fora pretinmiinary inpirction By stipulation ond order dated January 21, 1974. Labor Law Reports the hearing on the preiiminary injunction con- St'tuted the trial on tne merits in both cases. As 2 result of this stipulation and order piain- tu%s have effectively waived their claim for money darnaces since po evidence of such da:r- are was presented at the hearing 10,313 SVL IER A LER ALEL OLLIE LE NIELS SIE LEN I NEEBE ROTA IY = ". ——EE 17,090 Labor Relations Cases it A-43 104-74 Strong uv. Sheet Metal U'orkers specifically the sections dealing with equal rights and free speech [§$41]l(a)(1) and (2)], due process in disciplinary proceed- ings [§ 411()(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 § 391 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1647 (Taft-Hariley Act), 29 U. S. C. § 185, and of violations of the union constitution enforceable by Local 73 under 29 U. S. C. § 185. The cases came for hearinzs on De- centhber 3, 4, 5 and 6, 1973. Thereafter the parties filed proposed ndings of iact and conciusions of law and plaintiffs filed a post-heanng brief. Ora! argument was heard on January 3, 1974. After hearing all of the witnesses and examining all of the evi- dence, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Findings of Fact i. Fiainufis in tie two actions which Lave been consolidated herein are members, respectively, of Local Unions 73 and 497 of the Internaticral, They are suing in- dividually an! on behalf of their fellow members as a class. 2. The members of Local 75 number ap- proximately 470, and it is impracticable to bring 2l! cf them before the Court. There are questions of law and tact presented here which are comnton to the entire class of persons who are meinhbers ¢/ Loca! 75. The claims of plaintiffs herein are typical of the claims of this cluss, and the plainticts will fairly and adequately protect the in- terests of the class. "3. In the Local 75 action th: defen-tants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making fina! injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with re- spect to the class as a whole. 4. In the Local 75 action the class con- sists of the members of Local 75 of the International as of August 29, 1973. 5. The members of Local 497 number approximately 60, and it is impracticable to bring ail of them before the Court. There are questions of law and fact presented here which are common to the entire class of persons who are members of Local 497. The claims of plaintiffs herein are typical oi the claims of this class, and the plain- tiffs wili tairly and adequatcly protect the interests of the class. { 10,213 oa eee | URRED COPY 6. In the Local 497 action the defendants have acted on grounds ceneraliy applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriates with re spect to the class as a whole 7. In the Local 497 action the class cor- sists of the members of Local 497 of the International as of Aucust 29, 1973 8. During the course of the proceedings, Local 75 of the International entered as an Interveror. 9. Locals 497 and 73 are local unions chartered by and afiliated with the Inter- nationa!. 10. Defendants are the International; Edward J. Carlough, the General President of the International; and Charles Artman, the International Representative having re- sponsibility over Locals 75 and 497. 11. Defendant International is an inter- national labor organization with general of- fices in Washinzion, D. C., with which are affiliated more than 4) subordinate bovlies such as local unions, district councils, and railroad district councils threuchort the United States and Canada. International issues charters to new local unions and other subordinate bodies from time to time and it also revokes charters, merges or amalczmates local unions, transfers mem- bers from one loca! union to another, and chanves the territorial jurisdiction or the classification-of-work jurisdiction of its van- ous local unions. In such activities and all other matters, the International, its afniiated local unions and other subordinate bohes, and the membership are governed by a written document known as the Constitu- tion and Ritual of the International, which prescribes atl of tne reciprecal rishis and duties of the parties ani which na, fairly be described as a contract or compact by and between them 12. Defendant Edward J. Carlough, the International's General President, is its chief executive officer. Carlough has heen Genera! Pres‘dent since October 1, 1970 During the ten years prior to being Gen- era: Pres:dent, Cariouch was the Interna- tional’s Director of Organization. 13. Defendant Charlies Artmanr is an In- ternational Representative of the Intema- tional. He has served in such capacity since 1934. An International Representative is appointed by the General President with the consent of the General Executive Council, and is a full-time, salaried position. Art- Man services the entire state of Califurnia in this capacity. © 1974, Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Taek tl SDE RSL od ak a a ee ie De CLOSED OGM GR Highs YT ance A-44 Strony v [Diziston of Local] 14. The acts comp the decision of the divide Local 75, covermy fornia north of San Francisco, and to transfer those menbers currently residing wy Metdo- cino, Lake, Sonoma, and Maren Counties to Local 104 in San Franetseo ard to teanster those members currently residing m hepa and Sclano Courties to Local 216 in Ala meda County; and, im addition, to Locai 40/7, whose terrtorial jurisdiction covers Del Norte, Humboldt and+Tnnity Counties, into Local 104 in San Francisco. ‘ined of arove et of Geacral Prestlent oo inuch of C.de Der ace 15. Carlouch explaired this decisior in a letter to the members affected dated Au- gust 29, 1973. He cave as authority for his action Article Three Section 2(¢) of the Constitution and Ritual of the Intercational which provides in applicable part: “The General President shall have full authority * * * to amulzamate two or more local unions or district councils when itis advisable or meeessary in the test iitesesti- oF thas Assawiauon amd the 1 ot rt errte te ee ey] See eT 16. The letter of August 2 ates six factors evaluated in reaching the decision to amalsamate the local unions along the lines specitic!: (1) Local 497 was unable te police its jurisdiction effec- tively despite its high dues structure; (2) increased operating eficiwscs along with lower adm wuld result from the amalksamation of Locais 447 and 735; (3) the new geographic distribution of the transferred) areas of Loca! 73 would enable the surviving Locals 104 and 216 to cover the emigadr se" area with relative facility; (45 the elimination of various types of inter-local travel barriers would encourage Bay Arca sheet metal contractors to bid on jobs over a broader area and would enabie union contractors tu compete more effec- tively with rival trades and nonunion em- ployers, thus increasing work opportunities for the membership as a whole; (5) 1 better competitive basis, in jurisdictional terms, would result for sheet metal workers and contractors tn relation to other rival trades and crafts in the Northern California area: and (6) the fact that Northern California was treated a> a sinuwle cconomic area by federal wage and price administrators with uniform wage structures formulated for the », 19723, enumer- fis’ ta IVE COSIS Ww Labor Cases—Cited 75 LC Steet Metal Workers 17,091 17. At trial Carlouch further explained that his decision was bised primarily on the follow. concerns: (a) The existence of too much compe- tition among the Northern California locals; (b) The migration of sheet metal con- tractors down the Peninsula and away from San Francisco; and (co) The desirability of the SASMI plan, which dejn nded for its implementation on a treer flow of members in the Northern Cal: forma area and which, therefore, was being inhibited by the then current juris- dictional structure of the Northern Cali- fornia locals 18. The evidence in:licates that from the time Carlouch became Gencral President and even prior thereto he had been con- sidering the problems of sheet mctal workers local unions in the Northern Californie areéa The essential diticulty in Northern Cali- fornia, according to Carlou-th, is that there are too many | cal unions in the area and, thus, too much competition among them more money in iret tes rtd = cry tar eee ee oe! rates, ad other friace tenchis, pensigcs, ar etc. There s are ‘See local in the Bay Area aione: [Local ii (San Francisco County), Local 2! (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), Local 272 (San Mateo County), Local 2) (Nlonterey, Bento, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties), and Local 735 (Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties). Whenever certain cumditions were obtained in one area, the repre-entatives of the locai umons in contiguous areas attenipted to surpass them. This, at least in Carlouch’s opinion, has had an adverse effect upon the development of the unton sector of the shect metal industry. In addition, the move- ment of men in the Northern California area has been restricted unduly under the International's so-called “twoman rcuie™? due to the fact that there are too many lecal unions in this region. This has con- tributed to the loss of certain kinds of work by union contractors and will continue to do so if the conditions continue. Many local unions in Northern California in com- parable building trades work such as iron- workers, asbesios workers. and operating engineers, have territonal junsdiction over substantially more of the Northern Cali- forma counties than the sheet metal workers’ local unions which means that there are nions competing San entire area relatively few restrictions on the move- 7 Under the ‘two-man rule’ a contractor (ram than {10 men from his home jurisdiction. sle Outside the jurisdiction of a particular local union cen bring into that jurisdiction no more Labor Law Renorts {| URRED COPY 3 musi hire the rest of his crew from the local within whose jurisdiction the job is located. q 10,313 Be ee a a a i a a eee | a KOE PY EE TLS LOSE, CARRE BO BI FAI CN RTE, Nae PIII BAS > 17,022 A-45 Labor Relations Cases 111 104-74 Strony v. Sheet Metal Workers ment of the members of the other trades throvzhout the Bay Area. Carlough’s testi- mony about unfavorable competitive con- ditions in the union sector of the sheet metal industry was indenerdent!, corcoborated by A. Bruce McKenzie, executive director of the Shee: Metal Contractor. Association in San Francisco, Wade Adams, member of the board of directors of the Sheet Meta. Contractors Association of San Mateo, ard Richardt Ward, executive director of the Sheet Metal Contractors Association of San Mateo. A letter from Richard Ward, dated September 7, 1972, indicated that a number of Bay Area sheet metal contractors intended to approach (ieneral President Carlow to seek the merger of all five Pav Area local unions into one local union, as a suggested solution to the problem. [Shrinkage in Loce!’s Membership] 19 Another developrunt which Carlough deemed serious was the shrinkave in the size of the membership of Local 104 of San Daaiicesu Ts i> wv ienseiy Wado atirtuutable to 4a witetaiinon ul shops aud Work trom San Tancisco to contiguous areas. Carlough State! that the San Francisco local union must be maintained as the dominant-sized union in the Bay Area and that the logical way to achieve this objective was through a prograin of mergers. 20. The International, in conjunction with Various emplovers, hus established a trustee plan to stabilize the earnings of sheet metal workers by assuring covered employees a miniracm number of hours of pay during semi-annual periods. The plan which is entitled Stabilizanon Agreement of the Sheet Metal Industry, and is commonly btnown as SASMI, was not completed in final form and formally adopted until Mav 21, 1973 Genera! President Carloug!: has personatiy endorsed SASMI and has encouraced its adoption by local unions atl emplovers throughout the country. Cariouch spoke of the SASMI concept to various emplover and umion groups as early as March of 197i. long before the plan was completed in final form. 21. In the winter and sprine of 1972, Cariough had a series of discussions of the SASMI concept with A. Bruce McKenzie, executive director of the Sheet Metal Con- tractors Associatior of Sar Francisco, and Charles Andrews, President of that Asso- ciation. Carlough, who at that time was alrcacy considering various merger pooot- bilities in the Bay Area, felt thar McKenzie 4 16,313 and Andrews, being interested in obtaining relief from the strictures on the free flow of manpower and diversity of wage rates and working conditions throughout the Bay Area, might be induced to support the SASM Ii concept in exchange for the contem- plated mergers which would probably re- sult in the dez.ced relief Thus, an azrement was regotiated on Avgust 1, 19°2, between Loal 144 an? the San Francisco Contractors Association, accompanied by a letter of understanding between Carlough and Andrews which provided that if certain types of relief could be obtained with respect to working conditiois and travel restrictions in Locals 104, 272, 309 and 216, and if a com..on industrial avreement could be nego- uated to apply throughout the jurisdiction of Locals 75, 194, 216 and 272 and 5u9, the San Francisco Sheet Metal Contractors would Participate in the SASMI program. 22. Both the agreement and the letter of understanding of August 1, 1972, were revised and! renevotiated by the original signatory parties an “fay 21 1073) purcuane to recommen ations bye counsel jor the In- ternationa! ard also to conform to the final concept for the SASMI program, which had been substantia!!y revised since August 1, 1972. The conditions described in the letter of understanding have not been met as of the date of the hearing herein, and the sheet meta! contractors aftlinted with the Sheet Metal Contractors Asseciation of San Francisco are not making contr ions to the SASMI trust fund or participating in the SASMI program. 23. During 1973 the SAS\MII plan has been repudiated by a substantial number of locals throughout the United States, includ- ing Lecal 75. Most of the !ocal unions in the State of California which have nezo- tiated agreements during 19/3 have re- jected it. Carlough told Kelley Barber, *’ - business manaier of Local 73, that he was disappoiated to learn that Locai 73 had not adopted SASMI and stated that he felt that with proper leadership, Local 75 would have endorsed it. [Merger of Unions] 2+. Between 1955 and 1972 a considerable aumber of loca! unions throughout the United States and Canada have been merged or amalgamated with other local unions, and during the same period of time manv chances m ihe territorial jurisdiction of lucai unions have -been directed, some of which repre- © 1974, Commerce Clearing House, Inc. exc meentnet te NSS ATL TT EL TT IT ae A-46 411i 104-74 Labor Cases—Cited 75 LC 17,093 Strong v. Sheet Metal UW’ orkers sented accretions and others diminutions to the affected local unions. 25. Plaintiffs did not establish by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that Carlough ordered the atnalzamation for the purpose of punishing Local 75 or its members for their rejection of the SASMI plan or for the purpose of punishing the members of Local 497. 26. Plaintiff. did not establish by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that, in ordering and effecting the amaigamation, either Car- lough or Artman acted in bad faith or in conflict with or adversely to the interests of the International or of its members collectively. 27. In light of the conditions existing in Northern California in May, 1972, General President Carlouch asked International Rep- resentative Actman tor his recommendations with respect to mergers involving the various local unions in Northern California. Art- man prepared a study which recommended the mergers of: (1) Tacals 104. 277? and 309, (2) Locals 216, 28% amd 493, and (3) Locals 75 and 4°7. Artman also recom- mended the creation of a Ray Area “Indus- dustnal Local” to have jurisdiction over industrial sheet metal work in the entire Bay Area. He recommended against the merger of Local 75 into Local 104 or Local 216. 28. Carlough then began workine with the officials and members involved for the merger of Locais 104, 272, and 399, as recommended, but, because of of position from the locals and from the employer associations concerned he was eventually forced to abanaon these eftcrts. 29. Carlowgh then turaed his attention to Locals 75 ard 497 ard decided. contrary to the earlier recommendacion of Artman, to transfer their mer:bers into Lecals 104 and 216. He restudied and rejected Art- man’s recommenations as to a merger between Locals 735 and 497, 30. In order to avoid the problerrs he had encountered earlier in his attempt to merge Locals 104. 272 and 30°, Carlougis decided not to disclose his intentions to the offcials or members of Locals 75 and 497. 31. Artman, together with counsel for the International made a feasibility study of the merger prospects for Locals 497 and 75 which was submitted in the form of & written report in July of 1973. This report, with minor changes, served as the Labor Law Reports BES. idee SER Cig cy : basis for Carlough'’s merger directive of August 29, 1973. 32. Carlough thereupon issued his letter of August 29, 1973, which directed that the necessary details of the mergers were to be completed no later than October 1, 1973, Artman told the members of Local 75, however, that the mergers were effective as of August 29, 1973. Artman then can- celed the regular mecting of the member- ship, scheduling in its place two purely infonmative meetings; and, when presented with a petition by the membership for a special meeting, as permitted under the Constitution, he refused to allow such a mecting to be held. 33. With respect to the merger of Local 497 (Trinity, Humboltt and Del Norte Counties}, every witness who testified at the hearing herein conceded that a merger was not only desirable but necessary inas- much as Local 497 was unable to sustain itself despite high dues structure. Interna- tional Kepresentative Actman testified that the members ot Local 497, with the possible exception of one or two individuals, have already been transferred into Local 1, so that this merger is in effect a fait accompls. 34. The merger or transfer of members in the Local 75 case is only partially com- pleted because of the issuance by this Court upon stipulation of the parties of a temporary restraining order which by con- sent of counsel for defendants has been continued until-the court enters its order hercin on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. 35. The directive of August 29, 1973, enlarges the territorial jurisdiction of Local 104 of San Francisco northward in a narrow corridor co the sou.hein border of Oregon, emracing tue councies of San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma. Lake, Mendocino, Trinity, Humboldt, and Del Norte, and enlarges the territorial jurisdiction of Local 216 of Oakland to include Alameda, Contra Costa. Napa, and Solano Counties. Many other building trades local unions have compar- able or even more extensive territorial ju- ris liction. [Effect of Merger] 36. This merger, just as any other, has the natural effect of diluting the rights and powers of individual members of the locals involved. 37. Pursuant to President Carlough’s di- rective of August 29, 1973, the members {10,313 t Re - =~ * on | on ws 4 . —, * e «4 —p,p * & a =: a ca a -_ 4 -_- VEE LEMS EL PEN i! OORT, Ee aD. Oy SAL ST TR PN oh AT NT Ree OL AEN CY, “ A-47 Labor Cases-—-Cited 75 LC 17,095 Strong v. Sheet Meial Workers union. In the event the funds and prop- erty are not surrendere.t to a local union by the General Seerctary-Treasurer as provided in this Section, they shall be- come the property of this Association.” 44 Appeals have been filed with the General Executive Council, which has the constitutional authority to modity or re- verse and set aside the action of the General President sliould it decide that said mergers or either of them are not in ibe best interests of the International and the members thereor, Should the General Presi- dent’s decision be reversed, the charter, seal, beoks, records, funds and all other personal property of beth or either of said local unions would be retuencd by the International's General Seeretary- Treasurer, pursuant to the provisions ef Article Ten (10), Section 10, of the Inter- national Constitution. papers, [Waiver of Requirement] 45. Plaintiffs have requested waiver of the requirement under Article Nineteer: (19), Section S/a) of the Inte-national Cop- stitution of compliance with the meryer decisien appeal. Pursuant to Article Nineteen (19), Section 3(b), General Secretary-Treasurer Turner polled the mem- bers of the General Executive Counci! to ascertain whether they favored waiver of such requirement. The members of the General Executive Council mourned tie Gen- eral Secretary-Treasurer that they did not wish to grant such waiver. nending the 46. In the event that plaintifs are suc- cesstul on their internal appeals, the Inter- national could re-establish the locals, aad so lons as the Intereational adheres to the above safeguard Provisions involving the bool:s, records, funds, ete., of the locals during the pendency of the appeal, plaintis’s will not suffer irreparable harm because of the consummation of the merger. 47. Plaintiffs have not been denied their right of internal appeal under the Interna- tional Constituceon nor have defendants frustrated that > jit. Conclusiors of Lar, 1. Jurisdiction and venus: are fropes undur 29 U.S. C. $8 412, 201, anc 185. 2. Both the Locai 75 action and the Loca! 497 action are properly maintained a: class actions under Rule 23(b)12), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The safeguards enacted in the Lar- drum-Grithn Act were meant to secure Labor Law Repuris TERT esa ee a individual membership rights, not to guar- antce the perpetuity cf a given local union. 4. In taking the actions complained of here, defendants did not deny to piamtulls their might to participate equally in union attairs and, therefore, did not violate 29 C. S.C. §4192)(1) 3. Defendants’ actions did not deny to Planutts ther right of free speech and assembly and, therefore, did not violate 27 U.S. C. § 413 (a)(2) 6. In light of the safeguards provided to protect fuily the political and the contrac- tual rights of the transferred members and mm the absence of pr [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_IA40385608_1796%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.