BATES v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN

CHARLES SIMPSON, Judge

Railway Labor Act

Seniority Rights — Agreement Consolidating Districts — Union Constitutional Provision for Vote of Members — Non-Observance by Bargaining Act — Effect on Agreement. — Failure of union representatives to observe provision in union constitution pertaining to a favorable vote by a majority of members in each district affected before division or consolidation of seniority districts is not legally effective to invalidate an agreement negotiated by union representatives pursuant to a carrier proposal and consolidating four seniority districts. The duty of the union bargaining agent to represent all employees fairly and to bargain in good faith, being imposed by law, may not be circumscribed by such a union regulation where the union agent believed in good faith that the interests of all of the employees represented demanded that the agreement be negotiated. Nor was a decision by the union's president that the bargaining agent exceeded its authority in negotiating the agreement without a prior vote effective to invalidate the agreement since its validity is to be determined by federal law and the duties imposed under its provisions.

Back reference. — ¶ 6090.276.

This cause came on for trial upon the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth claims stated in plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (the Sixth claim having been finally dismissed on defendants' motions) and upon defendants' answers, including defenses. Upon the close of the plaintiffs' evidence the Court granted defendants' motions for a dismissal of plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth claims and the trial proceeded as to plaintiffs' First, Second, and Third claims. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Court announced its general finding against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants and announced that judgment would be entered against plaintiffs and in favor of defendants in respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims.

Findings of Fact

1. The plaintiffs, suing on behalf of them-selves and others similarly situated, are employed by the defendant Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company as locomotive fire-men or diesel helpers. Some are and some are not members of the defendant Brother-hood. Plaintiffs fairly and adequately repre-sent the locomotive firemen and diesel helpers employed by Seaboard Air Line Rail-road Company on the East and North Seniority Districts.

[Relief Sought]

2. By each of the claims stated in the First Amended Complaint plaintiffs seek a decree cancelling an Agreement dated April 4, 1958, between the defendant Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company and the de-fendant Brotherhood as bargaining repre-sentative, under the Railway Labor Act, of firemen employed on Seaboard, alleging that the Agreement was and is illegal and that it illegally deprived the plaintiffs of valuable seniority rights to which they were otherwise entitled. In addition to praying for cancellation of the Agreement, plaintiffs prayed that they be restored to the seniority status previously held and that they be awarded damages against the Brotherhood and the Railroad Company. The several claims are similar except for the varying allegations of paragraph 2 of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth claims which, in those claims, are substituted for the allega-tions of paragraph 14 of the First claim. Thus, the First claim is based upon an alleged breach of contract and the Second and Third claims are based on an alleged breach of trust, by reason of the alleged failure to observe a provision of the Brother-hood Constitution said to prohibit a con-solidation of seniority districts without an approving vote by a majority of the mem-bers on each district affected; the Fourth and Fifth claims are based upon alleged breach by the Brotherhood of its fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and allegations that the officers of the Brotherhood acted in bad faith or from improper motives in nego-tiating and executing the Agreement and that the Railroad Company either knew of or induced the breach by the Brotherhood of its fiduciary duty.

[Employee Contentions]

3. Each claim is predicated in whole or in part upon the alleged failure to observe the provision of the Brotherhood's Con-stitution that "to consolidate two or more or divide one or more seniority districts on a system, a majority vote of the mem-bers on each seniority district affected must be obtained," it being conceded that no such vote was taken in this instance. Alterna-tively, plaintiffs assert that this provision of the Constitution constituted a contract between the Brotherhood and those em-ployees represented by the Brotherhood, as bargaining representative, that the Brother-hood would not negotiate for or agree to a consolidation unless and until a majority of the members of the Brotherhood on each affected seniority district should vote for such consolidation; that the Brotherhood assumed a position of trust not to bargain or contract in a manner prohibited by this provision of its Constitution, all of which was known, or should have been known, to the Railroad Company and that the Rail-road Company nevertheless contracted, know-ing that the Brotherhood was acting in derogation of this provision of its Constitution. The Fourth and Fifth claims added allegations of fraud and bad faith.

[Initiation of Negotiations by Carrier]

4. It is undisputed that the negotiations leading to the April 4, 1958, Agreement were initiated by a Section 6 notice served by the Director of Personnel of Seaboard on the General Chairman of the defendant Brother-hood dated September 25, 1957. Thereby the carrier gave notice of its desire to re-vise the Agreement then in effect by merging the existing North, East, South and West firemen's seniority districts into one seniority district. The evidence does not justify a finding that General Chairman Williams or any official of the Brotherhood inspired the serving of this Section 6 notice or other-wise induced the Railroad Company to seek a merger or consolidation of the firemen's seniority districts. On the contrary, the evi-dence. discloses that in 1945 the carrier attempted to merge the four seniority dis-tricts in respect to firemen as well as in respect to engineers, conductors and train-men. The merger was effected as to en-gineers, conductors and trainmen but, as to firemen, the carrier and Brotherhood entered into what was called a "diversion of traffic" agreement. The evidence shows that this divergent agreement with the firemen was a source of dissatisfaction by the Railroad Company and by many of the firemen, as well. Although the 1945 diversion of traffic agreement did not purport to merge or consolidate firemen's seniority districts, it appears that a common extra board was maintained in Wildwood from which firemen holding seniority on the North or East District could and did work, and that a common extra board was maintained in Tampa from which firemen holding seniority on the West or South district could and did work. The dissatisfaction of the Railroad Company with conditions as they existed before the April 4, 1958 Agreement was well known to the Brotherhood officials. They believed, and I find that they were justified in believing, that the Railroad Company was determined to achieve merger of the firemen's seniority districts as proposed in the Section 6 notice by resort to self-help, if necessary, and that it was in the best interest of the employees that the Brotherhood officials bargain for whatever concessions they could obtain as a condition to agreeing to a merger. This is what they did.

[Participation of Union Representatives]

5. Following service of the Section 6 notice on General Chairman Williams, he notified each member of the General Grievance Committee, including the local chairmen of the three Locals whose members would be affected by the proposed merger of seniority districts. (Tampa Local #927 was composed of men on the South and West Districts). Chairman Williams called on the two other members of his Executive Committee to assist in the negotiations. One member of the Executive Committee was Vice-Chairman Summers, who was also Local Chairman of Lodge #80 at Jacksonville. In addition, Chairman Williams invited the Local Chairmen of the other locals whose members were affected to attend the bargaining sessions and they did attend the bargaining sessions with representatives of the Railroad Company. The Local Chairmen were free to speak, and did speak, on behalf of the members represented by them. Based on an informal canvass, Chairman Williams believed that a majority of members in the four districts favored consolidation, although a majority of the members on the East District opposed consolidation. He believed also that the General Grievance Committee would not support a walkout if he should refuse to agree to the proposed merger and the carrier should resort to self-help after exhausting the statutory procedures prescribed by the Railway Labor Act. Even though Local Chairman Strickland, of Local 984, representing men on the East District, was opposed to entering into the agreement for merger or consolidation without an approving vote of the majority of the members on each district, he felt that the provisions of the Agreement of April 4, 1958 would be as satisfactory as could be expected if consolidation was to be effected. His principal insistence was inclusion of provisions "protecting prior rights" for a longer period than that provided in the Agreement. This insistence was strongly opposed by other representatives.

[Good Faith Exercised]

6. I find that General Chairman Williams and the members of the Brotherhood's Executive Committee, who represented the Brotherhood in bargaining with the Railroad Company, and the representatives of the Railroad Company participating in the bargaining and in the execution of the Agreement, acted in good faith, and that the plaintiffs wholly failed to prove the charges of fraud and improper motives.

[Dispute Over Applicability of Constitutional Provision]

7. The officials and members of the Brother-hood are in disagreement as to whether the provision of the Brotherhood Constitution above quoted is applicable to proposals for consolidation initiated by the carrier or whether it is confined to instances in which the Brotherhood initiates a consolidation proposal. General Chairman Williams, who was named by the Brotherhood as its bar-gaining representative, was of the opinion that the constitutional provision was not applicable in this instance because the con-solidation proposal came from the Railroad Company in the form of a Section 6 notice. His opinion was based in part on, and appears to have been supported by, an opinion rendered by the President of the Brotherhood in 1927, when the Railroad Company proposed to create the four seniority districts which, in 1945 and again in 1957, it proposed to reconsolidate. At that time the President of the Brotherhood ruled that the General Grievance Committee was with-out authority to initiate a proposal for dividing a seniority district after the mem-bership had rejected the proposed division, but that notwithstanding the adverse vote of its membership, the General Grievance Committee did have authority, under its general authority to make agreements respecting seniority rights, to negotiate a settlement which called for dividing a seniority district when the General Grievance Committee was placed on the defensive by notice of the carrier's desire and intention to make such division.

8. Following execution of the Agreement of April 4, 1958, certain of the plaintiffs and other members of the Brotherhood ap-pealed from this action of the Executive Committee to the General Grievance Com-mittee. From an adverse decision of the General Grievance Committee those plain-tiffs and other appellant members further appealed to the International President of the Brotherhood who ruled that the Execu-tive Committee "exceeded their rights under brotherhood law in negotiating the agree-ment involved without first complying with the specific requirements of Article 9, Sec-tion 10(f), of the present constitution by submitting the matter to the members of each seniority district affected for a refer-endum vote in order to determine their wishes in the matter." Although a further appeal was authorized under the Constitu-tion of the Brotherhood from the decision of the International President to the Board of Directors, no such further appeal was taken.

[Exhaustion of Intra-union Remedies]

9. Plaintiffs exhausted their intra-union remedies.

[Nature of Jobs Involved]

10. The jobs held by the plaintiffs before merger of the firemen's seniority districts were considered to be preferred runs re-quiring duty on fewer days per month and permitting the plaintiffs to work nearer home and fewer days away from home, than on runs available to plaintiffs following the merger.

Conclusions of Law

11. Plaintiffs having failed to prove any of the allegations of fraud or bad faith, are left with no more than the claim of illegality based on the fact, not disputed, that no vote was taken of the members on each of the four seniority districts affected before the Brotherhood entered into the Agreement of April 4, 1958. The provision of the Brotherhood Constitution relied on by the plaintiffs does not call for a vote of the employees in each of the districts affected; it calls for a vote of the members of the Brotherhood in each of those districts. It is not necessary to here determine the extent to which this provision of the Constitution may or should be regarded as a contract between the Brotherhood and its members or between the Brotherhood and the non-member employees represented by the Brotherhood as bargaining agent. For it is clear that the constitutional provision is legally ineffective to circumscribe or obviate a duty imposed by law upon the Brotherhood as collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act. In the First Amended Complaint plaintiffs correctly stated that the obligation of the Brotherhood as collective bargaining representative of the plaintiffs was "to represent both its membership and non-union employees fairly, equally, impartially and without discrimination." Neither the adverse vote of a majority of the members on only one of several seniority districts affected by a proposed consolidation nor a constitutional provision requiring a favorable vote of a majority of the members on each of several districts affected by a proposed consolidation would or could relieve the Brotherhood's duly designated bargaining agent of his duty to bargain in good faith or withdraw his authority to enter into an agreement consolidating seniority districts where in good faith he believed that the interests of all of the employees represented by the Brotherhood, taken as a whole, demanded that he enter into such an agreement. Since I have found that Chairman Williams, the duly designated bargaining agent of the Brotherhood, and the members of the Executive Committee assisting him in the negotiations, acted in good faith, and with the approval of the General Grievance Committee, I must conclude, as a matter of law, that the lack of an approving vote by a majority of the members on each of the four seniority districts affected does not affect the validity of the Agreement of April 4, 1958 and the Agreement was and is a valid agreement.

12. The decision or opinion of the Brotherhood's President that the members of the Brotherhood's Executive Committee exceeded their rights under the Brotherhood's Constitution in negotiating the agreement without first submitting the matter to a vote by the members on each seniority district affected does not require a holding by this Court that these officials of the Brotherhood exceeded the authority imposed upon them by the Railway Labor Act. The validity of the Agreement of April 4, 1958, negotiated by bargaining representatives duly selected to represent the carrier and the employees, as provided for by the Railway Labor Act, is to be determined by application of Federal law and the International President's decision interpreting provisions of the Brotherhood's Constitution as denying authority of the Brotherhood's duly designated bargaining representative to enter into the April 4, 1958, Agreement is no more effective to limit or deny the authority inhering in the bargaining agent duly appointed and acting under the Railway Labor Act than the constitutional provision mentioned is effective to relieve that bargaining agent of his duty or limit his authority to discharge that duty under the Railway Labor Act.

13. Since the Agreement of April 4, 1958, was and is valid and binding upon the employees represented by the Brotherhood as bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act, including the plaintiffs, I conclude further that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the relief prayed in any of their claims First, Second, Third, Fourth or Fifth. Accordingly, judgment will be entered dismissing plaintiffs' action and awarding defendants their costs.