Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc.

Decision Date12 August 1963
Citation227 F. Supp. 674
PartiesCharles H. RUBY, as President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Air Line Pilots Association, International, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, and Nicholas J. O'Connell, Jr., individually and as Chairman of the Master Executive Council of the pilots in the service of American Airlines, Inc., and the Negotiating Committee of said pilots, consisting of Richard Lyons et al., Additional Defendants, and Joseph V. Manning, as President of the American Airlines Chapter, Flight Engineers' International Association, AFL-CIO, and American Airlines Chapter, Flight Engineers' International Association, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated association, Intervenors.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Cohen & Weiss, New York City, for plaintiffs; Henry Weiss, Herbert A. Levy, New York City, of counsel.

Arthur M. Wisehart, New York City, for defendant; George A. Spater, H. Wayne Wile, New York City, of counsel.

Martin C. Seham, New York City, for additional defendants; Edward F. Campbell, Huntington, N. Y., of counsel.

O'Donnell & Schwartz, New York City, for intervenors; Asher W. Schwartz, Walter N. Kaufman, New York City, of counsel.

WYATT, District Judge.

This action and the controversies involved form chapters in the troubled history of labor relations in the airline industry. Specifically there are charges here of violations of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 and following; the "Act") which was made applicable to the air lines by amendments effective April 10, 1936 (45 U.S.C.A. § 181).

The action is for an injunction, declaratory judgment and damages and was commenced by President Ruby of Air Line Pilots Association ("Alpa") and by Alpa against American Airlines, Inc. ("American" or "the Company"). Intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) was permitted to President Manning of American Airlines Chapter, Flight Engineers' International Association (the "Chapter"), and to the Chapter; it was represented that there were questions of law and fact in common. The intervenors filed a complaint also for an injunction, a declaratory judgment and damages.

Thereafter intervenors applied under Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 to add as additional defendants Nicholas J. O'Connell, Jr., Chairman of the Alpa Master Executive Council of American pilots (the "American MEC"), and also the members of the Negotiating Committee appointed by the American MEC (the "additional defendants"). After this application had been granted, the intervenors and also plaintiffs served amended complaints, which added averments respecting the additional defendants; the motions are considered on the basis of these amended complaints.

The motions now to be considered (a motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment and a motion by defendant to strike an affidavit, etc. will be dealt with separately) are five in number:

1. by plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction restraining American

a. from negotiating with the additional defendants as a committee of pilots;
b. from refusing to negotiate with Alpa;
c. from influencing, etc. its pilots in their choice of bargaining representatives;
d. from "subverting" the rights of Alpa as bargaining representative of American pilots;
e. from making any agreement as to pilots except with Alpa; and
f. from changing working conditions in violation of the Act;

2. by American for a reference to a master under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 to determine whether "a majority of defendants' flight deck employees desire the Joint Negotiating Committee to continue to act as their bargaining representative";

3. by intervenors for a preliminary injunction restraining American

a. from negotiating as to flight engineers except with the Chapter;
b. from making any agreement as to flight engineers except with the Chapter; and
c. from refusing to bargain collectively with the Chapter;

4. by intervenors for an order restraining all parties, including the additional defendants,

a. from disseminating a proposed agreement concerning flight engineers;
b. from holding any meetings for considering and voting on such proposed agreement; and
c. from influencing etc. the flight engineers in their choice of bargaining representative; and

5. by plaintiffs for an order restraining the additional defendants

a. from negotiating with American as to pilots;
b. from acting with respect to agreements negotiated by them with American;
c. from influencing etc. the pilots in their choice of bargaining representative;
d. from "subverting" the rights of Alpa under the Act;
e. from making any agreement as to American pilots except through Alpa; and
f. from participating in any change in working conditions in violation of the Act.
1. Relationship between Alpa and American; Internal Structure of Alpa

Alpa is a national labor organization organized in 1931 and with Home Office in Chicago. For many years, going back at least to 1939, there have been written agreements between American and its pilots, represented by Alpa. These agreements have been signed by the President of Alpa "for the air line pilots in the service of" American. The last agreement is dated, and became effective, January 21, 1959. It provides that it shall be renewed each year without change unless notice of an intended change is given by one party to the other under Section 6 of the Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 156).

Alpa has been recognized by American for many years as the representative of its pilots. There has not been until recently any "dispute" concerning representation which would bring about a certification by the National Mediation Board ("NMB"; 45 U.S.C.A. § 152, Ninth); the January 21, 1959 agreement recites that Alpa has given "satisfactory proof" of its representation but this recital is a carry-over from earlier years; no proof was in fact given or required and there is no evidence that Alpa was ever chosen as bargaining representative for the American pilots by any ballot or other formal procedure.

The representation by Alpa with which we are here concerned is of American pilots only, and not of pilots on other air lines. This has been the past pattern, the agreements have been executed on such basis, and it appears to be required or contemplated by the Act (e. g., 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 151, Fifth and 152, Fourth and Ninth); Alpa policy is firm for negotiations "individually with each carrier" and against "industry bargaining".

In this connection, the internal structure of Alpa should be noticed.

For each air line, the fundamental unit is the Local Council, one of which is established at each important base of the air line. The Alpa members in each Local Council elect a Captain Representative and a Co-pilot Representative.

The Captain Representatives and the Co-pilot Representatives from all the Local Councils of an air line make up the Master Executive Council ("MEC") of that air line.

The MEC elects a Chairman (called "Master Chairman") and a Vice-chairman.

For each air line there is also a Negotiating Committee, which under Alpa policy is selected or elected by its MEC; the Master Chairman is ex-officio a member of the Negotiating Committee.

Such was the Alpa organization at American. During the relevant period the additional defendant O'Connell was Master Chairman; the Negotiating Committee was composed of Lyons (Chairman), Cuba, Garvey, Atkins, Miller (until his resignation February 18, 1963) and Master Chairman O'Connell (ex-officio.)

The highest governing body of Alpa is its Board of Directors, made up of the Captain and Co-pilot Representatives of all the Local Councils of all the air lines whose employees are represented by Alpa.

The Executive Committee of Alpa consists of the officers, these being the President, First Vice-President, five Regional Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and a Treasurer.

There is also an Executive Board of Alpa consisting of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Master Executive Council of each air line.

2. The Crew Complement Issue Between Alpa and Feia (or its local chapters)

To act as pilot of any plane, large or small, requires possession of the appropriate certificate under applicable government regulations. There are various types of certificates, some of which are: student, private, commercial pilot, and airline transport pilot. A commercial pilot's certificate (and "instrument rating") is required to act as a pilot on a commercial passenger plane; the pilot in command must hold appropriate airline transport pilot certificates and ratings. 14 CFR § 40.300.

The addition of a flight engineer to plane crews came about with the development of larger passenger planes during and after World War II. In 1948 new government regulations required that the crew of large planes include the holder of a flight engineer's certificate.

Some carriers, including American, then employed flight engineers with a mechanical background and a flight engineer's certificate but without pilot qualifications. These flight engineers have been historically represented for collective bargaining purposes by Flight Engineers' International Association ("Feia"); the Chapter is the local unit for American, has been certified since 1955 by the National Mediation Board ("NMB") as authorized to represent American flight engineers (45 U.S.C.A. § 152, Ninth), and has had contracts with American concerning working conditions until the last contract expired according to its terms on April 30, 1963.

Other carriers employed as flight engineers qualified pilots who also held flight engineer's certificates. On such carriers, Alpa represented all crew personnel and there was thus one union in the cockpit.

On carriers such as American there were, as indicated above, two unions in the cockpit.

Applicable regulations require a crew of three for larger planes, including jets, and one crew member must have a flight engineer's certificate. All three may be qualified pilots, provided one has a flight...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 14, 1964
    ...of the facts as disclosed in a voluminous record of thousands of pages of testimony, supplemented by numerous exhibits, is reported at 227 F.Supp. 674. We affirm in all respects the judgment appealed from requiring American to bargain with the flight engineers and granting certain incidenta......
  • Ruby v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 20, 1965
    ...Presidential Commission, appointed in 1961, which investigated and reported on the crew complement issue. See Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 674, 678 (S.D.N.Y.1963). He is the standing arbitrator under the FEIA-Pan American 3 It should be noted that ALPA was invited to be pres......
  • Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 12, 1963

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT