Brown v. Sterling Aluminum Products Corporation

• Decision Date: 07 October 1966
• Docket Number: No. 18218.,18218.
• Citation: 365 F.2d 651
• Parties: Holden BROWN, George House and George Wolff, Appellants, v. STERLING ALUMINUM PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a Missouri Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

365 F.2d 651 (1966)

Holden BROWN, George House and George Wolff, Appellants, v. STERLING ALUMINUM PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a Missouri Corporation, Appellee.

No. 18218.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

September 12, 1966.

Rehearing Denied October 7, 1966.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jerome J. Duff, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Daniel Bartlett, Sr., of Bartlett, Stix & Bartlett, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. William Stix and Daniel Bartlett, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., were with him on the brief.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, BLACKMUN and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

The appellants, Holden Brown, George House and George Wolff, as plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, against Sterling Aluminum Products Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Company"), a Missouri corporation, engaged in activities which affect interstate commerce under the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Act) 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., claiming a breach by the Company of a collective bargaining agreement (Agreement). The three plaintiffs were members of the employees' Shop Committee created under the agreement executed by the Union with the Company, and they claim the sole right to institute this proceeding as a class action, based on § 301 of the Act¹ (29 U.S.C. § 185).

The District Court, after considering the matter on plaintiffs' motion for order of partial summary judgment and defendant's motion to dismiss, entered an order and judgment dismissing the complaint on the bases "that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which this court can grant relief," that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by plaintiffs, and laches. A motion for new trial was overruled and a timely appeal was taken to this Court.

The factual background of the complaint is as follows: The Company maintains and operates manufacturing plants in several states, including Missouri. Its plant at St. Charles, Missouri, was closed February 28, 1963 and similar operations commenced at a new location in Malden, Missouri. The plaintiffs were employed in the Foundry Department of the St. Charles plant, which department constituted a bargaining unit represented by the International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local No. 59 AFL-CIO (Union). The Union and Company had entered into a collective bargaining agreement for a two-year period effective March 1, 1961 and extending through February 28, 1963. On December 26, 1962, the Company gave notice of termination of this agreement on the expiration date, February 28, 1963, in accordance with the provisions of the termination clause contained in Article XIV of the agreement and also in conformity with § 8 (d) (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(d) (1)).² Upon being advised of the Company's decision to terminate the agreement because of the Company's proposed and intended termination of all operations at its St. Charles plant and renewal or relocation of operations at Malden, Missouri, the plaintiffs, as members of the Shop Committee, attempted to bargain with the Company respecting its intention to relocate its plant. This attempt to bargain was before the agreement had expired, but the Company refused to so bargain. All foundry unit employees (approximately 220), together with all other units of employment at the St. Charles plant, were terminated on their contract termination dates, and the Company then commenced new operations at Malden, Missouri.

No unfair labor practice was filed with the National Labor Relations Board relative to the Company's unilateral action in closing the St. Charles plant and relocating at Malden, but the Union filed a suit against the Company on December 26, 1963, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, based on the relocation of the Company's plant, asserting a breach of the agreement in denying recall privileges, pursuant to Article V, § 3(f) of said agreement. This suit, No. 63 C 450(c), was dismissed under a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice to the Union plaintiff and at plaintiff's costs on August 26, 1964.

Plaintiffs assert the right to file this action on behalf of themselves as members of the Shop Committee and on the behalf of all other employees in their bargaining unit similarly situated on the basis of §§ 8, 9 and 301 of the Act. They contend that their prospective loss of employment through the relocation of the plant gave rise to a grievance, on which they unsuccessfully sought to bargain with the Company under an agreement, and that since the Company refused to so bargain, the Court under the statutory provisions mentioned should enter an order directing the Company, "To commence to attempt a satisfactory settlement of the various grievances alleged herein by bargaining with the plaintiffs * * * as provided in Article III, Sections 3 and 4 of the labor agreement"; and they also request the Court to restore the status quo ante to February 27, 1963 of the plaintiffs' employment by payment to plaintiffs and other employees in their unit $150 per week plus accrued interest and that such pay and contractual benefits be paid until such time as the parties have bargained and negotiated a satisfactory disposition of the grievances set out in the complaint. In their motion for partial summary judgment plaintiffs requested that the amount of $1,185,000 representing approximately one-half of the gross back wages claimed owing to approximately 220 employees for 110 weeks be secured by the posting of collateral by the Company.

The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint alleges: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) the remedies sought by plaintiffs are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board; (3) limitations imposed by § 160(b) of the Act (6 months); (4) laches; (5) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by the court; (6) res judicata based on the Union's suit against the Company, which was by stipulation dismissed with prejudice, and (7) plaintiffs' lack of capacity to sue for the relief sought.

The District Court (Honorable John K. Regan) in a memorandum opinion filed August 18, 1965 (246 F.Supp. 279) overruled plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, sustained defendant's motion to dismiss and entered judgment accordingly. The basis for the opinion was that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which the Court could grant relief. The Court in its opinion pointed out that the agreement was between the Company and the Molders Union, and the Union was not a party to this action; that the plaintiffs as former members of the Shop Committee were not entitled at this time to sue for specific performance; that whatever rights were granted by Article III (grievance procedure) may be enforced only by the Union; and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The Court also pointed out that arbitration is not required by the agreement and could not be compelled in any event, even by the Union, since the agreement contains no reference to arbitrating any grievance or even dispute concerning the meaning and interpretation of the agreement; there is no provision for compulsory arbitration but only for the voluntary composure of the differences between parties themselves; that the alleged grievances of the plant closing did not come into existence until after the agreement terminated; and finally that laches would apply as a bar, because the plaintiffs by waiting two years to bring this action are not now in a position to seek compulsory discussion with respect to the closing of the plant, since a fundamental change of the relationship of the parties has occurred in the interim, which would make the requested discussion useless. The Court did not rule on the res judicata defense as its other rulings were dispositive of the case.

The first question for determination is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to rule upon this dispute. Section 301(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 185) clearly allows the Union to file a suit for an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement.³ Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). The law clearly recognizes that in a given factual situation a particular act may be an unfair labor practice as defined by the Act and at the same time constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Any complaint about an unfair labor practice, of course, must be directed to the National Labor Relations Board. The Court of Appeals only reviews the findings of the Board with a duty to order enforcement if warranted by substantial evidence on the record. However, if the factual situation also gives rise to a breach of contract action, the aggrieved party is not limited to the National Labor Relations Board. The District Courts have original jurisdiction under § 301 to pass upon this contractual dispute independent of any unfair labor practice. As stated in Smith v. Evening News Association, 371 U.S. 195, 197, 83 S.Ct. 267, 269, 9 L.Ed.2d 246, (1962), "* * * The authority of the Board to deal with an unfair labor practice which also violates a collective bargaining contract is not displaced by § 301, but it is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301." See, Carey v. General Electric Company, 315 F.2d 499 (2 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 908, 84 S.Ct. 1162, 12 L.Ed.2d 179.

The question of an unfair labor practice⁴ is not before us. The National Labor Relations Board has sole and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine whether the Company's actions violated their duties under the Act,...