Brink's, Inc. v. BD. OF GOVERNORS OF FED. RESERVE, Civ. A. No. 78-2296.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1979
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 78-2296.
• Citation: 466 F. Supp. 112
• Parties: BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM et al., Defendants, Wells Fargo Armored Car Service Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

466 F. Supp. 112

BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM et al., Defendants, Wells Fargo Armored Car Service Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor.

Civ. A. No. 78-2296.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

January 11, 1979.

Edward K. Wheeler, Robert G. Seaks, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Roland J. Wilder, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-intervenor The International Brotherhood, etc.

Kenneth M. Raisler, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff-intervenor, USA.

Dennis A. Dutterer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and for W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.

Richard L. Cys and Richard J. Morvillo, Washington, D. C. for The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, District Judge.

This is an action regarding the application of the Service Contract Act (Act), 41 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., to certain contracts of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Richmond Bank or Bank). That Act requires the inclusion of minimum wage and fringe benefit specifications in service contracts between the United States and third parties. Plaintiffs Brink's and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT or Teamsters) seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Richmond Bank and the Federal Reserve Board requiring, among other things, that the Richmond Bank adhere to the Act and keep in effect a contract between Brink's and the Richmond Bank pending final disposition of the action rather than allow Wells Fargo to begin providing the service in question. The issue of whether the Act applies to contracts of the Richmond Bank, as Brink's, IBT, and plaintiff-intervenor the United States contend, is reserved for later ruling.¹

Before the Court is the joint motion of Brink's and the Teamsters for preliminary injunction. Upon consideration of the legal memoranda and other submissions of the parties, and the oral argument of counsel, the Court concludes that the application should be denied. Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing of irreparable injury and are also barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and unclean hands. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are entered.

Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiff, Brink's, Inc. (Brink's), is a Delaware corporation and operates an armored car carrier service to transport coin, currency, and other valuables.

2. Plaintiff-intervenor, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor union and through its local affiliates represents employees of Brink's through the collective bargaining process.

3. Plaintiff-intervenor, United States of America, through its agent the Secretary of Labor, is charged with administration and enforcement of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.

4. Defendant, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is one of 12 federal reserve banks established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 12 U.S.C. § 221 et seq. The Richmond Bank's multistate district encompasses the District of Columbia.

5. Defendant, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), is a federal body also organized under the Federal Reserve Act and is charged with administering the nation's monetary policy.

6. Defendant-intervenor, Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation (Wells Fargo), is a Delaware corporation which transports coin, currency, and other valuables in armored vehicles.

7. The Service Contract Act promulgated in 1965 requires the inclusion in service contracts entered into by the United States in excess of $2500 of provisions specifying the prevailing area minimum wages and fringe benefits. The wage and fringe benefit specifications are determined by the Secretary of Labor, or where a collective bargaining agreement covers the service employees, in accord with the rates for such employees provided for in the agreement.

8. The Richmond Bank's contracts do not comply with the Act and the Bank contends that the Act does not properly apply to it. Brink's maintains that it does.

9. In November, 1976, the Richmond Bank issued an invitation for bids on a three-year contract beginning January 1, 1978, to provide armored car transportation between Virginia and West Virginia. Both Brink's and Wells Fargo submitted bids.

10. Wells Fargo was the lowest bidder, and its bid was accepted in April, 1977, subject to its receipt of the necessary operating authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).

11. Previously, in March, 1977, Wells Fargo had applied for the necessary carrier authority from the ICC and in September, when a decision was not forthcoming, it filed an application for temporary authority pending final agency disposition. Brink's opposed both applications.

12. In the fall of 1977, the Bank contracted with Brink's, which had been providing the West Virginia service under an existing contract, to continue to do so until Wells Fargo obtained the ICC authority. This interim contract was effective for six months beginning January 1, 1978, after which either party could terminate it upon 90 days notice.

13. On September 7, 1978, the Bank notified Brink's that it was terminating the interim contract, effective December 8, 1978, because Wells Fargo had obtained temporary operating authority from the ICC. Brink's had other contracts with the Bank which were not affected.

14. Brink's meanwhile sought review and a stay pending review in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals of the ICC grant of temporary authority to Wells Fargo. A temporary stay pending review was entered on October 24, 1978. However, on December 6, the temporary stay was vacated.

15. Thereafter, on December 7, 1978, Brink's filed the present complaint seeking among other things that the Richmond Bank be required to adhere to the Service Contract Act and that Brink's West Virginia contract with the Bank remain in effect pending final disposition of the action. As authority, Brink's relied in part on a September 26, 1978, opinion issued by the Assistant Attorney General on behalf of the Attorney General concluding that "the Federal Reserve Banks are subject to the provisions of the Service Contract Act." The opinion, which was in the form of a letter to the Secretary of Labor, noted that the Labor Department and the Federal Reserve Banks had been trying unsuccessfully for some months to reach agreement on the issue. While Brink's had maintained since early 1977 that the Act applies to the Reserve Banks, the Richmond Bank's General Counsel was not aware of Brink's position until October 20, 1978, less than two months before Brink's brought this action.

16. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was permitted to intervene as party plaintiff (hereafter Brink's and the...