LOCAL DIV. 732, ETC. v. METRO. ATLANTA, ETC., Civ. A. No. C81-1242A.

• Decision Date: 17 July 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. C81-1242A.
• Citation: 519 F. Supp. 498
• Parties: LOCAL DIVISION 732, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

519 F. Supp. 498

LOCAL DIVISION 732, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. C81-1242A.

United States District Court, N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

July 17, 1981.

Linda R. Hirshman and Kalman D. Resnick, Jacobs, Burns, Sugarman and Orlove, Chicago, Ill., Clayton Sinclair, Sinclair & Dixon, Atlanta, Ga., and Earle Putnam, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Terrence Croft and Lawrence Thompson, Kutak, Rock & Huie, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

SHOOB, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Local Division 732 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, filed its complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order (with a brief in support and attachments) on June 30, 1981. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against defendant Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). Plaintiff asks this Court: (1) to declare that MARTA's refusal to maintain intact contract conditions, and its unilateral reduction in the wages of employees who are members of the bargaining unit represented by plaintiff, violate § 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 49 U.S.C. § 1609(c), the 1977 agreement between plaintiff and defendant pursuant to § 13(c), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) to enjoin defendant MARTA from changing contract conditions and unilaterally reducing the wages of its employees. More specifically, plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin MARTA from discontinuing the cost-of-living allowances (`COLAs') previously paid to MARTA employees pursuant to §§ 144-46 of the recently-expired labor agreement.¹ Plaintiff does not, however, seek any additional COLA adjustments beyond those paid when the labor agreement expired on June 27, 1981. MARTA indicated its intention of discontinuing COLA payments in a letter to Local 732 dated June 25, 1980. See Letter of Alan F. Kiepper, Exhibit D to the Complaint. Because the first paychecks not including COLA payments to plaintiff's members would not be issued until July 16, 1981, this Court has declined to issue a temporary restraining order and has instead treated plaintiff's application for relief as one for a preliminary injunction.

The Court has heard from both parties in open court, and has taken live testimony as to factual matters in dispute. Further, the Court has had ample opportunity to consider the authorities submitted by counsel. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), the Court now sets forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which persuaded it to issue this preliminary injunction in open court last Friday, July 10, 1981.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff is an unincorporated labor organization representing workers in the transit industry for purposes of collective bargaining. At all times since the creation of MARTA, plaintiff has been the collective bargaining representative for a unit of defendant's employees.

2. Defendant MARTA is a public body organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia to provide mass transportation in the metropolitan Atlanta area.

3. MARTA has applied for, and has been given, a number of grants (for both capital improvements and operating assistance) under the Urban Mass Transportation Act. Section 13(c) of UMTA requires transit agencies receiving UMTA grants to make "fair and equitable arrangements ... as determined by the Secretary of Labor ... to protect the interests of employees affected by such assistance." These `arrangements' generally take the form of what are known as § 13(c) agreements, executed by the transit agency and the union local, and approved by the Secretary of Labor. The last § 13(c) agreement between plaintiff and defendant was signed on February 14, 1977. Exhibit A to plaintiff's complaint. It was most recently incorporated by reference into an UMTA grant to MARTA in June, 1981. See correspondence comprising Exhibit B to the complaint.

4. The § 13(c) agreement in effect between the parties contains, among others, the following conditions:

(2) All rights, privileges and benefits (including pension rights and benefits) of employees covered by this agreement (including employees having already retired) under existing collective bargaining agreements or otherwise, shall be preserved and continued, unless by collective bargaining and agreement of both parties hereto other arrangements are made; provided, however, that any such agreement or arrangements shall not be inconsistent either with this agreement or with the requirements of Section 13(c) of the Act as determined by the Secretary of Labor.

(20) In case of any labor dispute or controversy regarding the application, interpretation, or enforcement of any of the provisions of this Agreement which cannot be settled by collective bargaining within sixty (60) days after the dispute or controversy first arises, such dispute or controversy may be submitted at the written request of either party hereto to a board of arbitration as hereinafter provided. The binding arbitration procedure is set forth. The decision by majority vote of the arbitration board shall be final, binding and conclusive: all contract conditions shall remain undisturbed, there shall be no lock-outs, strikes, walk-outs or interference with or interruption of MARTA operations during the arbitration proceedings or to upset the award.

. . . . .

The term "labor dispute," for the purposes of this paragraph, shall be broadly construed and shall include, but not be limited to, any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions, or benefits, including health and welfare, sick leave, insurance, or pension or retirement provisions, any differences or questions that may arise between the parties, including the making or maintaining of collective bargaining agreements, the terms to be included in such agreements, or any grievances that may arise, and any controversy arising out of or by virtue of any of the provisions of this agreement for the protection of employees affected by the Project.

Emphasis added.

5. Plaintiff has invoked the binding arbitration procedure of paragraph (20) of the § 13(c) agreement, see Exhibit C to the complaint, and the parties are now choosing members of the arbitration board. Neither side has objected in this action to submitting to "interest arbitration," that is, the arbitration of the terms of an entire new labor agreement.

6. Plaintiff invoked this arbitration procedure just prior to the expiration of the labor agreement on June 27, 1981. The expired labor agreement provided, in pertinent part:

148. This agreement shall continue in force from June 28, 1978, through June 27, 1981, and from year to year thereafter until either party notifies the other party not less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this agreement, or each extension thereof, of the desire to terminate this agreement or to negotiate changes, modifications or additions thereto.

149. If the notice is to negotiate changes, modifications, or additions, this agreement shall remain in effect until the final completion of the negotiations.

7. The expired labor agreement provided for quarterly cost of living allowances as follows:

144. The basic wage rates as contained in this Agreement shall not be reduced by application of this Cost of Living Provision. In addition to those rates, all employees covered by this Agreement shall be granted a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) in accordance with the change, if any, in the Revised Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPIW), U. S. City Average (1967 = 100), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, or in such Index as the Bureau of Labor Statistics may hereafter develop to replace the present Index.

145. The Index for March 1978 (189.7), shall be the Base Index and the COLA shall be in the amount of one cent per hour applied to the top operator's hourly rate for each full three tenths (0.3) of a point increase over the Base Index. The COLA, if any, will be effective with the first payroll period that commences after the June 1978 index is published and shall be based on the increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for June, 1978 over the Base Index. Eleven additional quarterly COLA's shall be made thereafter in the same manner in relation to the Base Index. The final COLA shall become payable on the first payroll period that commences after the March 1981 Index is published.

146. The COLA resulting from the foregoing will serve to adjust the top operator's hourly rate.

. . . . .

The resulting COLA shall be used in the computation of straight time and overtime pay exactly as though the wage rates had been increased by the allowance. However, the COLA shall not be added to the basic wage rates but only to each employee's earnings.

8. By letter to plaintiff dated June 25, 1981, Exhibit D to the complaint, MARTA indicated that it would not pay any COLA after the expiration of the labor agreement. The present suit followed.

9. Individual members of plaintiff Local 732 will be greatly harmed if an injunction is not issued in this case. If defendant does not continue to pay employees their COLAs, employees will have their paychecks reduced by approximately one-quarter. This reduction in salary would continue until interest arbitration is completed, which may take six months or longer.

10. Plaintiff Local 732 will also be greatly harmed, in that its bargaining position, in both interest arbitration and in collective bargaining outside of arbitration, will be undermined. The gains in pay for union members over the last three year contract will be nullified. Moreover, the economic pressure on plaintiff's members due to their reduced pay, will necessarily sap plaintiff's strength in negotiations; plaintiff may be forced into a quick settlement not in the best interests of its members. This is harm of an irreparable nature; lost bargaining opportunities may never be...