Mabane v. Metal Masters Food Service Equip. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. No. K-80-973.
• Citation: 541 F. Supp. 981
• Parties: John MABANE, et al. v. METAL MASTERS FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT CO., INC., formerly known as Metal Masters Company, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

541 F. Supp. 981

John MABANE, et al. v. METAL MASTERS FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT CO., INC., formerly known as Metal Masters Company, Inc., et al.

Civ. No. K-80-973.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

March 25, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Fred Kolodner, Baltimore, Md., and Paul D. Gayle, Towson, Md., for plaintiffs.

Ronald J. Levasseur, Towson, Md., for defendant Metal Masters Food Service Equipment Co., Inc.

John H. Price, Jr., and I. Duke Avnet, Baltimore, Md., and George H. Cohen, Mady Gilson and Gary L. Sasso, Washington, D. C., for defendant United Steel Workers of America.

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, Chief Judge.

In this case, instituted on April 8, 1980, plaintiffs, thirty-four former employees of defendant Metal Masters Food Service Equipment Co., Inc. (Company) and former members of defendant United Steelworkers of America, Local 7071 (Union), claim that the Company breached the collective bargaining agreement between itself and the Union executed May 15, 1978, by shutting down the Company's plant in Baltimore, Maryland, and moving to a new plant in Smyrna, Delaware, in October 1978.¹ Plaintiffs also assert that the Company committed an unfair labor practice in failing to bargain with the Union regarding that relocation and its effects, and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in not taking steps (a) to prevent the Company's breach of the collective bargaining agreement and (b) to represent plaintiffs in bargaining with the Company over the move and its effects.²

The Company and the Union have filed motions for summary judgment.³

FACTS

Until October 1978, the Company, a manufacturer of stainless steel commercial kitchen equipment, operated its only plant in Baltimore, Maryland. At that time, the Company closed its Baltimore plant and moved its operation to a new facility in Smyrna, Delaware. For approximately ten years prior to the time the plant closed its Baltimore operation, the Company had entered into successive collective bargaining agreements with the Union. In the early Spring of 1978, the Union began negotiations with the Company for a new three-year contract to commence on May 15, 1978, the expiration date of the previous three-year contract. Negotiations for the Union were handled by John C. Minis, a staff representative of the United Steelworkers of America, Donald Jefferson, President of the Local, Gene Mitchell, Vice-President of the Local, Rene Johnson, Treasurer of the Local, and John Mabane. Jefferson, Mitchell and Mabane are plaintiffs herein.^3A A new contract was entered into as of May 15, 1978.

At no time during the negotiation of that May 15, 1978, collective bargaining agreement did the Union have an inkling that the Company intended to shut down the Baltimore plant and relocate. The Union representatives did, however—as was customary for the Steelworkers Union—try to negotiate a provision for severance pay in the event the Baltimore plant closed. That proposal was rejected by the Company.⁴

During early July 1978, the Company became interested in purchasing the Smyrna, Delaware facility. Larry N. McAllister, President of the Company, had been aware of that facility prior to the 1978 Union negotiations, but developed no active interest in purchasing it until after the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Union was executed on May 15, 1978.

The Delaware facility had substantial economic advantages over the Baltimore plant: it was larger and better equipped; it had central heating and a sprinkler system, which the Baltimore plant did not; it had a better electrical system; it possessed lower insurance costs; and it presented greater future expansion possibilities. Additionally, advantageous Delaware industrial bonds were available to aid the financing of the acquisition.

The Company purchased the Delaware facility on July 11, 1978. On that same day, the Company posted a notice informing its employees of the purchase and of the Company's intention to begin phasing out operations at the Baltimore plant. The final move was to take place on October 1, 1978. Also on July 11, 1978, McAllister met with Minis, Jefferson and Mitchell of the Union to discuss the relocation, and they asked McAllister to continue the Company's bargaining relationship with the Union and the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, provided that a majority of the employees elected to work at the new Delaware location. McAllister agreed. In addition, the Union representatives asked, and McAllister agreed, that any transferring employee's seniority rights be honored and that the pension rights due under the collective bargaining agreement to those employees who chose to end their employment be fully respected. The Union representatives, however, made no attempt to secure severance pay, because the Union had failed in an attempt to secure a severance pay provision in connection with the negotiation of the May 15, 1978, collective bargaining agreement and because they (the Union representatives) had no reason to believe that the Union could persuade the Company to grant the severance pay after the Company's decision to move, when the Company had not been willing to do so during the earlier 1978 negotiations. Also, because no union member indicated any dissatisfaction with the date of the move, the Union made no attempt to negotiate a change in that date.

The employees at the Baltimore plant were asked by the Company to state whether or not they desired to work at the Delaware facility and so to indicate on a form which the Company provided. Only five of the forty-seven employees originally expressed an interest in working at the Delaware facility. However, in the end, eleven employees actually relocated. But, because less than a majority of the employees made the move, the Company did not recognize the Union as bargaining agent at the Delaware facility.

Prior to the move to Delaware, no employee filed any grievance or any complaint with the Union about the relocation, either formal or informal. According to Minis, the Union was unaware of the employees' dissatisfaction until the within suit was filed.

Plaintiffs assert that subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). That section provides, in pertinent part, that "suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization ... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties." As indicated supra, plaintiffs allege that the Company's closing of the Baltimore plant and its move to Delaware breached the collective bargaining agreement. These allegations fall squarely within the language of § 301(a). Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction is present over those claims.

Plaintiffs also allege that the Company failed to bargain with the Union over the move and its effects. Failure to bargain collectively is an unfair labor practice prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5). Exclusive jurisdiction of unfair labor practice claims is vested in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).⁵ Failure to bargain is an unfair labor practice within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB.⁶ Nevertheless, an action which asserts a breach of a collective bargaining agreement resulting in whole or in part from an unfair labor practice may properly be the subject of a suit under § 301.⁷ In such a situation, however, a court is limited to determining whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to relief for a breach of the collective bargaining agreement; the court does not have jurisdiction to determine if the action was an unfair labor practice.⁸ Accordingly, jurisdiction exists herein over plaintiffs' claims against the Company for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, but not over the failure to bargain claim, except and only to the extent that the same may also be a breach of the collective bargaining agreement.

Jurisdiction is also present as to plaintiffs' claims that the Union violated its duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs seemingly contend that the Union breached its duty of fair representation both in connection with the grievance procedure under the collective bargaining agreement and in failing adequately to bargain over the move and its effects. Although that latter claim would appear to be an unfair labor practice as well as a breach of the duty of fair representation, this Court has jurisdiction over both of plaintiffs' said claims. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182-3, 87 S.Ct. 903, 912-13, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), in which Justice White concluded that although a breach of the duty of fair representation may also be an unfair labor practice, federal district courts also have jurisdiction over such claims.

In summary, this Court has jurisdiction over all of the breach of duty of fair representation claims against the Union and all of the breach of collective bargaining agreement claims against the Company, but not over the claims that the Company committed any unfair labor practice as such.

LIMITATIONS

The Union asserts that the claim against it is barred by limitations, urging that the applicable limitations period is the six-month limitation for the bringing of unfair labor practice claims before the NLRB. 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). The Union argues that since the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation is also an unfair labor practice, the federal limitations period for bringing unfair labor practice claims should govern. The duty of fair representation, however, is judicially-created, Vaca v. Sipes, supra, and was enforced by the courts for a considerable period of time before the National Labor Relations Board determined in Miranda Fuel Co., 140 N.L. R.B. 181 (1962), that breaches of the duty were also unfair labor...