Ekas v. Carling Nat. Breweries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 August 1979
• Docket Number: No. 1010,No. 78-1704,1010,78-1704
• Parties: 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3100, 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,449 Earl EKAS and Martin Feurer, Jr., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. CARLING NATIONAL BREWERIES, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and Brewery Workers Local Union, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and William J. Farley, as the representative of a class of all Individuals employed by Carling National Breweries, Inc., at its Dillon Street Plant, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 664

602 F.2d 664

101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3100, 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,449

Earl EKAS and Martin Feurer, Jr., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. CARLING NATIONAL BREWERIES, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and Brewery Workers Local Union No. 1010, affiliated with

the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and William J. Farley,

as the representative of a class of all Individuals employed

by Carling National Breweries, Inc., at its Dillon Street

Plant, Appellees.

No. 78-1704.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 7, 1979.

Decided Aug. 3, 1979.

Edward J. Gutman, Baltimore, Md. (Jacob Blum, Rochelle S. Eisenberg, Blum, Yunkas, Mailman & Gutman, P. A., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Leonard E. Cohen, Baltimore, Md. (Neal Serotte, Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee Carling National Breweries, Inc.

Marvin Poe Sklar, Baltimore, Md., for appellee Brewery Local No. 1010.

Before WINTER, BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Earl Ekas and Martin Feurer, Jr., on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who are employees of Carling National Breweries' Beltway plant, seek to enjoin the enforcement of a memorandum of understanding between Carling and Brewery Workers Local No. 1010, their collective bargaining representative. The understanding, which arose out of Carling's decision to shut down its Dillon Street plant, merges the seniority lists of the Beltway and Dillon Street plants, with the result that some of the Dillon Street employees will be able to continue working while some of the Beltway employees will be laid off. Finding that the union possessed the authority to enter into the understanding and that, by doing so, it did not breach its duty of fair representation to the Beltway employees, the district court denied the requested relief. We affirm.

I.

The facts are essentially undisputed. Since 1975, Carling has operated two facilities for the brewing and packaging of beer and other malt beverages in the Baltimore area: the Beltway and the Dillon Street plants. Although the employees at both locations were represented by the same union, Brewery Workers Local No. 1010, separate collective bargaining agreements, including separate seniority provisions, were negotiated for each plant effective July 1976. Neither agreement provided for the integration of the seniority lists of the two plants in the event of a consolidation of operations. Nor was any provision made for the amendment of the seniority terms so as to allow such integration.

In April 1978, Carling decided to close its production operations at the Dillon Street plant and to transfer at least part of those operations to the Beltway location. It was anticipated that, after the transfer, approximately 52% Of the combined production at the Beltway facility would consist of products formerly manufactured at Dillon Street. To determine how the employees at each plant were to be affected by the consolidation, Carling and the union entered into negotiations and eventually adopted a memorandum of understanding. The understanding provided, Inter alia, for the dovetailing of the seniority lists of the two plants on a one-to-one basis, beginning with the senior Dillon Street employee. ¹ The agreement also specified that employees with ten or more years seniority at either plant would be preferred over those with less than ten years seniority for purposes of layoff and recall. The Dillon Street employees, as a whole, had served Carling longer than the Beltway employees. Moreover, because the combined production at the Beltway plant was to be less than the previous output of both plants, layoffs were expected.

The memorandum of understanding was ratified at a joint meeting of the Dillon Street and Beltway employees after the Beltway employees, who claim to have been outnumbered, walked out. The Beltway employees then filed this suit, seeking an injunction against the implementation of the understanding, a declaration that the understanding is invalid, and an award of damages. In an oral opinion, the district court denied relief, and the Beltway employees appealed.

II.

This appeal raises two issues: whether the union had the authority to agree to the dovetailing of the seniority lists at the two plants, and whether, in so agreeing, it satisfied its duty of fair representation to the Beltway employees.

The original collective bargaining agreements covering the Beltway and the Dillon Street employees did not expressly provide for the integration of the seniority lists of the two plants in the event of a consolidation of operations. Nor was any power specifically given to amend the seniority terms of the agreements, so as to permit such an integration. ² However, we think that, even in the absence of express provision, a union and an employer may assent to the modification of the terms of their existing collective bargaining agreements. This proposition is implicit in Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953), in which the Supreme Court upheld a contract amendment which gave World War II veterans seniority credit for...