776 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir. 1985), 84-3919, International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co.

Docket Nº84-3919.
Citation776 F.2d 1341
Party NameINTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 158, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO LAKEFRONT DOCK & PELLET COMPANY; Toledo Lakefront Dock Co., Station A; Toledo Docks and Chessie System Railroads, Defendants-Appellees.
Case DateNovember 18, 1985
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 1341

776 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir. 1985)

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 158,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOLEDO LAKEFRONT DOCK & PELLET COMPANY; Toledo Lakefront

Dock Co., Station A; Toledo Docks and Chessie

System Railroads, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84-3919.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

November 18, 1985

Argued Oct. 9, 1985.

Page 1342

C. Thomas McCarter, Newcomer & McCarter, Toledo, N. Stevens Newcomer (argued), Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

John B. Lewis (argued), Arter & Hadden, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.

Before MARTIN and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The International Longshoremen's Association, Local Union 158, filed an action against Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Company and others claiming violations of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151, et seq., the Landrum-Griffith Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, and the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. Secs. 101, et seq. The union argues that two letters which it sent Toledo Lakefront satisfy the Railway Labor Act's section 6 requirement of notice to request a bargaining conference. The company has refused to bargain, claiming that the notices were insufficient under section 6 and that the topic of suggested negotiation was barred by a moratorium provision in a 1979 collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Plaintiff appeals the district court's denial of its motion for injunctive relief and the grant of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In 1979, the parties signed what has become known as the Miami Agreement. Under the agreement, Toledo Lakefront could implement certain technological and operational changes in exchange for job protection benefits for the union's members. Section 10(c) of the Miami Agreement states that, if necessitated by some of these changes, "the Company will have the prerogative of realigning the manning tables prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement." Section 11 contains a commitment by the union to cooperate in implementing the technological and operational changes. A key provision of the agreement states that "no party to this Article shall serve any notice or proposal for the purpose of changing the subject matter of the provisions of the Appendix I [the Job Protection Agreement] prior to June 14, 1987...."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • 664 F.Supp. 605 (D.Me. 1987), Civ. 86-0273, Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Boston and Maine Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 1st Circuit United States District Court (Maine)
    • July 8, 1987
    ...may not be established, however, from past practice alone. International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th Cir. 1985). This power of the parties to modify the statutory requirements is implicit in the structure of the RLA and entirely c......
  • 844 F.2d 1218 (6th Cir. 1988), 85-1782, Division No. 1, Detroit, Broth. of Locomotive Engineers v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 14, 1988
    ...482 F.2d 228, 230 (6th Cir.1973)); see also International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir.1985). As applied to this case, the dispositive question is whether Conrail's unilateral change of the on-off duty point is "argua......
  • 395 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2005), 03-4345, CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 19, 2005
    ...within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th Cir. 1985) (finding Page 369 a docking company's interpretation of a moratorium to be arguably justified and therefore a minor issue)......
  • 860 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1988), 87-4370, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Portland Terminal R. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 11, 1988
    ...v. United Transp. Union, 646 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir.1981); International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th "The [arguably justified] test is not a stringent one." O'Donnell v. Wein Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141, 1146 (9th Ci......
4 cases
  • 664 F.Supp. 605 (D.Me. 1987), Civ. 86-0273, Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Boston and Maine Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 1st Circuit United States District Court (Maine)
    • July 8, 1987
    ...may not be established, however, from past practice alone. International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th Cir. 1985). This power of the parties to modify the statutory requirements is implicit in the structure of the RLA and entirely c......
  • 844 F.2d 1218 (6th Cir. 1988), 85-1782, Division No. 1, Detroit, Broth. of Locomotive Engineers v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 14, 1988
    ...482 F.2d 228, 230 (6th Cir.1973)); see also International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir.1985). As applied to this case, the dispositive question is whether Conrail's unilateral change of the on-off duty point is "argua......
  • 395 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2005), 03-4345, CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • January 19, 2005
    ...within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th Cir. 1985) (finding Page 369 a docking company's interpretation of a moratorium to be arguably justified and therefore a minor issue)......
  • 860 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1988), 87-4370, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Portland Terminal R. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 11, 1988
    ...v. United Transp. Union, 646 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir.1981); International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th "The [arguably justified] test is not a stringent one." O'Donnell v. Wein Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141, 1146 (9th Ci......