Clinton's Ditch Co-op Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.

Decision Date05 December 1985
Docket NumberNos. 1298,D,1396,s. 1298
Parties120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3562, 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,730 CLINTON'S DITCH COOPERATIVE CO., INC., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, Teamsters Local 317, Intervenor. ockets 85-4043, 85-4051.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Thomas W. Budd, New York City (Robert A. Wiesen, Richard K. Muser, Clifton Budd Burke & DeMaria, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-cross-respondent.

Mark S. McCarty, Washington, D.C. (Rosemary M. Collyer, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Elinor Hadley Stillman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent-cross-petitioner.

James R. LaVaute, Syracuse, N.Y. (Blitman & King, of counsel), for intervenor.

Before VAN GRAAFEILAND and PRATT, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge.

Clinton's Ditch, a cooperative, bottles and cans Pepsi Cola and related products at its plant in Cicero, New York. Until September 1976 Clinton's Ditch directly employed approximately fifteen drivers to distribute these products to members of the cooperative. The drivers were represented by Local 317 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the "union"). The union had entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements with Clinton's Ditch, the last of which ran from February 1975 until February 1978, when the union reached a bargaining agreement with Fairfield Transportation Corporation, which had received a subcontract for the Clinton's Ditch trucking operation in 1976. In 1980 Fairfield terminated its contract, and Clinton's Ditch entered into a new subcontract with Global Leasing, Inc.

The core issue in this case is whether, despite the subcontracting arrangement with Fairfield, Clinton's Ditch remained a joint employer of the drivers so that it was required to bargain collectively with the union before entering into its new subcontract with Global. To resolve that issue we must take a close look at the facts, which are essentially undisputed.

FACTS

When Clinton's Ditch ran its own trucking operation it was supervised by Robert Venette. For a six-year period ending in September 1976 Venette had direct responsibility over trucking and loading operations, including all aspects of dispatching and supervising the drivers. After receiving shipping tickets for the following day's deliveries, requested by coop members, Venette would prepare and post a dispatch sheet listing drivers' destinations and starting times. As required by the collective bargaining agreement, Venette would assign After arriving at work in the morning, drivers would pick up their paperwork, including instructions on backhauls, and depart on their assigned runs. When drivers had problems with customers or equipment, they contacted Venette. If a driver had not exceeded his maximum legal driving hours after finishing a first run, he normally would take the most lucrative run left on the dispatch sheet; on occasion Venette would assign a second or third run not listed on the dispatch sheet. In addition, drivers moved empty trucks around the Clinton's Ditch yard at Venette's direction (referred to as "spotting").

these runs, which varied in their length and their value to the drivers, on the basis of seniority.

The trucks used by Clinton's Ditch to deliver its products consisted of tractors that carried the Clinton's Ditch logo and trailers that carried the Pepsi Cola logo. Clinton's Ditch rented its trucks from Ryder Rental Corporation, which maintained and serviced the equipment at a Clinton's Ditch garage located approximately 400-500 feet from the bottling plant.

At a September 2, 1975, meeting between Clinton's Ditch and union representatives, Clinton's Ditch informed the union that Fairfield was going to take over the trucking operation for Clinton's Ditch, but that there would be no substantive changes and that all of Fairfield's actions would be subject to the approval of Clinton's Ditch. Clinton's Ditch informed the union that Fairfield initially would just take care of the trucks, but that it eventually would take care of scheduling runs and dispatching drivers. Clinton's Ditch also informed the drivers that if the new arrangement did not work out, Clinton's Ditch would buy back the equipment and the drivers would be reemployed by Clinton's Ditch.

In January 1976 Fairfield purchased the trucks from Ryder and leased them to Clinton's Ditch. Fairfield also maintained the vehicles, as Ryder had done, in the Clinton's Ditch garage, which it rented for one dollar annually. Despite the change in ownership and maintenance of the equipment, however, the trucking operation remained essentially the same until September 1976, with Clinton's Ditch continuing as the direct employer of the drivers.

In May 1976 Clinton's Ditch and Fairfield entered into an agreement providing that Fairfield would assume Clinton's Ditch's responsibilities under the collective bargaining agreement with the union. The agreement required Fairfield to transport or pick up materials at the places, dates, and times specified by Clinton's Ditch. It also set the rates for Fairfield's compensation. Either party could terminate the agreement on 90 days' written notice, in which event Clinton's Ditch was obligated to repurchase the trucks. The agreement further provided that the rates paid Fairfield were subject to a request for adjustment which would be given "sympathetic consideration". Fairfield was required to obtain the approval of Clinton's Ditch before replacing any equipment.

This agreement went into effect on September 20, 1976. By letter dated September 7, Clinton's Ditch notified the union and the drivers that "effective Monday, September 20, 1976, [Clinton's Ditch] will transfer our trucking over to [Fairfield] along with the collective bargaining agreement * * *. The drivers will be transferred to [Fairfield's] payroll on that date also." In a letter dated September 9 Clinton's Ditch asked the union to acknowledge that Fairfield would be the driver's employer after the transition. Four days later, the union refused by letter to agree that Fairfield would be considered the drivers' employer. The union also reminded Clinton's Ditch that Clinton's Ditch had previously assured the union that when Fairfield took over nothing would change, and that in the event the Clinton's Ditch/Fairfield arrangement was terminated in the future, present employees would be rehired by Clinton's Ditch or another contract trucker. Clinton's Ditch did not respond.

On September 20, all regular drivers were transferred to the Fairfield payroll with no diminution in seniority or benefits. Clinton's Ditch, however, did continue to Operations did not change substantially; the drivers continued to service the same customers out of the same garage with the same trucks. However, there was a new dispatcher, a Fairfield employee, who was trained by Venette for two months following the transition. Venette later helped train another Fairfield dispatcher, although for a shorter period of time.

pay the drivers' vacation pay until the end of the 1976 calendar year. Clinton's Ditch also continued to provide the drivers with small benefits (a Thanksgiving turkey, an annual clambake, and two cases of soda a week) throughout the entire period of the contract with Fairfield.

Venette continued to prepare for Clinton's Ditch the lists of destinations, delivery times, and backhauls, which he gave to the Fairfield dispatcher for preparation of the dispatch sheets. On occasion, Venette or some other employee of Clinton's Ditch would change a Fairfield driver's assignment by directly contacting him by telephone at one of his stops, ask drivers to move empty trailers around the Clinton's Ditch yard, or ask them to take runs not listed on the dispatch sheet. The drivers had standing orders from Fairfield to follow such directions from Clinton's Ditch personnel.

The drivers were also under instructions to call Clinton's Ditch if they had problems in the field with the product, delivery, or pick-up, but to call Fairfield if they had problems with the trucks. Venette occasionally attached notes to delivery instructions telling a driver to call Clinton's Ditch upon arriving at the destination, or to pick up a check from the coop member.

Clinton's Ditch informed members of the cooperative that the drivers were now Fairfield employees, but that if the members had any problems with the drivers, they should contact Clinton's Ditch. Several times, members complained to Clinton's Ditch about the behavior of drivers. Clinton's Ditch forwarded these complaints to Fairfield, and, on occasion, discussed such matters with Fairfield or lodged written complaints with Fairfield. Fairfield then would investigate the matter and take appropriate action; it often, but not always, informed Clinton's Ditch of the action. On a few occasions when Clinton's Ditch requested that Fairfield take specific action against particular drivers, Fairfield did so.

In late 1977 and early 1978 the union met with Fairfield to negotiate a successor collective bargaining agreement. According to the union representative, Fairfield continually stated that it had to check with Clinton's Ditch before it could agree to a union proposal. Ultimately, Fairfield and the union reached a new agreement that ran until February 1981. Clinton's Ditch was not a party to that agreement.

Following unsuccessful negotiations over a rate increase, Fairfield notified Clinton's Ditch on July 29, 1980, that Fairfield would terminate the contract on October 31, 1980, unless a new agreement could be reached by that date. Even prior to receiving this notice, Clinton's Ditch had begun...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 cases
  • Lenoble v. Best Temps, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • January 14, 2005
    ...69 F.3d 1235, 1241 (2d Cir.1995) (adopting the four-part single employer analysis for Title VII claims); Clinton's Ditch Coop. Co. v. NLRB, 778 F.2d 132, 138-39 (2d Cir.1985) (applying a five-factor joint employer analysis to resolve a labor dispute in the trucking industry); Peltier v. App......
  • Gulino v. New York State Educ. Dept.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 17, 2006
    ...LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.2005); see also, e.g., Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir.2003); Clinton's Ditch Coop. Co. v. NLRB, 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir.1985). 20. See supra note 21. In addressing SED's argument that it is not an employer, appellants devote most of their a......
  • Long v. Aronov Realty Management, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • February 4, 2009
    ...but that they have merely chosen to handle certain aspects of their employer-employee relationships jointly. Clinton's Ditch Coop. Co. v. NLRB, 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir.1985) (citations omitted) (cited by the Eleventh Circuit in Virgo, 30 F.3d at 1359 n. 6). "The single employer analysis i......
  • Darden v. Daimlerchrysler North America Holding
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 14, 2002
    ...cites earlier cases that no longer provides an accurate statement of the law in this Circuit. See, e.g., Clinton's Ditch Cooperative Co. Inc. v. NLRB, 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir.1985). In Cook, the Second Circuit adopted the four-part test which was first promulgated by the N.L.R.B., approve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Employment Discrimination Law-Overview & History
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 9, 2017
    ...have chosen to handle certain aspects of their employer-employee relationships jointly. Clinton’s Ditch Corp. v. National Lab. Rel. Bd. , 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1985), cited in Virgo v. Riviera Beach Assocs. , 30 F.3d 1350, 1359 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1994). For purpose of the 15-employee thre......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998), §§18:8.E, 25:8.D.3, App. 25-2 Clinton’s Ditch Corp. v. National Lab. Rel. Bd. , 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1985), §§1:8.B, 17:4.D.2 Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004), §§24:5.D.2, 24:5.G.2 Clover v. Tota......
  • Employment discrimination law-overview & history
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • May 5, 2018
    ...have chosen to handle certain aspects of their employer-employee relationships jointly. Clinton’s Ditch Corp. v. National Lab. Rel. Bd. , 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1985), cited in Virgo v. Riviera Beach Assocs. , 30 F.3d 1350, 1359 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1994). For purpose of the 15-employee thre......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998), §§18:8.E, 25:8.D.3, App. 25-2 Clinton’s Ditch Corp. v. National Lab. Rel. Bd. , 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1985), §§1:8.B, 17:4.D.2 Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004), §§24:5.D.2, 24:5.G.2 Clover v. Tota......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT