TECHNICAL, OFFICE & PRO. WKRS. U., LOC. 757, ETC. v. Budd Co.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 72-1135.
• Parties: TECHNICAL, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 757, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, by its Trustee ad litem, William R. Stever v. The BUDD COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

345 F. Supp. 42

TECHNICAL, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 757, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, by its Trustee ad litem, William R. Stever v. The BUDD COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 72-1135.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 15, 1972.

Richard Kirschner, Wilderman, Markowitz & Kirschner, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Carter R. Buller, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, John C. Wright, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

NEWCOMER, District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a petition for a preliminary injunction essentially seeking to restrain the defendant from moving its corporate headquarters to Troy, Michigan, pending arbitration construing the labor contract between the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff, Technical, Office and Professional Workers Union, Local 757, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is an unincorporated association, a labor organization representing technical, office and professional employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. Plaintiff brings this action by and through its President William R. Stever, as its Trustee ad litem.

2. Defendant, The Budd Company, is a corporation organized and chartered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business by maintaining a manufacturing plant and offices at Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

3. Plaintiff is a labor organization within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and particularly Section 2(5) thereof, 29 U.S.C. § 152(5).

4. Defendant is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and particularly Section 2(2) thereof, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2).

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action complaining of a violation of a contract between plaintiff and defendant under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S. C. § 185.

6. Plaintiff is the duly recognized bargaining representative for all of defendant's office, clerical, technical and restaurant employees, with certain exceptions, employed at defendant's Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, plants. The International Union, United Auto Workers of America, UAW (hereinafter "International") also represents these same employees as part of a multi-plant collective bargaining unit governed by the National Office Agreement.

7. Plaintiff and defendant are parties to a national agreement between defendant and plaintiff's parent international union, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Plaintiff and defendant are also parties to a local collective bargaining agreement between themselves dated March 3, 1971.

8. Article V, Section 1, (a) through (j) of the local collective bargaining agreement sets forth the agreed upon grievance procedure.

9. The parties to this action agree that the subject matter of this controversy is a proper one for arbitration.

10. Plaintiff alleges that the proposed action by defendant constitutes a clear violation of Article XIII, Section 2 of the local collective bargaining agreement. Article XIII, Section 2 provides as follows:

"Non-Bargaining Unit Employees.

Employees not covered by this Agreement shall not perform any work regularly performed by employees covered by this Agreement.".

11. Defendant alleges that it's proposed action is sanctioned and governed by Article X of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement which provides as follows:

"Except where prohibited by law, whenever the Company transfers operations or departs from any plant(s) covered by this Agreement to a vacant plant which is newly acquired or built by the Company, employees engaged on such operations or employed in such departments may, if they so desire, be transferred to the new plant with their full Company seniority."

and Articles II and XI of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement.

12. On March 1, 1972, defendant through its principal labor relations managers called a meeting with officers and officials of plaintiff and advised them that as a result of a contemplated reorganization of defendant's corporate structure certain corporate functions performed in Philadelphia by members of plaintiff Union would be transferred to a new Company facility in Troy, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.

13. The total reorganization of the corporate structure is to be accomplished by an expenditure in excess of $500,000 and is to eliminate the duplication of corporate functions.

14. On March 23, 1972, defendant through its principal labor relations managers called a meeting with plaintiff's Grievance and Negotiating Committee and at said meeting furnished plaintiff with further information regarding the reorganization of its corporate structure and the attendant relocation to Troy of certain corporate functions being performed in Philadelphia by members of plaintiff Union. Specifically, the months of June or July were mentioned as the time of the transfers from Philadelphia and the jobs held by members of plaintiff which were to be transferred were identified. The representatives of plaintiff and defendant discussed the mechanics of advising employees of their rights under Article X of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement and determining which of the affected employees intended to exercise such rights. At no time during that meeting or subsequent thereto did plaintiff challenge defendant's right to relocate certain corporate functions to Troy.

15. During the period March 23, 1972, through March 27, 1972, twenty-one members of plaintiff whose jobs were being transferred were given an opportunity to indicate in writing whether or not they wished to exercise their right to transfer in accordance with Article X of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement. During the period March 27, 1972, through April 3, 1972, all of said members of plaintiff either indicated in writing that they did not wish to transfer or refused to sign. Any employee desiring additional time to consider transferring was granted it. At no time during the period March 23, 1972, to April 3, 1972, did any of the affected employees or plaintiff on their behalf protect defendant's right to transfer these jobs to Troy.

16. On May 11, 1972, by letter, the Union through its President, William R. Stever, informed the Company of the following, in part:

"Please be advised that this Union intends to protest vehemently your action in taking work out of our bargaining unit and having it performed by other Company employees. We will file appropriate grievances at the appropriate time.".

17. On May 25, 1972, by letter, the Company through its Labor Relations Manager, Harper E. Adams, replied in detail to the Union's letter of May 11, 1972, and formally set out the steps to be taken in the move.

18. On June 8, 1972, the fourteen members of the bargaining unit who were subject to the move to Troy were given formal notice of their lay-off effective June 16, 1972.

19. The defendant had planned and publicly announced that its new corporate offices in Troy would be operational by June 19, 1972. By June 19, 1972, approximately 121 people of the ultimate complement of 134 would be employed in defendant's Troy facility. Of these 121 people, 50 are management employees (executives, managers and professionals) from the Automotive Division headquarters, 25 are non-management employees from the Automotive Division headquarters, 32 are management employees from Philadelphia and 14 will be filling jobs previously rejected by plaintiff's members who refused to exercise their right to transfer. An additional 8 jobs previously performed in Philadelphia will be transferred to Troy in August.

20. When plaintiff finally filed its grievance on June 8, 1972, plaintiff delayed resolution of the dispute by postponing unilaterally without explanation a scheduled June 12, 1972 meeting between plaintiff and defendant on said grievance to June 19, 1972. Thus at the time of bringing this action for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff does not have defendant's formal answer to the grievance, because, in accordance with the grievance procedure of the local collective bargaining agreement, defendant cannot file its answer until after the aforesaid fourth step grievance meeting takes place.

21. On June 12, 1972, a complaint was filed and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction made. On June 13, 1972, after actual notice to the Company, a hearing was held on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

22. At the time of this hearing both parties indicated that they have every intention of moving this controversy to arbitration in the shortest amount of time possible.

DISCUSSION

The Court in deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction must balance the conveniences of both parties thoroughly before granting or denying the injunction. It is well settled law that the Court cannot rule on the merits of the controversy where the parties have agreed to binding arbitration.¹ This Court in no manner seeks to influence the decision of arbitration and no further discussion will be had on the merits of the controversy which is a proper subject of arbitration. The sole issue before the Court is the propriety of granting or denying a preliminary injunction which seeks to prevent the lay-off of fourteen employees and the attendant effects on an additional unknown number of employees as a result of the operation of the seniority bumping system.

For a preliminary injunction properly to issue there must be a showing of irreparable harm which would outbalance any inconvenience which the party against whom the injunction is issued would suffer. The facts as presented here show that fourteen people would immediately be...