Alaska Teamsters Local 959 v. Atlantic Richfield, A83-171 CIV to A83-173 CIV and A84-322 CIV.

• Decision Date: 22 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. A83-171 CIV to A83-173 CIV and A84-322 CIV.,A83-171 CIV to A83-173 CIV and A84-322 CIV.
• Parties: ALASKA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Arco Alaska, Inc., Sohio Alaska Petroleum Co., and Sohio Petroleum Company, Defendants. CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ALASKA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Archie MacDONALD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

616 F. Supp. 593

ALASKA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Arco Alaska, Inc., Sohio Alaska Petroleum Co., and Sohio Petroleum Company, Defendants.

CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

ALASKA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Archie MacDONALD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Nos. A83-171 CIV to A83-173 CIV and A84-322 CIV.

United States District Court, D. Alaska.

August 22, 1985.

William A. Brockett, Keker & Brockett, San Francisco, Cal., Jack R. Ormes, Ormes & Associates, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), William Bittner, Birch, Horton, Bittner, Monroe, Pestinger & Anderson, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiffs.

Ronald L. Olson, Jeffrey I. Weinberger, Munger, Tolles & Richershauser, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), Stephen C. Hillard, Munger, Tolles & Richershauser, John A. Reeder, Sohio Petroleum Co., Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FITZGERALD, Chief Judge.

In this group of cases,¹ now before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs Teamster unions and individual union members² claim that defendants³ ("the oil companies") have violated the antitrust laws as well as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").⁴ Defendants use truck transportation companies to ship supplies to their oil production operations in the northern reaches of the State of Alaska ("the North Slope"). Plaintiffs allege that these statutory violations arose out of conspiracy entered into between the oil companies to manipulate and fix the rates for truck transportation to the North Slope and to boycott union-affiliated truck transportation companies. Local 959 complains that its ability to represent its members in collective bargaining has been damaged and that the union has suffered monetary loss as a result of these alleged activities. Plaintiff seeks treble damages provided under the antitrust laws and injunctive relief.

It is axiomatic that a complaint should not be dismissed unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."⁵ "This rule applies with no less force to an antitrust claim."⁶ Following a review of the allegations brought in case numbers 83-171 and 83-172, I am compelled to conclude, however, that under the principles set forth in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters,⁷ plaintiffs can prove no set of facts demonstrating they are entitled to relief under the antitrust laws, and their complaints seeking such relief must, therefore, be dismissed. A discussion setting forth the reasons why I have reached this conclusion follows.

The Supreme Court's recent benchmark RICO decision in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), led this court, like many other lower courts, to stay consideration of plaintiffs' RICO claims pending the Court's resolution of this important case. My determination of defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO claims, brought in case numbers 83-172, 83-173 and 84-322, will follow in a separate memorandum and order.

I. THE COMPLAINTS

Alaska Teamsters Local 959 is the only plaintiff in case number 83-171.⁸ According to its third amended complaint, Local 959 is the collective bargaining agent for over two thousand truckers employed throughout the State of Alaska. Its members include individual owner-operators of truck transportation concerns, as well as truckers, warehousemen, mechanics, office workers and maintenance technicians employed by truck transportation companies which have union shops in Alaska (Paragraph 19).

In paragraphs 22 to 27 of Local 959's complaint, the union alleges the factual basis for its claim that defendant oil companies violated the antitrust laws. Paragraph 22 alleges generally that "since on or about January 1, 1978, and continuing to date, defendants, and each of them, have entered into a conspiracy with each other and with other non-defendant co-conspirators ... to restrain trade, to fix prices, and to enter into an illegal group boycott." The union characterizes such non-defendant co-conspirators to include "non-union truck transportation companies and non-union-member owner-operators." Id. The targets of these alleged activities were "Local 959, union-affiliated truck transportation companies and union-member owner-operators shipping products, supplies and equipment to the North Slope." (Paragraph 23).

According to paragraph 25 of the complaint, the oil companies' alleged conspiracy had two primary objects. It is said that:

(a) Defendants conspired to attempt to manipulate and fix, and did illegally manipulate and fix the rates set for truck transportation of products, equipment and supplies to the North Slope in furtherance of their anticompetitive scheme to restrain and eliminate competition in the relevant markets; and

(b) Defendants conspired to boycott union-affiliated truck transportation companies, including union-member owner-operators, by refusing to award business to them for the transportation of products, equipment and supplies to the North Slope using truck transportation, in furtherance of their anticompetitive scheme to restrain and eliminate competition in the relevant markets.

Paragraph 27 of Local 959's complaint sets forth a litany of illegal activities allegedly conducted by the oil companies in pursuing their claimed boycott of union-affiliated truck transportation companies and union-member owner-operators. Among other things, the union claims that:

(a) Defendants refused to award contracts to union-affiliated truck transportation companies and individual owner-operators for shipment of products, equipment and supplies to the North Slope, even though such companies and operators offered their services at competitive prices, or offered services which cost marginally more but were otherwise preferable to rate and services of non-union operations;

(b) Defendants threatened union-affiliated truck transportation companies and individual owner-operators with cancellation or withholding of contracts to ship products, equipment and supplies to the North Slope, unless such companies pledged to convert themselves into non-union companies;

(c) Defendants aided and abetted the operations of non-union "private corporation" truck transportation operations which defendants knew or should have known were incorporated and operated in direct violation of Alaskan state law; ...

(f) Defendants awarded contracts and business to truck transportation companies which have been prominent in anti-union activities. Such conspiratorial award of contracts and business to these companies has not been based upon commercial economic considerations or sound business judgment, but has been based on Defendants' desire to enforce their boycott of union-affiliated truck transportation companies and individual owner-operators; ...

(h) Defendants advocated, encouraged and induced, by threats and promises, non-union truck transportation companies to refuse to enter into collective bargaining agreements with Local 959; and

(i) Defendants advocated, encouraged and induced, by threats and promises, suppliers of products, equipment and supplies, and contractors and sub-contractors purchasing products, equipment and supplies for use on the North Slope, to refuse to hire union-affiliated truck transportation companies and individual owner-operators for shipments to the North Slope ...

Paragraph 35 describes the alleged "purpose and effect" of these activities: first, "to weaken, destroy, and restrain the trade of union-affiliated truck transportation companies and individual owner-operators;" second, to injure Local 959's ability to effectively represent its members in collective bargaining; and, finally, "to weaken, destroy and restrain competition for labor services in the relevant markets."

Local 959 claims that these alleged antitrust violations caused it in excess of $20 million in damages. The complaint does not identify precise components of these alleged damages. However, the following harms are claimed: (1) the termination of the collective bargaining relationship between Local 959 and certain previously unionized truck transportation companies doing business in the North Slope (Paragraph 30); a reduction of the "aggregate market share" possessed by unionized truck transportation companies in the "relevant markets" and a decline in the number of employed members of Local 959 (Paragraph 31); and, finally, lost revenues received by Local 959 due to reduced union initiation fees and dues and diminished truck transportation company payments to union health and welfare, pension, and apprenticeship programs (Paragraph 32). Local 959 seeks injunctive relief under section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, as well as treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15.

II. DISCUSSION

In 1970, a district court observed: "We must confess at the outset that we find antitrust standing cases more than a little confusing and certainly beyond our powers of reconciliation."⁹ The court's confusion is not surprising, for application of standing principles has been particularly difficult in the antitrust area. Courts have never read sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act¹⁰ literally to allow treble damages and/or injunctive relief to every plaintiff able to attribute an actual or threatened economic loss to an antitrust violation.¹¹ This unwillingness to recognize every such injury is fully consistent with the essential principle of antitrust law: that the antitrust laws protect competition as a whole, not individual competitors.¹²

A. AGC

Notwithstanding Local 959's arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Associated General Contractors¹³ (hereinafter ...