Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 788, 74-458 C(3).

• Decision Date: 27 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 74-458 C(3).,74-458 C(3).
• Parties: Ben ALLEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 788, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

415 F. Supp. 662

Ben ALLEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 788, Defendant.

No. 74-458 C(3).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

May 27, 1976.

Louis Gilden, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs.

William H. Bartley, Bartley, Goffstein, Bollato & Lange, Clayton, Mo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

WANGELIN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for a decision on the merits following the trial to the Court sitting without a jury.

The plaintiffs, Ben Allen, et al., members of defendant, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local # 788, brought this action in two Counts.

The first Count alleges illegal racial discrimination denying plaintiffs certain rights guaranteed them under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e et seq. It is alleged that for reasons of race, the defendant Union failed to make a valid attempt to obtain seniority rights, and other rights incidental to seniority guaranteed to the plaintiffs under various collective bargaining agreements, and further required plaintiffs to pay an initiation fee of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) to join the Union.

The second Count of plaintiffs' complaint alleges a denial of plaintiffs' rights guaranteed under 29 U.S.C. § 185 by the alleged acts of the defendant Union in breaching its duty of fair representation with regards to plaintiffs' seniority rights and other rights incidental to seniority. The Court being fully apprised of the premises hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiffs are black citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Missouri and are members of defendant labor organization.

2. The defendant Union is a labor organization which acts as a collective bargaining agent for plaintiffs with the Bi-State Transit System of the St. Louis metropolitan area.

3. In 1959, a Gilman Report was prepared which recommended the merger of various transit companies in the metropolitan St. Louis area into one integrated transit system.

4. In the Gilman Report, the plaintiffs' predecessor employer, The Consolidated Service Car Company, was discussed. It was the recommendation of the Report that The Consolidated Service Car operation be purchased to eliminate competition within the transportation market.

5. The integration of the transit system into a unified whole was to be accomplished in three phases:

Phase I. Establishment of an area-wide integrated system for the metropolitan area.

Phase II. Examination of rapid transit probabilities.

Phase III. Complete the total plan by acquiring plaintiffs' predecessor employer, The Consolidated Service Car Company, and replace that operation with bus service.

6. In accordance with Phase I discussed above, the fifteen St. Louis area transit companies were merged into one corporation, the Bi-State Development Agency, commonly known as the Bi-State Transit System.

7. Transit Services Corporation became the manager of the Transit System, and handled personnel and negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

8. Of the fifteen transit companies merged into the Bi-State Transit System, thirteen had employees with union membership and two had employees without union membership.

9. Of the thirteen transit companies which had union membership, five companies had teamsters locals.

10. After the merger of the transit companies in 1963, some of the merged companies' property consisting of buses and coaches was not used due to its obsolescence.

11. All employees were trained for a period of thirty days at the time of the merger.

12. The employees of the fifteen transit companies were organized as a result of the merger into one collective bargaining unit, who is the defendant in the instant lawsuit. Substantially all of the originally merged employees are white.

13. The merged employees who were organized into the defendant were offered a waiver of initiation fee and full seniority rights for the years that they worked for their respective pre-merger transit companies, and all members of the defendant Union were dove-tailed into one seniority list.

14. With respect to the 1963 merger of the fifteen transit companies, the defendant Union never submitted the issue of waiver of initiation fee and full credit of seniority with each transit line to the Executive Board or to the membership of the defendant Union.

15. The value of seniority for the purposes of defendant Union is:

a. A system pick (where within the entire system a person will work);

b. Division pick (which area within a particular division of the entire system a person will work);

c. Vacation time pick; and

d. Lay-off.

16. The Consolidated Service Car Company was a transit company who the plaintiffs were operators and maintenance men for prior to the purchase of the company by the Bi-State Transit System in 1965.

17. Prior to the purchase of the Service Car Company, the plaintiffs were members of Teamsters Local 688.

18. The purchase of the Service Car operation in 1965 was for the purposes of the Bi-State Transit System, an additional step in the development of a unified transit system.

19. At the time of its purchase, Consolidated Service Car Company submitted a list of operators and maintenance men and the years that each person worked for Consolidated to the Bi-State Transit System, and to which the defendant had access.

20. The Bi-State Transit System offered plaintiffs the opportunity to apply for a job as an operator or a maintenance man, and as each of the plaintiffs entered the Union he was given a thirty day training period as an operator similar to other merged employees. The policy of the International Union is to dove-tail seniority for the years of prior employment to individuals who bring their work with them and their equipment with them.

21. As a result of the purchase of the Service Car and their removal as a transit company from the St. Louis metropolitan area, one hundred and seventy-two additional, daily, round trips, along with new buses were added by the Bi-State Transit System.

22. The above finding of fact clearly indicates that the plaintiffs brought their work and their equipment with them when the Consolidated Service Car Company was merged into the Bi-State Transit System.

23. The Union Executive Board passed a motion after the purchase of the Consolidated Service Car Company to require the Consolidated Service Car operators to pay an initiation fee upon entry into the defendant Union.

24. The plaintiffs did in fact pay such an initiation fee, and did not receive seniority credit for their years of service with Consolidated Service Car Company from either Bi-State Transit System or defendant Union.

25. At the time of the plaintiffs' acceptance as employees by Bi-State Transit System, and at the time of their membership with the defendant Union, there was in existence a collective bargaining agreement which contained the following provision:

Seniority of each of the full-time operators covered by this Agreement shall be on a system basis. The years of service of each of the full-time operators with each of their predecessor transit companies shall be counted from the date of last employment and be given full credit in the seniority roster.

26. The Court finds that the Consolidated Service Car Company was clearly a predecessor transit company even though the purchase took place approximately two years after the merger of fifteen other transit companies.

27. All of the plaintiffs entered the defendant Union on the bottom of the seniority list.

28. Plaintiffs complained in 1968 to various Union officials concerning the denial of their seniority rights, and continued to object to the seniority practices in later years.

29. A motion was made at a Union meeting for seniority rights for the plaintiffs. This motion was refused by the president of defendant Union, due to racial discrimination charges pending at that time.

30. As a result of the actions of defendant Union, the plaintiffs complained to the N.A.A.C.P. and to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights alleging discrimination on the part of the Bi-State Transit System and the Union.

31. Officers of the defendant Union continued to refuse to present the plaintiffs' request for seniority to the Union membership, and in addition stating that they would not recommend the action desired by the plaintiffs.

32. The plaintiffs met with the N.A.A. C.P., Bi-State Transit officials, and the President of defendant Union in 1969. As a result of that meeting, Bi-State Transit agreed to grant the plaintiffs full seniority credit for the years of work for Consolidated Service Car Company for the purposes of (a) vacation benefits, (b) pension benefits and (c) for any other future employment benefits.

33. At the 1969 meeting the President of defendant Union refused to consider any seniority rights changes for the plaintiffs.

34. At a later time, a conciliation agreement was entered into between the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, plaintiffs and the Bi-State Transit System in which the plaintiffs were granted vacation pay due them as if their service time as service car operators had been originally credited to them upon their employment by the Bi-State System.

35. Further, the Bi-State System stated in the conciliation agreement:

Respondent, (Bi-State) will in no way obstruct or impede the dove-tailing of complainants' seniority with that of other drivers on the seniority roster of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788.

36. The plaintiffs have been granted full seniority benefits by Bi-State consistent with the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

37. The defendant Union has presented as an alleged defense that there might be morale problems among the Membership if plaintiffs were advanced in seniority over other employees, both white and black.

38. After careful consideration of all the evidence adduced, it is the opinion of the Court that the...