AMR SERVICES v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS, No. 87 C 1144.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Citation658 F. Supp. 259
Docket NumberNo. 87 C 1144.
PartiesAMR SERVICES CORPORATION ("AMR"), Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS ("IBT"); International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division ("IBT Airline Division"); Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Local 851, IBT"); William F. Genoese, individually and as Director of IBT Airline Division; Jackie Presser, individually and as General President of IBT, Defendants.
Decision Date22 April 1987

658 F. Supp. 259

AMR SERVICES CORPORATION ("AMR"), Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS ("IBT"); International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division ("IBT Airline Division"); Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Local 851, IBT"); William F. Genoese, individually and as Director of IBT Airline Division; Jackie Presser, individually and as General President of IBT, Defendants.

No. 87 C 1144.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

April 22, 1987.


658 F. Supp. 260
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
658 F. Supp. 261
Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson (Eric Rosenfeld, of counsel), New York City, for plaintiff

Lowenthal and Lippman (Herbert Lippman, of counsel), New York City, Wilma B. Liebman, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NICKERSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, AMR Services Corporation (AMR), brought this action under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and pendent state law, seeking an injunction and damages. AMR has moved for a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from picketing allegedly in violation of section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act. 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth.

Most of the relevant facts are set forth in this court's memorandum and order dated March 30, 1987, entered in the related case of Blyer v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 656 F.Supp. 1158 (1987), familiarity with which is assumed. In substance, the case arises out of the decision of Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. (Korean Air Lines) to terminate its cargo freight handling contract at J.F.K. International Airport (J.F.K.) with Triangle Aviation Services (Triangle) as of February 28, 1987 and to contract for such services with AMR. Defendant Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Local 851), has been the recognized collective bargaining representative for the sixty or so Triangle employees handling cargo for Korean Air Lines. Certain AMR employees now performing such services are represented by the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (TWU), not a defendant here. None is represented by any of the defendants.

The complaint alleges in pertinent part that, starting February 27, 1987, all three union defendants, as joint venturers with and agents of each other, have engaged in illegal picketing at Building 260 at J.F.K., the Korean Air Lines cargo terminal building where AMR provides its services. AMR charges that this picketing violates section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act because it is being conducted for recognitional and organizational purposes, that is, to force AMR to recognize and bargain with defendants as the representative of its employees.

Two of the defendants, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters) and its Airline Division (Airline Division), reply that the picketing is legal and not enjoinable because it is primarily directed at Korean Air Lines for its refusal to protect the jobs of the Triangle employees. These two defendants claim that to the extent there is a controversy with AMR, it is solely over AMR's alleged failure to maintain "area standards" in its employee compensation package. They disavow any current intention to seek to represent AMR's employees and say that the picketing is not directed to that end.

The third union defendant, Local 851, apparently has not been properly served with the summons and complaint in this action. In any event, its counsel represents that Local 851 disclaims any participation in the current picketing.

Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act provides in pertinent part:

If any dispute shall arise among a carrier's employees as to who are the representatives of such employees designated and authorized in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, it shall
658 F. Supp. 262
be the duty of the Mediation Board, upon request of either party to the dispute, to investigate such dispute and to certify to both parties, in writing, within thirty days after the receipt of the invocation of its services, the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the same to the carrier (45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth).

The Second Circuit has held that this section provides the sole and mandatory means for resolving disputes over representation. Summit Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 295, 628 F.2d 787 (2d Cir.1980). A union thus is not free to circumvent the procedures of section 2, Ninth, by resorting to picketing or other self-help methods designed to coerce a carrier to recognize the union as the collective bargaining representative of its employees. Id. An injunction will issue in such instances, notwithstanding the dictates of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., because the picketing violates a positive statutory command to mediate such disputes. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana Railroad, 353 U.S. 30, 41, 77 S.Ct. 635, 640-41, 1 L.Ed.2d 622 (1957); Summit, supra, 628 F.2d at 795.

The issue presented here is whether there is a "dispute" over representation within the meaning of section 2, Ninth. AMR contends there is because the defendant unions are actively seeking to become the collective bargaining representative of its employees.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • United Air Lines, Inc. v. LOCAL 851, No. CV-88-2537.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 30, 1988
    ...Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 295, 628 F.2d 787 (2d Cir.1980); AMR Services Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 658 F.Supp. 259, 262 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 821 F.2d 162 (2d Cir.1987). Once the certification is granted, the carrier is obliged by 45 U.S.C. § 152 Ninth ......
  • Beikmann v. International Playtex, Inc., Civ. A. No. 85-C-2296.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • April 22, 1987
    ...including care, comfort, guidance, society and companionship.3 Id. at 1081. In addition to these important rights, he noted that the 658 F. Supp. 259 family unit has certain recognized constitutional protections and liberty interests. Id. See, e.g., Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97......
  • AMR Services Corp. (AMR) v. International Broth. of Teamsters (IBT), No. 1330
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 19, 1987
    ...appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eugene H. Nickerson, Judge, 658 F.Supp. 259 (1987), denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against picketing by defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT"), et al......
3 cases
  • United Air Lines, Inc. v. LOCAL 851, No. CV-88-2537.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 30, 1988
    ...Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 295, 628 F.2d 787 (2d Cir.1980); AMR Services Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 658 F.Supp. 259, 262 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 821 F.2d 162 (2d Cir.1987). Once the certification is granted, the carrier is obliged by 45 U.S.C. § 152 Ninth ......
  • Beikmann v. International Playtex, Inc., Civ. A. No. 85-C-2296.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • April 22, 1987
    ...including care, comfort, guidance, society and companionship.3 Id. at 1081. In addition to these important rights, he noted that the 658 F. Supp. 259 family unit has certain recognized constitutional protections and liberty interests. Id. See, e.g., Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97......
  • AMR Services Corp. (AMR) v. International Broth. of Teamsters (IBT), No. 1330
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 19, 1987
    ...appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eugene H. Nickerson, Judge, 658 F.Supp. 259 (1987), denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against picketing by defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT"), et al......

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