AMR SERVICES v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS
| Citation | 658 F. Supp. 259 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87 C 1144.,87 C 1144. |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
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.
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 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.
AMR points to several events as showing that this is defendants' purpose. On February 26, 1987, defendant William F. Genoese, Director of defendant Airline Division, telephoned Richard M. Janisse, President of AMR. Although much of the content of that conversation is in dispute, Genoese admits that he said something to the effect that "you are taking over some work that the Teamsters are performing and I want to know what you are going to do with our employees in reference to the Korean contract at J.F.K.?" On February 28, 1987 Genoese wrote to Charles A. Pasciuto, the Vice President for Employee Relations at American Airlines, Inc., a subsidiary (as is plaintiff) of AMR Corporation. In his letter Genoese asked for information about AMR and any labor agreement it has with a union representing its employees.
Subsequently, Genoese, on behalf of the Airline Division, wrote and distributed two leaflets. The first, dated March 2, 1987, is addressed to "all Airline Division locals," and primarily concerns itself with disparaging AMR, the TWU and the "inferior wages and benefits" of their labor agreement. The memo terms the agreement "a disgrace to the labor movement" and announces defendants' intention "to expose this cozy arrangement" that enables AMR to make "low-ball bids" for airline contract work. In its penultimate paragraph, the memo states:
The second leaflet is dated April 13, 1987, and addressed to "all Airline Employees at J.F.K." It also speaks of the inferior nature of the AMR and TWU contract and terms the agreement a "TWU sellout" that "jeopardizes the wages, benefits and working conditions of all airline employees." The memo goes on to specify many of the so-called "low-ball" provisions of the labor contract at issue.
Plaintiff alleges that both leaflets were distributed throughout J.F.K., but has provided no evidence of distribution directly to AMR employees.
Defendants disclaim any present objective to attain recognition and urge that their activities are consistent with two other purposes: trying to protect the Korean Air Lines jobs of the Triangle employees and publicizing AMR's payment of wages and benefits below the prevailing area standards. Defendants say that those purposes are manifest from various objective facts. On February 24 and 28, 1987 Genoese made demands on Korean Air Lines for a meeting to discuss job protection for the Triangle employees. On April 9, 1987 defendant Jackie Presser, General President of the Teamsters, sent cables to the same effect to Korean Air Lines' chief executive officer in Seoul, Korea, and to others in Korea. Defendants' picket signs at Building 260 do not mention AMR, but are addressed to Korean Air Lines. Thus, say the defendants, their primary dispute is with Korean Air Lines, not AMR.
Their controversy with AMR, according to defendants, extends only to the fact that AMR, through its contract with the TWU, pays substandard wages and benefits that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Air Lines, Inc. v. LOCAL 851
...Summit Airlines, 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.......
- Beikmann v. International Playtex, Inc.
- AMR Services Corp. (AMR) v. International Broth. of Teamsters (IBT), 1330