Andrews v. Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc., Civ. No. F 85-77.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. No. F 85-77.
• Citation: 631 F. Supp. 840
• Parties: Bobby J. ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. HI-WAY DISPATCH, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

631 F. Supp. 840

Bobby J. ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. HI-WAY DISPATCH, INC., Defendant.

Civ. No. F 85-77.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

February 19, 1986.

Stephen Laudig, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff.

Herbert A. Spitzer, Jr., Browne, Spitzer, Herriman, Browne, Stephenson & Holderead, Marion, Ind., for defendant.

ORDER

WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on two motions filed by defendant Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. The first, a motion to strike demand for punitive damages, was filed August 12, 1985; the second, a motion for summary judgment, was filed on September 13, 1985. On August 14, 1985, plaintiff Bobby J. Andrews filed a response brief to Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc.'s motion to strike demand for punitive damages; and on January 24, 1986 plaintiff responded to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed a reply brief on January 31, 1986.

Plaintiff initially commenced suit on March 13, 1985, against two defendants, Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. and the Teamsters Local Union No. 135. On July 10, 1985, defendant Teamsters filed a motion to strike jury demand and a motion to strike demand for punitive damages, and on August 12, 1985, Teamsters filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the Teamsters' motion to strike jury demand and motion to strike demand for punitive damages on August 14, 1985, but failed to respond to Teamsters' motion for summary judgment.

On October 15, 1985, plaintiff moved this court for leave to file a second amended complaint. This motion, to remove defendant Teamsters as a party pursuant to settlement between plaintiff and defendant Teamsters, was granted on October 15, 1985. Now that defendant Teamsters is removed from the suit its motions are moot. Since defendant Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. incorporates the arguments presented by defendant Teamsters, these arguments will be considered as part of Hi-Way's brief in support of the motion to strike the punitive damage claim and the motion in support of summary judgment.

For the following reasons, defendant Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is granted and Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc.'s motion to strike punitive damages and to strike the jury demand is therefore moot.

Summary of the Facts

The facts, which for present purposes must be construed in plaintiff's favor, are relatively undisputed and are as follows. At all relevant times, plaintiff Bobby J. Andrews ("Andrews") was employed by defendant Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. ("Hi-Way") as a driver beginning around May 8, 1979. The employees of Hi-Way are represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 135 ("Union"). Andrews became a member of the Union on or about thirty (30) working days after beginning to work for defendant. During 1984 Andrews was active on behalf of candidates who ran against the incumbent officers of the Union.

The Union is an unincorporated association and a labor union. This Union during all times relevant to this case, was a labor organization representing employees in an industry that affected commerce as defined in § 501(1) and (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 142(1) and (3) and 152(5) and within the meaning of § 301 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185). On March 1, 1982, Hi-Way and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement that expressly forbid discharge of an employee except for "just cause." At all relevant times, the Union was a recognized collective bargaining representative of the bargaining unit consisting of Hi-Way's employees including Andrews.

The events which led up to plaintiff's discharge began on November 6, 1984, when Andrews was dispatched from North Chicago to Gurnee, Illinois, to pick up a load at the Anchor Glass Plant that was bound for the Kraft Foods Plant ("Kraft") in Kendallville, Indiana. At the time that Andrews was informed of the dispatch, he asked the dispatcher if there were any other loads he could take instead of the Kraft load. Andrews wanted to avoid Kraft because he had experienced problems there in the past. Andrews was suspended for three days for refusing to work in the warehouse as instructed by Kraft. Also, another driver had recently been discharged due to an incident at Kraft. Therefore, when Andrews got to Anchor Glass in Gurnee, Illinois, he again called the dispatcher to ask if there was any other load he could take but none was available.

On the morning of November 7, 1984, when Andrews arrived at Kraft, he backed up the truck and was then instructed by the fork lift driver to go back in the warehouse and "throw pallets down." After about one-half hour of performing such warehouse work, Andrews asked the fork lift driver if he could use the telephone. He then called Hi-Way to complain and request that OSHA be called to investigate because Andrews felt that the conditions of pulling down pallets stacked up higher than one's head with glassware stacked around him made the work unsafe. Andrews was extremely cautious to inform the dispatcher that he planned to go ahead and perform the work despite his protests (this conversation was tape recorded by Andrews).¹

Andrews then returned to the warehouse to pull more pallets down and shortly thereafter injured his back. Andrews told the Kraft supervisor that Andrews had injured his back.² The injury was then reported to Hi-Way by telephoning Jim Trout, a conversation which Andrews also tape recorded. When Andrews reported that he thought he could drive his truck, the dispatcher suggested that he just drive back to Marion and see his own doctor about the injury.

Plaintiff returned and went to see his doctor in Marion the following day, November 8, 1984. On November 9, Operations Manager for Hi-Way, Bill Peterson, telephoned Andrews and discharged him (another tape recorded conversation). In the conversation, and by subsequent letter of discharge, Peterson said that Kraft complained that Andrews had a camera and tape recorder on their property and that he threatened them with OSHA charges. Peterson claims that the company had lost $300,000 worth of business as a result of the Kraft cancellation that was due to the problem they had with Andrews on November 7, 1984. Andrews was discharged for causing this loss of business.

In a grievance filed on November 9, 1984 (Ex. 3, Andrews affidavit), Andrews protested both his work assignment to Kraft and the unsafe working conditions. Andrews also filed a request to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration ("OSHA") to investigate both the working condition at Kraft and Andrews' work assignment. On November 9, 1984, Bill Peterson, acting on behalf of defendant company, stated to Andrews that he (Andrews) should not have reported his back injury.

Andrews received a written letter of discharge dated November 11, 1984 (Ex. 4, Andrews affidavit). Andrews wrote his own grievance dated November 12, 1984 (Ex. 5, Andrews affidavit), filed it with Hi-Way, and delivered a copy of the grievance to the Union Business Agent, Carl Wagner. The contractual grievance procedure first calls for a terminal level meeting between the Business Agent and the employer's Operations Manager, followed by an appeal to the Joint State Committee, which sits in Indianapolis. (Ex. A, Union's summary judgment motion (SJM) at 25.)

If the grievance is not resolved there, it may be appealed to the Joint Area Committee which sits in Chicago. Id. These joint committees were created pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements and are comprised of an equal number of Union and company representatives. The committees' functions are to hear and decide grievances. Any decision reached by a majority vote of a committee is "final and binding on both parties." If the State Committee is "unable to agree or come to a decision on a case," such as in a "deadlock," it may be appealed to the Area Committee. These deadlock cases at the Area Committee level are then submitted to an "umpire" (i.e., arbitrator).

Andrews' grievance meeting was held on November 16, 1984. Since the case was not resolved, it was appealed to and heard by the State Committee on November 28 (Ex. B, Union's SJM). Before this meeting, plaintiff submitted to his Business Agent, Carl Wagner, written statements by employee witnesses and transcripts of tapes of phone conversations Andrews had with company officials. Plaintiff met with Wagner before the hearing and discussed strategy. Wagner, along with two Union stewards, friends of Andrews, represented Andrews at the hearing. At the end of the State Committee hearing, a deadlock was reached and the grievance was not resolved. The grievance was later heard on December 11, 1984 by the Area Committee (Ex. C, Union's SJM), at which time a unanimous vote to deny the grievance was reached. This was the final stage of the grievance process. Andrews had exhausted the available remedies provided under the collective bargaining agreement.

On March 13, 1985, plaintiff brought this suit, pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 185), alleging that he was discharged by Hi-Way on November 9, 1984, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between Hi-Way and defendant Union.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Applicable Law

This is a hybrid § 301 suit filed by plaintiff alleging, in essence, that defendant Union breached its duty of fair representation and that defendant company conspired with the Union to deprive plaintiff of his rights as secured by Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 185. Defendant Hi-Way has denied plaintiff's allegations and has moved for summary judgment.

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment may only be granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a...