ASSOCIATION FOR BEN. OF NON-CONTRACT EMP. v. NATIONAL MED. BD.
Decision Date | 29 May 1963 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 973-63. |
Citation | 218 F. Supp. 114 |
Parties | ASSOCIATION FOR the BENEFIT OF NON-CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Leverett Edwards, Individually and as Chairman of the National Mediation Board, Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., Individually and as Member of the National Mediation Board, and Howard G. Gamser, Individually and as Member of the National Mediation Board, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Arguello, Giometti, & McCarthy, Alex L. Arguello, San Francisco, Cal., Jerome C. Muys, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald B. MacGuineas, Harland F. Leathers, Richard S. Beatty, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, for defendants Nat. Mediation Bd. and others.
Milton Kramer and James L. Highsaw, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendant-intervenor Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes.
On April 18, 1963, Judge Hart of this court issued a temporary restraining order barring the National Mediation Board from proceeding with an election among certain categories of employees of United Air Lines for the selection of a collective bargaining representative, pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S.C. § 151 et seq, as made applicable to employees of air carriers, 45 U.S.C. §§ 181-188. Ballots had been scheduled to be sent out by mail to the employees on April 22, 1963. The temporary restraining order barred the mailing of these ballots pending the hearing, in this Court, on a motion for a preliminary injunction. This hearing was held on April 24, and this Court continued the temporary restraining order in effect so that the Court could consider fully the written memoranda and oral arguments of counsel and the complex legal issues raised in those arguments before finally issuing its order.
The Court now issues its order, on the basis of the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. This is an action brought by a group of employees of United Air Lines, Inc. (hereinafter called "United"), organized and incorporated under the name "Association for the Benefit of Non-contract Employees," the plaintiff herein. Plaintiff does not seek recognition as a bargaining agent, nor does it want its name on the ballot.
2. On August 24, 1962, the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees (hereinafter called the "Brotherhood"), filed an application with the National Mediation Board pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, for an investigation of a representation dispute among employees of United. The case was docketed as Case No. R-3590 by the Board. On November 19, 1962, the Mediator assigned by the Board began an investigation of this dispute and checked the authorization cards from thirty-five percent or more of the employees in the craft or class furnished by the Brotherhood in support of its application. As a result of the Mediator's investigation, it was determined that a representation dispute existed among these employees, between two unions, the Brotherhood and the International Association of Machinists (hereinafter called "Machinists"). On December 19, 1962, in accordance with its rules, an election was authorized by the Board, and the Mediator asked United to furnish the names and addresses of eligible employees so the election could be held. Both the Brotherhood and the International sought to be certified as the collective bargaining representative, and both their names appear on the ballot which the Board has prepared.
3. The "craft or class" in which this representation dispute exists is defined by the Board as "Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service employees" of United. This "craft or class" was established by the Board in 1947. There are approximately 12,300 employees certified to vote in this election as members of this craft or class. The plaintiff purports to represent 6,400 of these employees. Cards signed by these employees authorizing the plaintiff to represent the employee before the Board are in the possession of the Board. The Board has made no attempt to verify the number of authorization cards, nor to check the signatures on the cards against the eligible list of voters.
4. The official ballot provides a square in which the voter can mark an "X" if he wishes to be represented by the Brotherhood, another square to be marked if he wishes to be represented by the International, and a blank line where the voter can write the name of an organization or an individual "if you desire to be represented by ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL." There is no place on the ballot where a voter could state that he prefers no collective bargaining representation. If a voter should write "no representation" or "no union" on the ballot, the ballot would be counted by the Board as void. The ballots are secret, and returnable by mail.
5. On February 14, 1963, the Board received from the plaintiff a petition asking leave to intervene in the representation dispute and asking that the class or craft grouping be changed either with or without a hearing, and that the form of the ballot be changed to permit the voters to express a preference for no collective bargaining representation. On February 25, 1963, the plaintiff forwarded to the Board a statement which included the following points:
The Board determined that the plaintiff was not a properly constituted party at interest in the pending dispute, and on March 27, 1963, informed the plaintiff that its petition was dismissed. On April 5, 1963, the plaintiff requested the Board to reconsider its denial of the petition to intervene. On April 12, 1963, the Board denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. The present suit was filed on April 13, seeking to enjoin the Board from mailing out the ballots on the scheduled date of April 22, 1963.
Based on the findings of fact heretofore set forth, and for the reasons fully set forth in a memorandum attached hereto, which memorandum is specifically made a part of these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court has reached the following conclusions:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
2. The plaintiff would be irreparably injured by the holding of said election without having an opportunity to express on the ballot a preference for no collective bargaining representation.
3. The balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff.
4. The public interest requires a determination of the legality of the above election before the ballots are sent out.
5. The Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., requires that there shall be on the above ballots a place where eligible voters may express a preference for no collective bargaining representation.
WHEREFORE, it is by the Court this 3d day of May, 1963,
ORDERED That the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from conducting any election among the "Clerical, Office, Stores, Fleet and Passenger Service employees" of United Air Lines, Inc., in which the form of the ballot does not permit a voting employee to cast a vote against collective bargaining representation shall be and the same is hereby granted, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED That the defendant shall have one week from today's date to show cause why the preliminary injunction above granted shall not be made permanent, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED That the plaintiff's request that the Board shall conduct a hearing relating to the question of the appropriateness of class or craft of employees among whom the election was to be held, at which hearing the plaintiff could be heard as a party in interest, shall be and the same is hereby remanded to the Board for further consideration in the light of the Court's conclusion that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. gives employees a right to have a ballot on which they may express a preference for no collective bargaining representation.
MEMORANDUMThis memorandum shall specifically be considered a part of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, supra.
Preliminary Injunction
This action raises serious questions involving the proper interpretation of certain provisions of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. For the reasons fully set forth in Part II, infra, this Court has jurisdiction to issue a permanent injunction. Wherever equity has jurisdiction to grant an injunction by final decree, it has jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction. American Code Co. v. Bensinger, 282 F. 829, 835 (2d Cir. 1922)1.
"The award of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which will not be granted unless upon a clear showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury to plaintiffs * * *." Societe Comptoir de L'Industrie Cotonniere Etablissements Boussac v. Alexander's Dep't Stores, Inc., 299 F.2d 33, 35 (2 Cir. 1962).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Welfare Rights Organization v. Finch
...Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952); Association for Benefit of Non-Contract Employees v. National Mediation Board, 218 F.Supp. 114 (D.D.C.1963), affirmed sub nom. United Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 330 F.2......
-
United Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board
... ... ASSOCIATION FOR the BENEFIT OF NON-CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, Appellee ... ...
-
14 133 Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v. Association For Benefit Ofemployees United Air Lines, Inc v. National Mediation Board National Mediation Board v. Association For Benefit Ofemployees
...to cast a vote against collective bargaining representation; the other issues were remanded to the Board for further consideration. 218 F.Supp. 114. The Court of Appeals affirmed these cases by a divided court and they are here as Nos. 138 and 369. 117 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 330 F.2d 853. Judge ......
-
Droggos v. National Mediation Board, Civ. No. C 63-579.
...184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210 (1958). Despite a contrary holding in Association for the Benefit of Non-contract Employees v. National Mediation Board, 218 F.Supp. 114, D.C., (1963), it is my view that no constitutional right, nor any fundamental right has been denied to the plaintiffs. I......