Barrett v. Thorofare Markets, Inc., Civ. A. No. 76-61.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1978
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 76-61.
• Citation: 452 F. Supp. 880
• Parties: Michael BARRETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOROFARE MARKETS, INC. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 635, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

452 F. Supp. 880

Michael BARRETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOROFARE MARKETS, INC. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 635, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 76-61.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

June 22, 1978.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Theodore Goldberg, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Thorofare.

Joseph J. Pass, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant Union.

OPINION

WEBER, Chief Judge.

The facts in this case have, to a large extent, been discussed in our prior opinion and order of November 17, 1977, on the class certification. In discussing the pending summary judgment motions filed by Defendants Thorofare and Teamster Local Union 635, we will add only those facts which have been established by the affidavits filed since that opinion. The severance pay and pension claims will be dealt with separately.

I. SEVERANCE PAY

The Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Thorofare is obligated on an oral contract to each of them for severance pay of $100/year of service less the $40/year already paid out. Thorofare argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on this claim for the following reasons:

(1) The plaintiffs inexcusably failed to exhaust the applicable contractual grievance procedure and

(2) The plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to show the formation of a contract with Thorofare on the terms alleged and the uncontradicted evidence clearly shows that no such contract was formed.

The Union argues, in addition, that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim that it breached its duty of fair representation to them.

The affidavits of Kenneth Keene, Thorofare's Director of Personnel and Labor Relations and of Robert G. Brennan, Secretary-Treasurer and principal officer of Local 635, cover these issues. Brennan states that the four local unions affected by Thorofare's 1974 warehouse lay-offs bargained together but not jointly with Thorofare representative over the impact of the lay-offs. On August 27, 1974, Thorofare agreed with Local 635 to continue its produce warehousing operation on Small Street until March 29, 1975, on the terms of the 1971 collective bargaining agreement. Under this arrangement, 14 warehouse jobs and 6 office jobs were temporarily preserved. All of the named plaintiffs accepted the offer of this continued employment with the understanding that they would eventually receive the same severance pay as would the other Local 635 members to be laid off. About September 25, 1974, Thorofare made an offer of "among other things, severance pay which amounted to $40/year of service, conditioned on acceptance of the proposed agreement by all four labor union" locals whose members would be affected by the lay-offs. On September 26, 1974, the offer was explained to a joint meeting of all four locals. However, the membership of each local voted separately on the proposal. The 20 members of Local 635 who were to continue working were not permitted to vote, but a majority of the others voted to accept the offer, 44 to 19. Even had these 20 employees participated and all voted against the proposal, the result would have been a majority for acceptance. The three other locals rejected the offer. "As a result of the outcome of the election," Brennan settled on behalf of Local 635 by signing the agreement on October 4. He interpreted the International Constitution and the Local's bylaws as giving him the authority to do so, without resubmitting the agreement to the membership. The agreement provided that each laid-off employee would receive $40 per year of service with Thorofare. No grievance was ever filed as to the amount of the severance pay nor were any steps taken to invoke the intra-union remedies available to plaintiffs.

Kenneth Keene's affidavit is consistent with Brennan's except for one possibly significant difference. In paragraphs 8 and 9, the following statements appear:

"8. A meeting of the membership of the four Locals was allegedly held on or about September 26, 1974. I was not present at this meeting, nor was any representative of Thorofare. The representative of the four Locals later informed me that Thorofare's proposal had been rejected at this meeting.

9. As a consequence of the rejection of Thorofare's joint offer, Thorofare subsequently began negotiating separately with the four Locals concerning severance pay and entered into separate severance agreements with each of the Locals."

In light of the following discussion, we do not consider the question whether further negotiations between Thorofare and Brennan acting on behalf of Local 635, took place after the September 26 vote.

The other three locals struck before an agreement was reached on this point and eventually all their members were paid $100/year in severance pay.

Accepting as true those portions of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff which contain factual averments based on the affiant's personal knowledge, we find that the only disputed fact is the nature of the terms in which Thorofare's offer was explained to the affected union members at the joint meeting of September 26, 1974. This is not material to this issue. Plaintiffs claim that the union members were informed that Thorofare would pay all members of all four locals equal amounts of severance pay per year of service. From the affidavits filed by Thorofare and union, it is clear that the offer made by Thorofare to the union representatives was for a total sum to be divided among all the laid-off employees of all the locals according to the same formula; when this formula was applied each employee, in effect, would get about $40/year of service. While it is possible that both these positions are correct, even this is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim that a contract was formed on the terms described to them merely because their local voted in favor of acceptance. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the offer was conditioned on acceptance of all four locals and that the other three locals rejected it. This means that no...