Blount v. Local Union 25, Intern. Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, UAW
| Decision Date | 19 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1493,92-1493 |
| Citation | 984 F.2d 244 |
| Parties | 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2414, 124 Lab.Cas. P 10,517 Dan L. BLOUNT; Edna M. Bond; Reginald G. Bowers; Glenda L. Boyer; Robert Dwight Chitwood; David M. Cornish; Thomas B. Darr; James E. Fears; Ann A. Foster; Brenda D. Diedrich; Paul E. Gagnepian, Jr.; Sherri L. Hastings; Richard P. Henderson, Jr.; Yvonne Hopkins; Daniel L. Keely; Rick D. Kindrick; Donald L. Kohlfeld; Ray P. Kosulandich; Randall A. Krez; Helen Landrum; Debra E. Lawrence; Emilda P. Martinez; David E. Neff; Stephen C. Nichols; Vivian R. Powell; Debra A. Reed; Edna R. Renfroe; Audrey Smith; Thelma Smith; Mary L. Todd; Dan L. Abernathy; David J. Abling; Mary E. Acord; Ruth D. Adams; Mary A. Alfred; Anthony Amato, Jr.; Christine Beckum; Teresa K. Belmar; R.J. Bingaman; Rose M. Blue; Michael G. Brown; Randle G. Buff; Patricia A. Burns; V.L. Cannon; Vernell Crockett; Linda S. Elfgen; Steven M. Fisher; David F. Ford; Ernest W. Gielow; Patricia A. Gordon; William M. Grant, III; David A. Green; Edna M. Greer; Patricia A. Hanner; James Paul Harris; C. Sims High; William D. Hoffmeister; Raymond Hollins; James L. Holman, Jr.; Annie M. Hoskins; Michael L. Howard; D.V. Jackson; Raymond H. Johnson; Jimmie R. Jones; Alice M. Joyner; John E. Kroll, Jr.; Daniel J. Lacey; R.B. Lee; James W. Macon; Daniel Louis Marks; Thomas P. Marks; Mary A. Mueller; Donald L. Nelson; Kenneth Newland; Eugene G. Overstreet; Ralph L. Parris; Raymond L. Pashia; Donna Marie Pointer; Mildred D. Poole; Stuart P. Potts; Danny J. Pyatt; Berl R. Reading; M. Robinson; Ronald E. Sack; C.A. Schodrowski; Viola M. Schoenfeld; Angeline A. Sciotto; Tom E. Shuey; George Smith; Mary L. Stewart; M.V. Stogsdill; Kenneth L. Stroud; Paula Walker; Nancy Weir; Marvin C. Wesley; Richard C. Westrich; M.E. White; Russell P. White, Appellants, v. LOCAL UNION 25, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW; General Motors Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles Oldham and Louis Gilden, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellants.
James E. McDaniel, St. Louis, MO, argued (Robert A. Kaiser, St. Louis, and Maurice G. Jenkins, Detroit, MI, on the brief), for General Motors Corp.
Connye Y. Harper, Detroit, MI, argued (Leonard Page, on the brief), for appellee Local Union 25.
Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
A group of General Motors (GM) workers (the Blount group) brings this suit against GM and its representative unions, alleging violations of section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1988). The Blount group asserts GM violated its collective bargaining agreement by refusing to permit its members to transfer from a plant GM was closing to a new replacement facility. The Blount group claims its unions, United Automobile Workers (UAW) and UAW Local Union 25 (Local 25), breached their duty of fair representation by refusing to prosecute the Blount group's grievance against GM.
The district court bifurcated the case as to liability and damages. The liability phase was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the Blount group as against Local 25, but in favor of both GM and UAW as against the Blount group. The district court subsequently granted judgment n.o.v. to Local 25. The Blount group appeals. We affirm.
This class action dispute evolves from a decision by GM to close its St. Louis Bus & Truck plant (GM-St. Louis) and replace it with a new facility, approximately thirty-five miles away, in Wentzville, Missouri (GM-Wentzville). The plaintiffs in this case, the Blount group, are members of UAW and Local 25, 1 who worked at GM-St. Louis and who assert they were wrongfully denied an opportunity to transfer to GM-Wentzville.
These workers were originally hired to work at GM-St. Louis in December of 1976, and subsequently laid-off in late 1979 and early 1980. On July 29, 1982, and while the Blount group was laid-off, GM and the UAW supplemented their existing collective bargaining agreement with a Memorandum of Understanding (the Wentzville memorandum) and subsequent letter agreement, governing the transfer of union personnel from GM-St. Louis to GM-Wentzville. 2 Pursuant to these agreements, GM mailed a letter and application to employees of GM-St. Louis stating they would be eligible for transfer if they met certain conditions. Although each member of the Blount group completed and filed a timely application, none were hired or transferred.
Instead, GM recalled each member of the Blount group to work at GM-St. Louis. On October 21, 1985, the parties executed another Memorandum of Understanding, in which GM offered to all nontransferable GM-St. Louis employees an opportunity to transfer to its Fort Wayne, Indiana assembly. Many GM-St. Louis employees accepted this offer.
In December of 1985, the Blount group formally came together and hired attorneys Charles Oldham and Louis Gilden. In their contract with Oldham and Gilden, the Blount group agreed to pay a retainer, all expenses, and one-third of any monies received from the suit.
On January 15, 1986, members of the Blount group filed a group grievance with Local 25, asserting GM had violated the Wentzville memorandum. Local 25 refused to pursue the grievance, after which the Blount group appealed to the President of the UAW, who affirmed Local 25's decision.
The Blount group then filed suit against GM in Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. On February 19, 1986, GM removed the case to the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and, on March 4, 1987, the district court certified the Blount group as a class. The Blount group then filed its third amended complaint, alleging GM, UAW and Local 25 violated the collective bargaining agreement by wrongfully denying the Blount group their transfer rights under the Wentzville memorandum. The Blount group alleged that the unions breached their duty of fair representation by failing to prosecute its grievance against GM. In their suit, the Blount group sought both equitable relief and money damages.
In 1987, GM entered into a Voluntary Termination of Employment Plan (VTEP) 3 agreement with twenty-two Blount group members. Under the agreement, an employee who accepted an offer to leave GM received $25,000.
On December 31, 1987, GM moved for partial summary judgment as to the twenty-two members who opted for the VTEP deal. In response, the Blount group filed a motion on January 11, 1988 to impress an attorney's fee lien on the VTEP monies paid to the twenty-two members.
The district court bifurcated the case such that the jury heard issues of liability and the district court retained questions of damages. The matter went to a five-day jury trial, beginning on May 6, 1988. 4 GM and the unions moved for directed verdicts, all of which were denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Blount group as against Local 25, but in favor of GM and the UAW as against the Blount group. Local 25 filed a motion for new trial, or in the alternative for judgment n.o.v., and the Blount group moved for a new trial against GM.
On September 23, 1988, GM moved to withdraw its previous partial summary judgment motion.
On May 14, 1990, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and order, denying: (1) GM's request to withdraw its partial summary judgment motion, ruling the motion was moot; (2) Local 25's motion for a new trial or j.n.o.v.; (3) the Blount group's request to impress an attorney's fee lien; (4) the Blount group's motion for a new trial against GM; and (5) the Blount group's claim for equitable relief. The district court left open the question of damages.
On May 23, 1990, the Blount group filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1988), which we denied.
On April 9, 1991, the district court conducted a hearing for four members of the Blount group on the issue of their damages. Then on December 31, 1991, the district court granted, sua sponte, Local 25's motion for judgment n.o.v. On January 2, 1992, the district court entered its final judgment, adopting the jury's verdict in favor of the UAW and GM as against the Blount group, and incorporating its sua sponte granting of judgment n.o.v. to Local 25.
The Blount group appeals here from the judgment for defendants on the merits and for equitable relief, asserting that the district court erred in granting judgment n.o.v. for Local 25, in denying post-trial motions for a new trial against GM and UAW and in refusing to impress a lien on VTEP sums paid to some members of the class. We turn to the issues raised on appeal. 5
The Blount group contends the district court erred in granting Local 25's motion for judgment n.o.v. The Blount group argues, in effect, that sufficient evidence was presented supporting the jury's determination that Local 25 violated its duty of fair representation. The Blount group suggests the district court granted the judgment n.o.v. order both sua sponte and belatedly because the district court, after hearing only four damages cases, realized the tremendous amount of work it faced in hearing the remaining seventy-plus damages cases. It asserts the jury properly found that Local 25 acted in bad faith or with dishonesty, hostility, discrimination or arbitrariness in failing to process the Blount group's grievance.
A motion for directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. will not be sustained where substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict. Gulbranson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry., 921 F.2d 139, 141 (8th Cir.1990); Brooks v. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc., 852 F.2d 1061, 1063 (8th Cir.1988). We review the district court's decision de novo, and in the light most favorable to the party against whom the challenge on appeal is made. Id. We will not overrule ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Crown Redi-Mix, Inc.
... ... Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehousemen, Local 90, Defendants ... No. 4:01-CV-40127 ... , Helpers and Warehousemen, Local 90 ("the Union"), Robert E. Jackson (Secretary-Treasurer and ... July 29, 2002, Crown moved to strike the workers' compensation arbitration decision letter and ... Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Intern., Inc., 250 F.3d 587, 595 (8th Cir.2001) ... Id.; Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America", Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 949 (8th Cir. 1999) ... \xC2" ... United States Postal Serv., 662 F.2d 292, 308 (5th ... 118 of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 859 F.2d 581, 584 (8th Cir.1988) ... Blount v. Local Union 25, 984 F.2d 244, 249 (8th ... ...
-
Conn v. GATX Terminals Corp.
... ... GATX TERMINALS CORPORATION and Local Union No. 7-507, Oil, ... Chemical and Atomic ... No. 93-2550 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Seventh Circuit ... 7-507, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Intern. Union ... Before POSNER, ... United Auto Workers, 993 F.2d 595, 598-99 (7th Cir.1993); ... ...