Brandt v. United States Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1964
• Citation: 246 F. Supp. 982
• Parties: Albert E. BRANDT, Plaintiff (Petitioner), v. UNITED STATES LINES, INC. and National Maritime Union, Defendants (Respondents).
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

246 F. Supp. 982

Albert E. BRANDT, Plaintiff (Petitioner), v. UNITED STATES LINES, INC. and National Maritime Union, Defendants (Respondents).

United States District Court S. D. New York.

January 28, 1964.

Albert E. Brandt, pro se.

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, for defendant, U. S. Lines, James H. Herbert, E. J. Hale, New York City, of counsel.

Cooper, Ostrin, DeVarco & Ackerman, New York City, for defendant National Maritime Union, Herman E. Cooper, H. Howard Ostrin, New York City, of counsel.

FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge:

Defendants, United States Lines, Inc. (the Company) and the National Maritime Union (the Union) move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (Rule 12 (b) (6), F.R.C.P.), and for summary judgment (Rule 56, F.R.C.P.). The action is brought pro se by a former employee of the Company to compel the Union and the Company to arbitrate the propriety of his discharge by the Company.

The basic facts are as follows: In July of 1962, plaintiff applied for membership in the Union, was issued a working card, and obtained employment as a Kosher chef aboard the S.S. United States, a passenger ship owned and operated by the Company. After becoming involved in various difficulties with his superiors aboard ship, he was discharged on October 30, 1962. The reason assigned by the Company for the discharge was his failure properly to perform his duties as a Kosher chef. Claiming that his superiors were out to get him because he was Jewish and because he had reported a case of pilfering from the ship's stores, and that any failure on his part to discharge his duties properly was the result of inadequate equipment in the Kosher galley, plaintiff complained about his discharge to a union representative. The union representative investigated the facts surrounding the discharge and, although not convinced of the merit of plaintiff's grievance, requested his reinstatement. When reinstatement was refused, plaintiff presented his grievance to officials of the Union who, on two occasions, met with him and discussed his claims. Concluding that his claims were without merit, the Union officials declined to request the Company to arbitrate. Plaintiff then filed charges of unfair labor practices against the Company and the Union with the National Labor Relations Board, and charges of discrimination against the Company with the New York State Commission for Human Rights. The former charges were subsequently withdrawn and the latter charges were found to be without merit and dismissed after investigation by the Commission. Among other things, the report of the investigating Commissioner stated that plaintiff had made previous charges against a Jewish employer claiming to be of the Protestant faith. These had not been sustained either. After the withdrawal of his charges before the Board and the dismissal of his charges by the Commission plaintiff commenced the present action against the Company and the Union to compel them to arbitrate the propriety of his discharge.

At the time of his dismissal plaintiff was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Union. The agreement provided for a five-step grievance procedure culminating in arbitration of those disputes which could not be settled between the Company and the Union.

The law is well settled in this circuit that where a collective bargaining agreement provides for arbitration by an employer and a union of disputes over employee grievances, an individual employee must look to his union initially for the vindication of his...