Humphrey v. Moore General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No 89 v. Moore

• Decision Date: 06 January 1964
• Docket Number: 18,Nos. 17,s. 17
• Parties: Walter HUMPHREY, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. C. W. MOORE, etc., et al. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO 89, Petitioner, v. C. W. MOORE et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

375 U.S. 335

84 S.Ct. 363

11 L.Ed.2d 370

Walter HUMPHREY, etc., et al., Petitioners,

v C. W. MOORE, etc., et al.

GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION

NO 89, Petitioner,

v. C. W. MOORE et al.

Nos. 17, 18.

Argued Oct. 16, 1963.

Decided Jan. 6, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1964.

See 376 U.S. 935, 84 S.Ct. 697.

David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., and Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

John Y. Brown, Louisville, Ky., and Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., for respondents.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue here is whether the Kentucky Court of Appeals properly enjoined implementation of the decision of a joint employer-employee committee purporting to settle certain grievances in accordance with the terms of a collective bargaining contract. The decision of the committee determined the relative seniority rights of the employees of two companies, Dealers Transport Company of Memphis, Tennessee, and E & L Transport Company of Detroit, Michigan. We are of the opinion that the Kentucky court erred and we reverse its judgment.

Part of the business of each of these companies was the transportation of new automobiles from the assembly plant of the Ford Motor Company in Louisville, Kentucky. In the face of declining business resulting from several factors, the two companies were informed by Ford that there was room for only one of them in the Louisville operation. After considering the matter for some time, the two companies made these arrangements: E & L would sell to Dealers its 'secondary' authority out of Louisville, the purchase price to be a nominal sum roughly equal to the cost of effecting the transfer of authority; E & L would also sell to Dealers its authority to serve certain points in Mississippi and Louisiana; and Dealers would sell to E & L its initial authority out of Lorain, Ohio, along with certain equipment and terminal facilities. The purpose of these arrangements was to concentrate the transportation activities of E & L in the more northerly area and those of Dealers in the southern zone. The transfers were subject to the approval of regulatory agencies.

The employees of both Dealers and E & L were represented by the same union, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 89. Its president, Paul Priddy, as the result of inquiry from E & L by his assistant, understood that the transaction between the companies involved no trades, sales, or exchanges of properties but only a withdrawal by E & L at the direction of the Ford Motor Company. He consequently advised the E & L employees that their situation was precarious. When layoffs at E & L began three E & L employees filed grievances claiming that the seniority lists of Dealers and E & L should be 'sandwiched' and the E & L employees be taken n at Dealers with the seniority they had enjoyed at E & L. The grievances were placed before the local joint committee, Priddy or his assistant meanwhile advising Dealers employees that they had 'nothing to worry about' since E & L employees had no contract right to transfer under these circumstances.

The collective bargaining contract involved covered a multi-employer, multi-local union unit negotiated on behalf of the employers by Automobile Transporters Labor Division and on behalf of the unions by National Truckaway and Driveaway Conference. Almost identical contracts were executed by each company in the unit and by the appropriate local union. According to Art. 4, § 1 of the contract 'seniority rights for employees shall prevail' and 'any controversy over the employees' standing on such lists shall be submitted to the joint grievance procedure. * * *' Section 5 of the same article, of central significance here, was as follows:

'In the event that the Employer absorbs the business of another private, contract or common carrier, or is a party to a merger of lines, the seniority of the employees absorbed or affected thereby shall be determined by mutual agreement between the Employer and the Unions involved. Any controversy with respect to such matter shall be submitted to the joint grievance procedure.'

Article 7 called for grievances to be first taken up between the employer and the local union and, if not settled, to be submitted to the local joint committee where the union and the employer were to have equal votes. Failing settlement by majority vote of the members of the local committee, the matter could be taken to the Automobile Transporters Joint Conference Committee upon which the employers and the unions in the overall bargaining unit had an equal number of representatives. Decisions of the Joint Conference Committee were to be 'final and conclusive and binding upon the employer and the union, and the employees involved.' However, if the Joint Conference Committee was unable to reach a decision the matter was to be submitted to arbitration as provided in the contract.

Article 7 also provided that:

(d) 'It is agreed that all matters pertaining to the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, whether requested by the Employer or the Union, must be submitted to the full Committee of the Automobile Transporters Joint Conference Committee, which Committee, after listening to testimony on both sides, shall make a decision.'

Other provisions of the contract stated that it was 'the intention of the parties to resolve all questions of interpretation by mutual agreement' and that the employer agreed 'to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, and also agrees to be bound by the interpretations and enforcement of the Agreement.'

The grievances of the E & L employees were submitted directly to the local joint committee and endorsed 'Deadlocked to Detroit for interpretation' over the signatures of the local union president and the Dealers representative on the committee. Later, however, the local union, having been more fully advised as to the nature of the transaction between the two companies, decided to recommend to the Joint Conference Committee that the seniority lists of the two companies be dovetailed and the E & L employees be employed at Dealers with seniority rights based upon those which they had enjoyed at E & L. The three shop stewards who represented the Dealers employees before the Joint Conference Committee meeting in Detroit were so advised by the union immediately prior to the opening of the hearing. After hearing from the company, the union and the stewards representing Dealers employees, the Joint Conference Committee thereupon determined that 'in accordance with Article 4 and particularly sub-sections 4 and 5' of the agreement the employees of E & L and of Dealers should 'be sandwiched in on master seniority boards using the presently constituted seniority lists and the dates contained therein * * *.'

Since E L was an older company and most of its employees had more seniority than the Dealers employees, the decision entailed the layoff of a large number of Dealers employees to provide openings for the E & L drivers.

Respondent Moore, on behalf of himself and other Dealers employees, then brought this class action in a Kentucky state court praying for an injunction against the union and the company to prevent the decision of the Joint Conference Committee from being carried out. Damages were asked in an alternative count and certain E & L employees were added as defendants by amendment to the complaint.¹ The complaint alleged that Dealers employees had relied upon the union to represent them, that the president of Local 89, Paul Priddy, assured Dealers employees that they had nothing to worry about and that precedent in the industry provided that when a new business is taken over, its employees do not displace the original employees of the acquiring company; it further alleged that Priddy had deliberately 'deadlocked' the local joint committee and that the Dealers employees learned for the first time before the Joint Conference Committee in Detroit, that Priddy favored dovetailing the seniority lists. Priddy's actions, the complaint went on, 'in deceiving these plaintiffs as to his position left them without representation before the Joint Conference Committee.' The decision, according to the complaint, was 'contrived, planned and brought about by Paul Priddy' who 'has deceived and failed completely to represent said employees' and whose 'false and deceitful action' and 'connivance * * * with the employees of E & L' threatened the jobs of Dealers employees. The International union is said to have 'conspired with and assisted the defendant, Local No. 89, and its president, Paul Priddy, in bringing about this result * * *.' The decision of the Joint Conference Committee was charged to be arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the existing practice in the industry and violative of the collective bargaining contract.

After hearing, the trial court denied a temporary and permanent injunction. ² The Court of Appeals of the Commonwealth of Kentucky reversed and granted a permanent injunction, two judges dissenting. 356 S.W.2d 241. In the view of that court, Art. 4, § 5 could have no application to the circumstances of this case since it came into play only if the absorbing company agreed to hire the employees of the absorbed company. The clause was said to deal with seniority, not with initial employment. Therefore, it was said, the decision of the Joint Conference Committee was not binding because the question of employing E & L drivers was not 'arbitrable' at all under this section. The Court of Appeals, however, went on to hold that even if it were otherwise, the decision could not stand since the situation involved antagonistic interests of two sets of employees represented by the same union advocate. The result was inadequate representation of the Dealers employees in a context where Dealers itself was essentially neutral. Against such a backdrop, the erroneous decision...