International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 84-3919

• Decision Date: 18 November 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-3919,84-3919
• Citation: 776 F.2d 1341
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
• Parties: 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3485, 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,702 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 158, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO LAKEFRONT DOCK & PELLET COMPANY; Toledo Lakefront Dock Co., Station A; Toledo Docks and Chessie System Railroads, Defendants-Appellees.

Page 1341

776 F.2d 1341

120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3485, 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,702

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 158, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO LAKEFRONT DOCK & PELLET COMPANY; Toledo Lakefront

Dock Co., Station A; Toledo Docks and Chessie

System Railroads, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84-3919.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 9, 1985.

Decided Nov. 18, 1985.

C. Thomas McCarter, Newcomer & McCarter, Toledo, N. Stevens Newcomer (argued), Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

John B. Lewis (argued), Arter & Hadden, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.

Before MARTIN and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The International Longshoremen's Association, Local Union 158, filed an action against Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Company and others claiming violations of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151, et seq., the Landrum-Griffith Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, and the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. Secs. 101, et seq. The union argues that two letters which it sent Toledo Lakefront satisfy the Railway Labor Act's section 6 requirement of notice to request a bargaining conference. The company has refused to bargain, claiming that the notices were insufficient under section 6 and that the topic of suggested negotiation was barred by a moratorium provision in a 1979 collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Plaintiff appeals the district court's denial of its motion for injunctive relief and the grant of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In 1979, the parties signed what has become known as the Miami Agreement. Under the agreement, Toledo Lakefront could implement certain technological and operational changes in exchange for job protection benefits for the union's members. Section 10(c) of the Miami Agreement states that, if necessitated by some of these changes, "the Company will have the prerogative of realigning the manning tables prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement." Section 11 contains a commitment by the union to cooperate in implementing the technological and operational changes. A key provision of the agreement states that "no party to this Article shall serve any notice or proposal for the purpose of changing the subject matter of the provisions of the Appendix I [the Job Protection Agreement] prior to June 14, 1987...." Finally, the agreement provides that "with respect to the interpretation or application" of the agreement, former Secretary of Labor William J. Usery would resolve any disputes as "Master of this Agreement."

As the technological and operational changes occurred, changes in manning were needed. In 1982, the parties signed what has become known as the Washington Agreement. The agreement memorializes the number of workers needed to run the dock, the positions to be filled by union members, and the wages to be paid. Its introduction states the agreement was "in recognition of the Organization's (I.L.A. # 158) obligation to modify the existing working Agreement to implement technological and operational changes as contemplated in Section 10, Paragraph (a) of the Job Protection provision" of the Miami Agreement. The Washington Agreement also stated: "This Agreement shall modify all existing agreements to the extent provided. Any change or modification shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended."

On April 28, 1983, the union sent Toledo Lakefront a letter stating in pertinent part that "pursuant to Title 45, U.S.C.A., Section 156, you are hereby notified that a conference is desired and we offer to meet for the purpose of negotiating certain modifications in the Washington Agreement (manning)...." The company refused to negotiate, claiming that any negotiations on manning were barred by the Miami Agreement's moratorium provision. An October 1, 1983, letter from the union to Toledo Lakefront stated that "pursuant to Title 45 U.S.C.A., Section 165, [sic] you are hereby notified that a conference is desired and we offer to meet for the purpose of negotiating certain modifications in the agreement...." The company continued to refuse to negotiate, now claiming the October 1 letter did not satisfy the Railway Labor Act's section 6 notice requirement. On October 6, the company in a letter to the union specifically stated that the October 1 letter did not satisfy the section 6 requirement because it did not "specify the intended change in the agreement." Section 6 requires parties to give "at least thirty days' written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions...." 45 U.S.C. Sec. 156.

The union filed suit seeking a declaration that the October 1 letter was sufficient notice and an injunction ordering the company to negotiate. The district court held that the dispute involving manning requirements related to the interpretation of the Miami and Washington Agreements and was therefore a "minor" dispute over which the court had no jurisdiction. In a supplemental judgment, the court found the October 1 letter was insufficient notice because it did not specifically state the issues sought to...