Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1979
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. TY-79-369-CA.
• Citation: 486 F. Supp. 320
• Parties: JOSEPH SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY CONTAINER DIVISION (Longview Texas Container Plant) v. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 745 et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

486 F. Supp. 320

JOSEPH SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY CONTAINER DIVISION (Longview Texas Container Plant) v. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION 745 et al.

Civ. A. No. TY-79-369-CA.

United States District Court, E. D. Texas, Tyler Division.

November 14, 1979.

Erich F. Klein, Jr., Lyne & Klein, Dallas, Tex., Anthony J. Crement, Jeffrey L. Madoff, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

James L. Hicks, Jr., James C. Wilson, Hicks, Gillespie & James, Dallas, Tex., for defendants.

JUSTICE, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, Container Division (hereinafter referred to as "Schlitz"), seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting employees at its can plant in Longview, Texas, from engaging in concerted slowdown or sabotage. Schlitz bases its claim for an injunction on section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, in which Congress provided for enforcement of collective bargaining agreements. Schlitz contends that the employees of its Longview can plant have violated a no-strike provision in the collective bargaining agreement which presently binds the parties to this civil action, and that the union representing those employees has participated in, authorized, or ratified this violation. Because the alleged acts of slowdown and sabotage are said to arise out of a dispute arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, Schlitz argues that it is entitled to a labor injunction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act notwithstanding. See Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970); United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, 598 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1979); Jacksonville Maritime Ass'n v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, 571 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1978); United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, 519 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1975).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Schlitz is a Wisconsin corporation doing business in Longview, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas.

2. Schlitz maintains a multi-million dollar manufacturing and office facility at 1001 Fisher Road, Longview, Texas, where it is engaged in the production of two-piece aluminum beverage cans for twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

3. Defendant General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union 745, affiliated with the Southern Conference of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter referred to as "the union"), is an unincorporated association, commonly referred to as a labor union, which maintains its principal place of business at 1007 Jonelle, Dallas, Texas.

4. The union is, and at all times material to this civil action has been, the collective bargaining representative for production and maintenance employees at Schlitz's Longview container plant.

5. Defendant Raymond Monk is Assistant Business Representative of the union.

6. Defendant Edward Jackson is a Schlitz Longview container plant employee, who serves as chief union steward at Schlitz's Longview container plant.

7. The defendants designated as the "John Doe defendants" in plaintiff's complaint are representatives of a class of production and maintenance employees of Schlitz, who are represented by the union at Schlitz's Longview can plant.

8. Schlitz employs approximately 300 persons at the Longview container plant. Approximately 270 of the employees are represented by the union as their sole and exclusive bargaining agent.

9. On October 31, 1978, Schlitz entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the union covering employees at the Longview container plant. This agreement is valid and remains in full force and effect until October 31, 1981.

10. Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement, referred to above, provides for a mandatory grievance and arbitration procedure, which establishes final and binding arbitration of all grievances arising under the agreement.

11. Article 5, section 1 of the collective bargaining agreement provides as follows:

A grievance within the meaning of this procedure shall be defined as any difference between the Company and the employee covered by this Agreement or between the company and the Union as to the following:

(a) Any matter relating to wages, hours of work or working conditions covered by this Agreement; or

(b) Any matter involving the meaning, interpretation, application or alleged violation of this Agreement by the Company.

The Company and the Union must resort to the use of the grievance procedure established herein; provided, however, that this shall not be construed as requiring the originator to process a grievance which he considers as having insufficient or no merit.

12. Article 21 of the collective bargaining agreement provides as follows:

There are to be no strikes, work stoppages, concerted interference with normal operations, or lockouts during the term of this agreement.

13. Article 4, section 5, of the collective bargaining agreement sets forth the responsibility of management and the union in the event of unauthorized strike activity as follows:

The Stewards and Alternates have no authority to take strike action or any other action interrupting the Company's business, except as authorized by official action of the Union.

The Company recognizes these limitations upon the authority of the Stewards and their Alternates, and shall not hold the Union liable for any unauthorized acts, provided that in the event of an unauthorized action, the Union, through its Business Agent, shall notify the Steward, Alternates and members that the action is unauthorized and that such action should be terminated immediately. The Union's Business Agent, upon request, shall notify the Company whether or not the action is the authorized action of the Union. The Company in so recognizing such limitations shall have the authority to impose proper discipline, including discharge, in the event the Steward has taken unauthorized strike action, slowdown, or work stoppage in violation of this Agreement.

14. Roger Cunningham, a Longview plant employee and union steward, was moved by the management of the container plant from production lines 3 and 4 to production lines 1 and 2 on or about May 27, 1979.

(a) Cunningham was dissatisfied with this move, and management could not persuade him to be content with the move.

(b) Monk, as Assistant Business representative of the union, requested management at the container plant to move Cunningham back to lines 3 and 4. He testified that he believed that management acceded to his request.

(c) Management personnel testified, in effect, that they promised only to attempt to move Cunningham if such a move could feasibly be orchestrated with production requirements.

(d) Management thereafter decided that it was not possible to move Cunningham and, therefore, denied Monk's request.

(e) Monk became upset and irritated by the decision, because he felt that management had reneged on a promise.

15. During the period June 11, 1979, through August 1, 1979, Monk and Jackson stated, essentially, that (1) the people are cocked and ready, (2) the people would eat management's lunch, (3) the people could not be held back any more, (4) there would be big trouble, (5) management had lied about the Cunningham move, and (6) Cunningham had better be moved as promised.

16. Cunningham credibly testified that he is now reconciled to the move and will await his opportunity under the collective bargaining agreement to bid for another job assignment.

17. Roger Cunningham did not work in the Longview can plant from August 9, 1979, until October 18, 1979.

18. All parties to this civil action concede that management has an unfettered right under the contract to assign jobs to employees, so long as assignments are not used for disciplinary purposes. The union has not filed a grievance relating to the Cunningham transfer.

19. On August 5, 1979, a sewer line break required Schlitz to shut down the Longview container plant.

(a) Schlitz management does not presently believe that the sewer line break was the result of sabotage.

(b) Schlitz accused the union of sabotage shortly after the sewer break.

20. From August 6, 1979, through August 9, 1979, Schlitz was unable to resume normal can production at the Longview can plant.

(a) Production increased slowly after start-up because of the inexperience of personnel at job assignments and because of mechanical failure.

(b) In response to the slow start-up, plant manager Hand delivered a speech to employees in which he stated that he was totally unimpressed with the employees' work efforts.

(b) This, together with Hand's abolition of certain work amenities, caused unrest and discontent among a small number of unidentified employees, who thereafter engaged in acts of slowdown and sabotage.

21. On August 9, 1979, the management at the Longview container plant became dissatisfied with the low level of production and decided to send all of its employees home, thereby completely shutting down can production at the container plant.

22. Schlitz management decided not to produce cans at the Longview container plant, and it remained shut down from August 9, 1979, until August 23, 1979.

23. On August 23, 1979, Schlitz recalled one crew of employees to operate one can line.

(a) The can plant produced a low level output, primarily because of mechanical failure.

(b) Schlitz introduced evidence to show that electronic technician Lewis had conducted himself improperly on August 24, 1979, and that electronic technician Wireman had conducted himself improperly on August 23, 1979. Schlitz failed to show by the preponderance of the evidence, however, that either of these employees behaved improperly on the dates in question.

24. On August 25, 1979, the management of the Longview container plant again became dissatisfied with the low level of production and decided to send all of its employees...