Local Div. 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 11 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. 39674,39674
• Citation: 251 Ga. 15,303 S.E.2d 1
• Parties: , 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3628 LOCAL DIVISION 732, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION et al. v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 1

303 S.E.2d 1

251 Ga. 15, 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3628

LOCAL DIVISION 732, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION et al. v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

No. 39674.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 11, 1983.

Adair & Goldthwaite, Donald R. Livingston, Linda R. Hirshman, Jacobs, Burns, Sugarman & Orlove, Chicago, Ill., Harris Jacobs, Robert S. Clayman, Jacobs & Langford, P.A., Atlanta, for Local Div. 732, Amalgamated Transit Union, et al.

W. Stell Huie, Lawrence L. Thompson, C. Wilson Dubose, Terrence Lee Croft, Kutak, Rock & Huie, Atlanta, John Caraway, New Orleans, La., for Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

MARSHALL, Presiding Justice.

This is a dispute between the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union (the Union). The question for decision concerns MARTA's revocation of its consent to arbitrate a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. The superior court ruled that, under Georgia law, MARTA had a right to revoke its consent to arbitrate prior to the arbitration award and that MARTA did so revoke its consent here. For reasons which follow, we affirm.

"The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (UMTA) enables state and local agencies to obtain federal assistance to finance mass transportation services in urban areas. 49 U.S.C. § 1602 (1976). Section 13(c) of the Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1609(c) (1976), establishes as a 'condition of any assistance ... that fair and equitable arrangements are made, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, to protect the interests of employees affected by such assistance.' The section further requires that the labor protective arrangements include such provisions as may be necessary to certain enumerated objectives. Finally, § 13(c) directs that the 'terms and conditions of the protective arrangements' shall be specified in the grant contract between the local authority and the federal government. In practice, the protective arrangements made pursuant to § 13(c) are written agreements (13(c) agreements) negotiated between the applicant for federal assistance and the bargaining representative of its employees and then approved by the Secretary of Labor.

"MARTA, a public body corporate providing transit service in Atlanta, Georgia, has received UMTA grants for the acquisition, improvement, and operation of its bus and rail transit system. As a grant applicant, MARTA has entered into 13(c) agreements with the Union, which is the collective bargaining representative for a unit of MARTA's employees. The most recent such agreement was executed on February 14, 1977, and, like its predecessors, was determined by the Secretary of Labor to be a fair and equitable protective arrangement." (Footnote omitted.) Local Div. 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. MARTA, 667 F.2d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir.1982).

The 1977 collective-bargaining agreement between MARTA and the Union (referred to as the § 13(c) agreement) became effective on June 28, 1978, through June 27, 1981. This agreement was to continue from year to year after June 27, 1981, unless either party notified the other party not less than sixty (60) days prior to expiration of the agreement, or each extension thereof, of the decision to terminate the agreement, or to negotiate changes, modifications, or additions thereto. MARTA notified the Union on April 23, 1981, that it desired to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement. Negotiations between MARTA and the Union failed to produce a new agreement, and on June 25, 1981, the Union demanded arbitration of the terms and conditions of the new labor agreement pursuant to Paragraph 20 of the 1977 [§ 13(c) ] agreement.

Paragraph 20 provides, in pertinent part: "In case of any labor dispute or controversy regarding the application, interpretation, or enforcement of any of the provisions of this Agreement which cannot be settled by collective bargaining within sixty (60) days after the dispute or controversy first arises, such dispute or controversy may be submitted at the written request of either party hereto to a board of arbitration as hereinafter provided. Upon such written request for arbitration, each party shall, within ten (10) days after such request, select one member of the arbitration board, and the members thus chosen shall select a neutral member who shall serve as chairman ... the decision by majority vote of the arbitration board shall be final, binding and conclusive ..." ¹

[251 Ga. 18] Paragraph 20 goes on to state that "the term 'labor dispute' for the purposes of this paragraph, shall be broadly construed and shall include but not be limited to, any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions, or benefits, including health and welfare, sick leave, insurance, or pension or retirement provisions, any differences or questions that may arise between the parties, including the making or maintaining of collective-bargaining agreements, the terms to be included in such agreements, or any grievances that may arise, and any controversy arising out of or by virtue of any of the provisions of this agreement for the protection of employees affected by the Provision (1977 § 13(c) Agreement)."

Pursuant to Paragraph 20, three arbitrators were appointed. Arbitration hearings were held in October and November of 1981. The neutral arbitrator proposed an award, but neither of the other arbitrators was agreeable to it. On January 29, 1982, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 667 F.2d 1327, supra, holding that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a suit alleging breach of a § 13(c) agreement between a local transit authority which is an UMTA grant recipient and a union representing its employees.

On February 22, some of the MARTA board of directors had a meeting with various of MARTA's attorneys to discuss the impact of Local Division 732, supra, on MARTA's and the Union's pending arbitration proceedings. Fairly viewed, the record shows that a vote was taken at this meeting for MARTA to withdraw from arbitration with the Union. The public was not given notice of this meeting, although later that day there was a regularly scheduled meeting of the MARTA board, of which the public was given notice.

On February 22, MARTA's General Manager, Alan Kieper, notified the Union president in writing that MARTA was revoking its consent to arbitration. However, on February 23, MARTA and the Union received another proposed arbitration award from the neutral arbitrator, and the Union has sought to approve this award.

On February 23, MARTA filed this complaint against the Union, the arbitrator appointed by the Union, and the neutral arbitrator. In this complaint, MARTA requests declaratory judgment that MARTA is not obligated to engage in arbitration with the Union concerning the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement to replace the agreement between MARTA and the Union which expired on June 27, 1981. MARTA argues that it has withdrawn its consent to arbitrate, and MARTA also requests that the Union and non-MARTA arbitrators be enjoined from continuing with arbitration proceedings.

After entering various temporary restraining orders, the superior court entered a final judgment, concluding that under Local Division 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. MARTA, supra, Georgia law is controlling here. The superior court further concluded that under Georgia law, MARTA could and did revoke its consent to arbitration. Accordingly, final judgment was entered in MARTA's favor. The Union appeals.

1. The first question for consideration is whether the superior court was correct in ruling that state law applies in determining the revocability of MARTA's and the Union's arbitration agreement.

Local Division 732, supra, and the subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jackson Transit Authority v. Local Div. 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, 457 U.S. 15, 102 S.Ct. 2202, 72 L.Ed.2d 639 (1982) clearly hold that § 13(c) agreements between a local transit authority which is an UMTA grant recipient and a Union representing its employees are governed by state law to be applied in state courts. Cf., Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580 (1965) and cits.

In the course of rendering the decision in Jackson Transit Authority, supra, the Court noted that labor relations between local governments and their employees are the subject of a long-standing exemption under the National Labor Relations Act, so that relations between local governmental entities and unions representing their employees are governed by state law. 102 S.Ct. at p. 2207. Citing from the Senate Hearings on UMTA, the Court noted that assurances had been made that if local law prohibited governmental employees from striking, this ban would not be superseded by UMTA. By a parity of reasoning, Jackson dictates that the enforceability and/or revocability of arbitration agreements between local transit authorities and their unions are governed by state law, notwithstanding the fact that the transit authority is an UMTA grant recipient.

2. In Georgia, there are two types of arbitration, common law and statutory. See 2 EGL 168, Arbitration and Award, § 4 et seq. (1976 Rev.). The arbitration proceedings which took place in the present case are of the common-law variety.

The Union argues that the touchstone for determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is revocable is whether the issue being arbitrated is justiciable. Thus, the Union argues that the arbitration proceedings between it and MARTA were not revocable since the issue being arbitrated, i.e., the terms and conditions of a new collective-bargaining agreement, was not justiciable. We agree that the issue being arbitrated between MARTA and the Union was not justiciable, but we disagree that the arbitration...