LOCAL UNION NO. 28, INT. BRO. OF EL. WKRS. v. Maryland Chapter

Decision Date24 April 1961
Docket NumberCiv. No. 12926.
PartiesLOCAL UNION NO. 28, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS v. MARYLAND CHAPTER, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

Patrick A. O'Doherty and William A. Hegarty, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

William D. Macmillan, James P. Garland, and Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Union seeks a declaratory judgment construing its collective bargaining agreement with defendant Association and declaring whether the agreement has been effectually terminated by the Union. Jurisdiction is claimed under sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. Reference is also made to the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202. The case is presently before the court on the Association's motion to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

After alleging that plaintiff Union is a "labor organization" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(5) and is the collective bargaining representative for employees engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(7), the complaint refers to the agreement1 between the parties, dated March 7, 1958, which provides:

"Article IEffective Date — Termination — Amendments — Disputes

"Sec. 1. This agreement shall take effect April 1, 1958, and shall remain in effect until April 1, 1959. It shall continue in effect from year to year thereafter, from April 1 through March 31st of each year, unless changed as hereinafter provided.

"Sec. 2. Either party desiring to change this agreement must notify the other in writing at least 60 days prior to April 1st of any year. When notice of changes only is given, the nature of the changes desired must be specified in the notice and until a satisfactory conclusion is reached in the matter of such changes the original provisions shall remain in full force and effect."

The complaint alleges that in 1959 and 1960 plaintiff Union sought only modifications of the contract and no effort was made to terminate the agreement. The complaint, which was filed on March 28, 1961, continues:

"9. While the Agreement itself provides the procedure for making `changes only' in Article I, section 2, no procedures are set forth in the Agreement as to the way in which the Agreement is terminated. The Plaintiff desires to terminate the Agreement as of the expiration of the current term, March 31, 1961.

"10. The Plaintiff in compliance with The Act, Section 8, subsection (d) served a written notice upon the Defendant of the Plaintiff's election to terminate on January 11, 1961, which constitutes a seasonable notice under The Act. * *

"11. In discussing the differences between the parties the Plaintiff has consistently maintained that it has a right to and will terminate the Agreement as of April 1, 1961. * * * The Defendant contends that the contract cannot be terminated other than by mutual consent of the parties; that the Plaintiff is contractually bound in perpetuity to the Defendant and must continue to observe and work under the contract after the expiration date by virtue of an automatic renewal. The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff must submit to conciliation or arbitration in accordance with Article I of Exhibit `A' which provisions apply to `changes only' and grievances or questions in dispute under an existing Agreement.

"12. The Defendant * * * has given the Plaintiff every indication that it intends to proceed to enforce its view of its rights should the Plaintiff fail to abide by the Agreement after its expiration and purported renewal.

"13. The Defendant, presuming that the Plaintiff is contractually bound in perpetuity has followed a consistent course of refusing to bargain in good faith and had predicated its negotiations upon the acceptance by the Plaintiff of a provision in the Agreement establishing and enforcing an `Industry Fund' * * * the stated purposes of which are inimical to the interest of the Plaintiff. * * *.

"14. The members of the Defendant association have numerous contracts affecting commerce * * * which require the services of the members of the Plaintiff union for their execution. The Plaintiff union has assets amounting to three quarters of a million dollars which may be subjected to a money judgment under Section 301 of the Act, should it assume the responsibility of acting upon its own view of its rights and subsequently have its view adjudged to be erroneous."

The complaint states that plaintiff Union seeks declaratory relief to obviate the possibility of serious and lasting damage to it or to the members of the Association if they rely on their conflicting views of the respective rights and obligations.

The relief prayed includes a declaration that the Union had the right to terminate the agreement as of April 1, 1961, that it has complied with the requirements of sec. 8 (d) of the Act, and that it "is not obliged to abide by the expired contract until such time as a new contract shall be entered into".

Defendant's motion to dismiss asserts (1) that this court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in the complaint, and (2) that "the complaint in essence requests the Court to determine a matter involving the existence or non-existence of an unfair labor practice, to wit, refusal to bargain; that such determination has been committed by Law to the sole jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board in accordance with the Laws of the United States".2

(1) Sec. 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, provides: "Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 30 Marzo 1962
    ...Local No. 598 v. Dillon, 9 Cir., 255 F.2d 820, 823; Reed v. Fawick Airflex Co., N.D. Ohio, 86 F.Supp. 822; Local Union 28, IBEW v. Maryland Chapter, D.Md., 194 F.Supp. 491, 494. See also Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 443, n. 2, 75 ......
  • Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 23 Enero 1963
    ... ... and as Representatives of the members of Local 28, I.B.E.W., in a Class Action, and Local Union ... course of contract negotiations with the Maryland Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors ... ...
  • Black-Clawson Co., Inc. v. International Ass'n of Mach.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 22 Diciembre 1962
    ...See Fried v. Glenn Elec. Heater Corp., 198 F.Supp. 248, 254-255 (D.N.J.1961); Local Union 28, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Maryland Chapter, Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc., 194 F.Supp. 491, 493 (D.Md.1961); Weyerhaeuser Co., Shipping Container Division v. International Brotherhood of......
  • El Paso Bldg. & Const. Tr. Coun. v. El Paso Chap. Assoc. Gen. Con.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 14 Junio 1967
    ...contract. 353 U.S. at 455-456, 77 S.Ct. at 917. (Emphasis added.) 6 See also International Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Maryland Chapter, National Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc., 194 F.Supp. 491, 493 (D.Md.1961); Portland Web Pressmen's Union v. Oregonian Pub. Co., 188 F.Supp. 859, 864 (D.Or.196......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT