MINNEAPOLIS, NORTHFIELD, ETC. v. United Transp. Union, Civ. No. 4-79-648.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-79-648. |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS, NORTHFIELD AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, United Transportation Union Local 650, John A. Brandt, Willard L. Swenson, Ralph R. Hancock and Wendell N. Skare, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Steven R. Anderson, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Patrick J. Foley, DeParcq, Anderson, Perl, Hunegs & Rudquist, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants United Transp. Union & United Transp. Union Local 650.
Mary L. Egan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant John A. Brandt.
No appearances by or on behalf of defendants Willard L. Swenson, Ralph R. Hancock or Wendell N. Skare.
This is a declaratory judgment action brought by Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway (hereinafter the Railway) to determine and declare the relative seniority rights of defendants Brandt, Swenson, Hancock, and Skare, four of its engineer employees, under a collective bargaining agreement between the Railway and defendants United Transportation Union and United Transportation Union Local 650 (hereinafter the Unions) and under the Viet Nam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U.S.C. § 2021, et seq. (hereinafter Veterans' Act). In a related prior action, defendant John A. Brandt has sued the Railway under the Veterans' Act seeking to restore lost seniority status and lost benefits (Civil No. 4-79-536). Jurisdiction here is alleged under the Veterans' Act and under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (hereinafter Railway Act). In this action, the Railway seeks to require its four employees and the Unions to interplead any claims they may have against the Railway under the Veterans' Act and the collective bargaining agreement and to settle among themselves the respective seniority rights of the employees. The Unions have moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendant Brandt has moved for judgment on the pleadings on the same jurisdictional ground pursuant to Rule 12(c).1
On these motions the court must take all well pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and resolve any doubts on jurisdictional points in plaintiff's favor. Satz v. ITT Financial Corporation, 619 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1980); Quality Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 542 F.2d 466 (8th Cir. 1976); Miller v. Central Chinchilla Group Inc., 494 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1974).
The Railway alleges that the four employees are members of the Unions, that Brandt is an officer of Local 650, and that it and the Unions are parties to a collective bargaining agreement which defines the terms and conditions of employment, including seniority rights of the engineers, whose interests under the agreement are represented by the Unions. It further alleges that if Brandt receives the requested relief in his action against the Railway, Swenson, Hancock, and Skare may be disadvantaged because he would move ahead of them on the seniority list, that these three employees have alleged on several occasions that representatives of the Unions have failed in their duty of fair representation in connection with the opposition of Swenson, Hancock, and Skare to Brandt's efforts to have his seniority adjusted, and specifically that this allegation was made in a letter of April 19, 1978, addressed to the president of defendant United Transportation Union. The three employees have allegedly indicated on several occasions that they may attempt to hold the Railway responsible for any effects on them of an adjustment of Brandt's seniority, and specifically this concern was voiced in a letter of April 19, 1978, to the Railway's vice-president and general manager. The Railway alleges that if it were to adjust Brandt's seniority in compliance with a lawful order of this court in the related action, it would not breach any legal obligations that it may have relative to the Unions' duty of fair representation, but that the rights and responsibilities of the various parties under the agreement and under the Veterans' Act may be inconsistent.
The Railway seeks to have the court declare that any action taken by it in compliance with a lawful order of this court in Brandt's action would not violate the Railway Act and would not result in an actionable violation of the collective bargaining agreement or subject it to liability of any kind to any of the defendants herein and to require the defendants to interplead in this action all related claims under the agreement and the Veterans' Act.
The Unions and Brandt argue that the court is without subject matter jurisdiction because an employer may not bring an action under the Veterans' Act and this court does not have authority to determine seniority rights under a collective bargaining agreement other than the express power given it under the Veterans' Act.
The Veterans' Act provides that persons leaving permanent jobs because of induction into the military service have a right to reemployment, and it protects their job-related benefits, including seniority status. 38 U.S.C. § 2021. The statute creates enforcement procedures by which a federal district court has the power to require an employer to comply with the Act "upon the filing of a motion, petition, or other appropriate pleading by the person entitled to the benefits" of the Act. 38 U.S.C. § 2022. "The court shall order speedy hearing in any such case and shall advance it on the calendar." Id. The same statutory section also provides that the United States Attorney shall represent such Id.
A number of other courts have had occasion to rule on the issues of who may bring an action under the Act and whether parties other than the veteran and the employer may be joined in such an action. In a case brought under a predecessor statute the employer-plaintiff's action was dismissed because the court concluded that the cause of action belongs to the veteran, and jurisdiction can only be invoked by him. Trailmobile Co. v. International Union, 67 F.Supp. 53 (S.D.Ohio 1946). Employer-respondents in actions commenced by veterans have been unsuccessful in attempts to join, as defendants, unions and other employees whose status might be affected, on the basis that the Act provides that only the employer is a necessary party respondent, and the absence of other parties cannot preclude a veteran from litigating his seniority status. Muir v. United States Steel Corp., 41 F.R.D. 428 (E.D.Pa.1967); Evancho v. United States Steel Corp., 32 F.R.D. 227 (E.D.Pa.1962). An employer-respondent was denied permission to interplead the union in a case where the union refused to change a rule affecting the veteran's seniority status; complicating the action would defeat the Act's mandate for a speedy adjudication of the veteran's rights. Cohn v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 78 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 11,305 (D.Neb.1975).
The language of the statute itself is clear, and this court concludes that an employer does not have a cause of action under the Veterans' Act and may not invoke federal jurisdiction under the Act. Whether or not Brandt is entitled to adjustment of the seniority list in his favor is properly before this court in the action he has commenced.
The Railway alleges jurisdiction here on the basis that defendants Swenson, Hancock, and Skare have claimed that the Unions have breached their duty of fair representation in connection with defendant Brandt's efforts to adjust his seniority status. Under the Railway Act seniority disputes and interpretation of contract clauses are matters to be brought before an adjustment board. E. g., United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 470 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1972). However, the Railway Act imposes a duty of fair representation upon a representative union, and courts have jurisdiction to provide relief when that duty is breached. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944). While this court has no jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, it does have jurisdiction to hear fair representation claims brought by a group of employees against their union and their employer railroad for discriminatory performance under such an agreement. Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States
... ... United States has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings and ... ...
-
Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor
...by their military service, and that the Act is to be liberally construed to their benefit. Minneapolis Northfield etc. v. United Transp. Union, 490 F.Supp. 335, 339 (D.Minn.1980); see also Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp., 447 U.S. 191, 196, 100 S.Ct. 2100, 2104, 65 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980) (Acts aim......
-
Stewart v. United States Steel Corp., Cause No. H 78-255.
...Rights Act, "only the employer shall be deemed a necessary party respondent." See: Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway v. United Transportation Union et al, 490 F.Supp. 335, 338 (D.Minn.1980). There the court stated: Employer-respondents in actions commenced by veterans have been u......