Morello v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-1956C (A).,83-1956C (A).
• Citation: 575 F. Supp. 87
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: Joseph E. MORELLO, Bobby Spivey, J.P. Morgan, Sam Wilson, Richard Woodward and Ray Bullard, and Marine Officers Association, Teamster Local No. 54, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BARGE LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and the Valley Lines Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

575 F. Supp. 87

Joseph E. MORELLO, Bobby Spivey, J.P. Morgan, Sam Wilson, Richard Woodward and Ray Bullard, and Marine Officers Association, Teamster Local No. 54, Affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL BARGE LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and the Valley Lines Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

No. 83-1956C (A).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

October 21, 1983.

Jerome J. Duff, Edward Sweeney, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Thomas O. McCarthy, St. Louis, Mo., for Valley Lines.

Neil N. Bernstein, Ned O. Lemkemeier, St. Louis, Mo., for Federal Barge Lines.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HARPER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief to maintain the status quo of certain labor agreements, including an order compelling defendants to arbitrate a contractual dispute. Both defendants to this action have filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs, Joseph E. Morello and Bobby Spivey, are regular employees of defendant, Valley Barge Lines, and are duly elected executive officers of the Marine Officers Association. Plaintiffs, Ray Bullard and Richard Woodward, are regular employees of defendant, Valley Barge Lines, and members of the Marine Officers Association. Plaintiffs, J.P. Morgan and Sam Wilson, are regular employees of the defendant, Federal Barge Lines, and members of the Marine Officers Association. Plaintiff, Marine Officers Association Local No. 54, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter referred to as MOA), is a labor organization headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

Defendant, Federal Barge Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Federal), is a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

Defendant, Valley Line Company (hereinafter referred to as Valley), is a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

Jurisdiction for this action is found in Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), relating to suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.

This case was tried to the Court, and the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits and testimony of the parties constitute the following findings of fact:

MOA has represented supervisory marine officers employed by the two defendant barge lines for approximately twenty years. The labor agreements of both companies with MOA were set to expire on August 15, 1983, but provided that the agreements would stay in effect from year to year unless written notice of desire to cancel or terminate the agreement was served by either party upon the other at least sixty days prior to the date of expiration. Both Valley and Federal chose to terminate their respective agreements with MOA and mailed timely notice to that effect. MOA had served notice to the barge lines to open the agreements for negotiations, but both defendants disregarded that notice.

MOA then filed a UC-Unit Clarification petition with the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as NLRB) seeking to secure a determination by the Board that the Union's members were nonsupervisory employees of Valley. A nonsupervisory status for the employees as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) is necessary if MOA is to be able to file a 29 U.S.C. § 159 representation petition with the NLRB and thereby force Valley and Federal to collectively bargain with the employees. Both Valley and Federal refused to negotiate with MOA over a new labor agreement because they believed that no obligation under federal law existed that would force them to collectively bargain with what they considered to be supervisors.

The existing labor agreements defined the status and duties of the covered employees as follows:

"It is agreed that all deck and engineer officers covered by this Agreement are vested by the Company with authority, at least effectively to recommend the hiring, transfer, suspension, discharge, and discipline of crew members, and with authority, in the exercise of their independent judgment, responsibility to direct members of the crew in the performance of their work. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the normal work functions of either deck or engineer officers." (MOA/Valley Agreement, Article III, § 2.)

"It is agreed that all Deck Officers covered by this Agreement are supervisors within the definition of supervisor as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act, and shall mean in this instant situation that said Deck Officers as individuals, have the authority, acting in the interest of the Company, to cause other employees to be hired, transferred, suspended, laid off, recalled, promoted, rewarded or disciplined whether by taking the action himself or recommending it to a superior, or who has the authority to responsibly direct other employees or adjust their grievances. It is further understood and agreed that as a matter of Company policy, the exercising of this authority is not of a merely routine nature, but requires and allows the Deck Officers independent judgment. Nothing contained herein, however, shall be construed as limiting the normal work function of the Officer so long as the Company shall not direct or require the Officer to perform work which is recognized as work of employees of the Company not covered by this Agreement." (MOA/Federal Agreement, Article III, § 2.)

Title 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) defines supervisors under the Act, as:

"Any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment."

Title 29 U.S.C. § 164(a) provides that:

"No employer subject to this subchapter shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining."

MOA withdrew its petition for unit clarification with the NLRB ten days after filing, presumably because they had learned that the NLRB's regional director would dismiss their petition. Immediately thereafter, MOA filed an unfair labor practice charge against Valley, claiming that Valley "has failed to bargain with MOA * * *, the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees of the employer in a unit appropriate for such purpose by withdrawing recognition and refusing to negotiate."

One month after filing, MOA chose to also withdraw the above charge. The evidence discloses that the NLRB's regional director would have dismissed the unfair labor practice charge because of the supervisor status of the employees. Evidently MOA decided that a change in the definition of the member employees in the current contract was necessary if they were going to be able to force the defendants to collectively bargain with them after the contract expired.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on August 11, 1983, four days before the current contract was set to expire, asking for a temporary restraining order maintaining the contractual status quo until the status of the employees pension benefits could be determined and until MOA and the defendants could initiate grievance procedures for their disputes. Plaintiffs thereafter changed the nature of their complaint to one asking for a permanent injunction, asking the court to maintain the viability of the labor contract and to compel arbitration over what they alleged was a contractual dispute regarding the...