Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners
| Decision Date | 05 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 368 and J,No. 81-1884,No. 368,368,368 and J,81-1884 |
| Citation | 676 F.2d 81 |
| Parties | 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2291, 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1131, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,652, 93 Lab.Cas. P 13,458 Archie PETERSON and Robert Doster, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. The LEHIGH VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS, an unincorporated Labor Union and General Contractors Association of Lehigh Valley, Inc. and Local(Carpenters) and Walter D. Fries, Individually and as Business Agent for Lehigh Valley District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and Fred Miller, Individually and as Shop Steward for Local and John Larsen, Individually and as Apprentice Co-Ordinator for the Lehigh Valley District Council, Carpenters and Joiners. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Charles W. Bowser (argued), William H. Bishop, Leonard Schaeffer, Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick & Cabot, Philadelphia, Pa., for Archie Peterson and Robert Doster.
Charles W. Johnston, Jr. (argued) Handler & Gerber, P. C., Harrisburg, Pa., for Lehigh Valley District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 368, Walter D. Fries, Fred Miller, and John Larsen.
Sally Akan (argued), Pamela L. Perry, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for General Contractors Assn. of Lehigh Valley, Inc.
Before GIBBONS, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
In this civil rights case, two men hired as carpenter apprentices charge that they lost their jobs because a union, motivated by racial discrimination, refused them membership or admittance into an apprenticeship training program. The district court granted summary judgment to the union and contractor defendants because no applications for the program were being accepted at the relevant times and plaintiffs had failed to file the prescribed written forms. We vacate the judgment because there are disputed issues of fact with respect to discriminatory standards for union membership, and possible joint control of the training program by defendant contractor association.
Plaintiffs filed complaints in the district court against a contractors association, district council, and local union alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1976), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1976). After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment. 1 Plaintiffs appeal.
In 1972, the G & Q Drywall Company, a Cleveland-based organization, was awarded a construction subcontract for a public housing project in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Kenneth Barbarino, the company supervisor, asked Carpenters Union Local 368 to supply some minority journeymen or apprentices so that G & Q could meet affirmative action hiring requirements under the federally funded contract. When he was informed by the Local that no minority craftsmen were available, Barbarino contacted the local Opportunities Industrialization Center and hired two of their trainees, Peterson and Doster, as carpenter apprentices.
G & Q had agreed to abide by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the General Contractors Association of Lehigh Valley, Inc. and the Lehigh Valley District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. As its name implies, the General Contractors Association is an affiliation of construction companies in the area. The Association, which G & Q joined, acts as the collective bargaining agent for its member employers. The District Council is composed of a number of carpenter unions, including No. 368, the local which had jurisdiction over the G & Q project. The collective bargaining agreement, which governs employment conditions, did not include an exclusive hiring hall agreement.
The General Contractors Association and the District Council had also established an apprenticeship training program, through which individuals could learn the carpentry trade and become members of the union. A joint committee determined whenever there was a sufficient employment demand in the industry to warrant admitting individuals to the program. When there was not enough work in the area, the training program was suspended.
Admission into the union was virtually guaranteed once an applicant was accepted into the apprenticeship program. Individuals who already possessed carpentry experience to qualify as journeymen could also be admitted to the union in that status without further training.
In March 1972, when Peterson was hired, Council business agent Walter Fries threatened to close down the job because Peterson had not been hired through the union. When advised that he might be violating a local ordinance, Fries relented and Peterson began to work. He remained on the job for the next fifteen days, despite harassment and racial epithets from his fellow workmen, but was discharged on March 16, 1972-allegedly for tardiness. Doster was hired about the time of Peterson's discharge and stayed until April, when he was laid off by G & Q, with the stated reason being lack of work.
On the record before it, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie showing of discrimination, because neither demonstrated that he qualified for admission to the apprenticeship program or the carpenter's union. That is, both men failed to request entry into the apprenticeship program in the prescribed manner-by written application. Moreover, there were no openings in 1972, so applications were not accepted from anyone. As the court viewed the facts, G & Q was solely responsible for the plaintiffs' discharge, and no claim was asserted against it in this litigation because of a previous settlement.
Plaintiffs' claim against the union for lack of fair representation under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, also was found lacking in proof. The court reasoned that the collective bargaining unit consisted of "foremen, journeymen and apprentices" and, since the plaintiffs did not fall in any of those categories, the union owed no duty of representation. Moreover, since the collective bargaining agreement was between the Contractors Association and the District Council, not Local 368, the court concluded there was no contract obligating the local union to represent plaintiffs.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that there are sufficient inferences which may be drawn from the undisputed facts, as well as positive evidence in the record, to demonstrate that defendants discriminatorily denied Peterson and Doster admission to the union and apprenticeship program. Defendants' conduct, it is also charged, caused plaintiffs' discharge from employment with G & Q. Finally, plaintiffs assert the union refused to represent them in their grievance against the employer.
To be entitled to summary judgment, a party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Any reasonable inferences from the facts must be resolved in favor of the party against whom the judgment is entered. Betz Laboratories, Inc. v. Hines, 647 F.2d 402, 404 (3d Cir. 1981).
Summary judgment is a useful procedure when there is no dispute about the critical facts and it serves to eliminate the expense and delay of unnecessary trials. However, when there is a disagreement about the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn from them, a trial is required to resolve the conflicting versions of the parties.
Our role, then, is to explore the record to determine whether plaintiffs have support for their position and could prevail if the fact finder resolves issues of credibility in their favor. In that task here, we must appraise the facts in a manner most favorable to Peterson and Doster.
Essentially, plaintiffs contend that Barbarino, G & Q's supervisor, was eager to give them employment and an opportunity to learn the carpentry trade, but the union and its members on the job set out to frustrate those aims. The union business agent repeatedly ignored requests to produce applications for membership in the union or even to give information about the apprenticeship program to the plaintiffs, although admittedly he would have done so for white employees. The carpenters at the construction site refused to work with Peterson and Doster and thus forced Barbarino to find assignments where they could work alone. Ultimately, union-orchestrated tension at the construction site made it necessary for Barbarino to discharge plaintiffs on pretext, a fact which he candidly confessed. The verbal abuse and mistreatment to which plaintiffs were subjected by their co-workers and union officials belie defendants' denial of racial discrimination as the union's motive.
There is ample record support for plaintiffs' claims. In his deposition, Peterson said:
Barbarino's testimony also details the hostile reception and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kalmanovitz v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
... ... Nos. C83 0196, C83 0704) ... United States District Court, D. Delaware ... Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, United Bhd. of rpenters and Joiners", 676 F.2d 81, 84 (3d Cir.1982) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Naporano v. US
... ... and Sharon Naporano, Plaintiffs, ... UNITED STATES of America, Defendant ... Civ. A. No ... Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 241 (3d Cir.1991) ("summary ... 537, 88 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985); Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, United Bhd. of rpenters & Joiners, 676 F.2d 81, 84 (3d Cir.1982) ("summary ... ...
-
Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.
... ... behalf of others similarly situated, ... United Political Action Committee, an unincorporated ... Springfield Township School Dist., 699 F.2d 137 (3d Cir.1983), vacated and ... See Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, 676 F.2d 81 (3d ... ...
-
Heffner v. Murphy
... ... MURPHY, et al., Defendants. No. 08cv990. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. May 8, ... Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, 676 F.2d 81, 84 ... ...