Roe v. International Harvester Co.
Decision Date | 13 June 1984 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. F 83-338. |
Citation | 604 F. Supp. 57 |
Parties | Dwight E. ROE, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Dennis H. Geisleman and William A. Kern, Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff.
Milford M. Miller, Fort Wayne, Ind., for defendant.
This matter is before the court for a decision on the merits following a bench trial held from Monday, June 4, 1984 to Wednesday, June 6, 1984. Plaintiff brought this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., alleging discrimination in the employment separation practice of the defendant. The court, having examined the entire record and having determined the credibility of the witnesses after viewing their demeanor and considering their interests, hereby renders and enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1. Plaintiff, Dwight E. Roe, is a male citizen of the United States of America and the State of Indiana. He was born on April 18, 1931.
2. Defendant, International Harvester Company, is a Delaware corporation admitted to do business in Indiana. At all relevant times, International Harvester operated a manufacturing plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana and was an employer within the meaning of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b).
3. International Harvester, which principally produces trucks and farm implements, is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Aside from its Fort Wayne operation, International Harvester had plants in various other locales including a plant in Chatham, Ontario and one in Springfield, Ohio. Those plants and others, to a certain extent, are interdependent because certain parts manufactured at one plant may be utilized elsewhere.
4. The Fort Wayne plant is, as of this date, closed. While still in operation, however, the Fort Wayne plant was a very large operation.
5. Physically, the plant covered 221 acres, 71 of which were under roof. Within the manufacturing compound there was a heavy duty truck plant, an axle and transmission division, and a Scout plant (which produced lighter utility vehicles). The heavy duty truck plant itself had two assembly lines, each of which was 1,662 feet long.
6. While in operation, International Harvester was a large employer in Fort Wayne. In 1978, International Harvester employed 6,498 hourly workers and 641 managerial workers locally and, in 1979, when production was quite high, 1,500 additional workers were employed.
7. Plaintiff was first employed by defendant at its Fort Wayne plant on February 16, 1953 as a sweeper/laborer in the machine shop. In 1964, plaintiff bid into the Inspection Department. Throughout this period plaintiff was an hourly nonmanagement employee.
8. On June 29, 1970, plaintiff became a group leader in Inspection, Department 52. Because that too was an hourly position, plaintiff worked under the supervision of others, performing inspections on one or the other of the two assembly lines in the heavy duty truck plant. Though group leader was an hourly position, plaintiff performed many of the functions of a foreman with the main exception that he had no authority to hire or fire.
9. Plaintiff was promoted to management as a First Line Supervisor in the position Foreman, Inspection on September 2, 1979. Plaintiff's duties as Foreman, Inspection were performed in Department 52 where he had been an hourly rated employee.1
10. Plaintiff continued as a managerial employee of defendant until his separation on December 11, 1981. At the time of his separation, plaintiff had approximately 28 years, 10 months' service at International Harvester. Had he remained until February 1983, he would have had 30 years' service and, consequently, would have been entitled to greater pension benefits.
11. Management employees at International Harvester have no seniority system. By plaintiff's own testimony, he was aware that managers were not immune to the possibility of layoff or discharge.
12. Employees in Inspection, Department 52 performed many functions. Generally included among those were the following specific tasks:
Occasionally, Inspectors would perform additional tasks including:
The foregoing list is not all inclusive nor exclusive with respect to the functions of Inspectors in Department 52. This is so because of the fact that a heavy duty truck is comprised of several thousand basic parts and several thousand more parts in speciality items.
13. Plaintiff could perform all of the foregoing tasks/functions of an Inspector, Department 52 capably. Moreover, plaintiff had a vast technical knowledge with respect to the specifications of heavy duty trucks produced in the Fort Wayne plant.
14. Beginning in 1978, International Harvester experienced a higher than usual demand for both its utility (Scout) vehicles and its heavy duty trucks. On November 1, 1978, the Fort Wayne complex was responsible for the production of 142 heavy duty trucks and 186 utility (Scout) vehicles. By November 13, 1978, the respective figures were 178 heavy duty trucks and 200 Scouts.
15. In response to increasing demands, International Harvester added a second shift to its "B" assembly line on its heavy duty truck line in Fort Wayne.
16. The increasing demand for its product further led defendant to hire new workers (see Finding 6), both managerial and hourly rated (non-managerial) employees, in 1978 and 1979. Further, considering the need for increased managerial employees in Fort Wayne, International Harvester promoted to management positions qualified hourly-rated employees who expressed a desire for a management position.
17. Plaintiff became a managerial employee (Foreman in Inspection, Department 52) at a time when the production levels of defendant's Fort Wayne operation were at their highest levels.
18. Less than two months after plaintiff assumed his position as a managerial employee, the hourly employees at defendant's Fort Wayne plant went on strike. That strike, which began November 1, 1979 was to be the longest in defendant's history and was to last until April 21, 1980.
19. During the strike, production of defendant's vehicles in Fort Wayne was at a standstill. International Harvester did, however, retain its managerial employees on its payroll. The managerial employees attempted, if possible, to complete production of vehicles in progress and further sought to provide parts to sister-nonstriking plants and dealer/distributors of defendant. In essence, the managerial employees attempted to perform many of the tasks of the hourly employees during non-strike times.
20. After the strike, it was presumed that production overall (both in the heavy duty division and utility (Scout) division) would remain at the level which existed just prior to the strike.
21. The post-strike optimism regarding production levels was shortlived particularly with respect to the utility (Scout) plant in Fort Wayne. Any optimism with respect to the other operations in Fort Wayne was also to be shortlived.
22. Whether due to economic conditions or otherwise it became abundantly clear by mid-1980 that the utility (Scout) plant was in serious trouble. Though immediately subsequent to the strike approximately 100 Scouts were produced daily and approximately 100 managers were employed in that production, by late May 1980 only 51 Scout vehicles were produced daily.
23. Those managerial employees at the utility (Scout) plant not required with respect to the production of the remaining 51 vehicles a day were available for assimilation into the heavy duty truck plant and the Axle and Transmission Division. Those from the utility (Scout) plant who were not assimilated into the managerial work force of the heavy duty truck plant or the Axle and Transmission Division were separated.
24. The assimilation of utility (Scout) employees resulted in the displacement of those managerial employees at the heavy duty truck plant and the Axle and Transmission Division who were deemed to be less qualified than those assimilated.
25. The concern with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giammario v. Trenton Bd. of Educ.
...Union Telegraph Co., 680 F.2d 1318 (11 Cir.1982); Douglas v. Anderson, 656 F.2d 528, 531 n. 1 (9 Cir.1981); Roe v. International Harvester, 604 F.Supp. 57 (N.D.Ind.1984); Woodfield v. Heckler, 591 F.Supp. 1390 (E.D.Pa.1984); Grecco v. Spang, 527 F.Supp. 978 (W.D.Pa.1981). The Third Circuit ......