Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 419,Docket 28417.,419
• Citation: 323 F.2d 248
• Parties: Charles H. RUBY, as President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Air Line Pilots Association, International, an unincorporated association, Appellants, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Appellee, and Nicholas J. O'Connell, Jr., individually, and as Chairman of the Master Executive Council of the pilots in the service of American Airlines, Inc., and the Negotiating Committee of said pilots, consisting of Richard Lyons, Robert T. Guba, Joseph Garvey, Paul Atkins and Nicholas J. O'Connell, Jr., ex officio, Additional Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

323 F.2d 248 (1963)

Charles H. RUBY, as President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Air Line Pilots Association, International, an unincorporated association, Appellants, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Appellee, and Nicholas J. O'Connell, Jr., individually, and as Chairman of the Master Executive Council of the pilots in the service of American Airlines, Inc., and the Negotiating Committee of said pilots, consisting of Richard Lyons, Robert T. Guba, Joseph Garvey, Paul Atkins and Nicholas J. O'Connell, Jr., ex officio, Additional Appellees.

No. 419, Docket 28417.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued September 5, 1963.

Decided September 16, 1963.

Henry Weiss (Cohen & Weiss), New York City, (Herbert A. Levy, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Arthur M. Wisehart, New York City (George A. Spater, New York City, of counsel), for appellee American Airlines.

Martin C. Seham, New York City, for additional appellees.

Carl Eardley, Morton Hollander and Howard E. Shapiro, Attorneys, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., filed brief amicus curiae on behalf of the National Mediation Bd.

Before CLARK, WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal again raises the problem as to the role of the courts with respect to labor disputes in an industry governed by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), a nationwide union of airline pilots, endeavored in this action to protect its historic status as bargaining representative of American Airlines' pilots, primarily by seeking injunctions that would prevent the defendants — American and a negotiating committee of American pilots which later became the nucleus of a new union — from dealing with one another, and would require American to negotiate with ALPA instead. We affirm the conclusion of the District Court that ALPA made no case warranting judicial intervention in this area, which Congress has so largely committed to the National Mediation Board.

In view of Judge Wyatt's comprehensive statement of the facts we shall limit ourselves to those we deem most important.¹ American Airlines' last pilot contract before the instant dispute was made with the air line pilots in its service "as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL", which, as the contract recited, "has shown satisfactory proof to the Company of the fact that it represents more than a majority of the air line pilots of the Company." The contract was to be effective until July 21, 1960, and was to renew itself annually thereafter unless written notice of intended change was served, pursuant to § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 156, at least 60 days prior to July 21 in any year. In March, 1961, American sent such a notice to the president of ALPA, and ALPA sent such a notice to American.

To appreciate the relationship of the parties and the source of the controversy, some understanding of ALPA's structure is required. The basic unit is a Local Council composed of the member pilots of a single airline at an operating base. Certain officers of the Local Councils constitute the airline's Master Executive Council (MEC); this body is "empowered to make the final decision on any problem or problems of the members of that air line, except as provided elsewhere in the Constitution and By-Laws." The Chairman of the MEC is "An ex officio member of the Negotiating Committee." The Negotiating Committee is not otherwise described in the Constitution and By-Laws, but the ALPA Policy Manual says that it shall be selected by the MEC on each airline, and that it "shall have the authority to conclude an agreement subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws," which provides that conferences or negotiations to make employment agreements shall not be initiated, carried on, or concluded in the name of ALPA without the prior approval of the Executive Committee or the President, and that no such agreement shall become effective unless signed by the President or some other officer authorized by one of ALPA's central governing bodies. The latter are a Board of Directors containing representatives of all the Local Councils, an Executive Board containing the chairmen and vice-chairmen of all the Master Executive Councils, and an Executive Committee. Thus, while the established procedure is for an agreement with an airline to be negotiated by a committee of its own pilots, the negotiation takes place under the eye of ALPA's central organization and the agreement is not concluded without the approval of the upper echelon of ALPA's policy makers.

The negotiations that began in 1961 between American and a pilots' negotiating committee, formed in accordance with ALPA policy,² were complicated from the outset by the controversy as to cockpit crew complement on jet aircraft which has occasioned a number of disputes and strikes and has been the subject of two decisions of this court. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Engineers' Int'l Ass'n, 306 F.2d 840 (2 Cir., 1962); Flight Engineers' Int'l Ass'n v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 311 F.2d 745 (2 Cir., 1963). On October 21, 1961, American notified the ALPA negotiating committee that it accepted the recommendations of a commission, appointed by President Kennedy and chaired by Professor Nathan Feinsinger, that the cockpit crew on jet aircraft should consist of three persons (as desired by the airlines) rather than four; that a flight engineer serving as one of the three should be possessed of a Commercial Pilot's Certificate and Instrument Rating ("C and I") (as desired by ALPA); and that ALPA and the Flight Engineers' International Association should merge, with the job equities of the pilots and engineers reasonably protected. On November 7, 1961, the President of ALPA wrote the National Mediation Board (NMB) that the crew complement problems were "but minor issues on American Airlines" as compared with pilot proposals on retirement and working conditions, notably a reduction of hours. American took the position that it could not grant these if it also had to undergo the expense of training its flight engineers up to the C and I requirement. After mediation by the NMB proved unsuccessful and ALPA declined a suggestion of arbitration which American had accepted, the NMB, on July 18, 1962, notified the parties that its services had terminated. This left American's pilots free to strike after the lapse of 30 days, 45 U.S.C. § 155 First, unless an Emergency Board were appointed as provided in 45 U.S.C. § 160.

Shortly before this, the Secretary of Labor had achieved a break-through on the problem of cockpit crew complement as to TWA, on the basis of the Feinsinger Commission's recommendations. American's engineers approved these terms but the Company informed the Department of Labor that this settled nothing, since the American pilots had preferred a reduction in hours and other benefits to the four man crew and had recently expressed a preference that American spend its money for such benefits rather than in qualifying flight engineers for the full C and I certificate.³ During July, 1962, various meetings were held between the Labor Department, Chairman Edwards of the NMB, the Company, the negotiating committee (including the ALPA staff representative), and Ruby who had recently become president of the ALPA. In the course of these, O'Connell, Chairman of the American MEC and one of the pilot negotiators, expressed the preferences of the American pilots along the lines just stated. At later meetings, O'Connell proposed that, if American would grant its pilots reduced hours and an improved retirement plan, they would agree to the three man crew without insisting on the C and I, and would bring the flight engineers into ALPA as the Feinsinger Commission had proposed. Since the pilots' willingness to relinquish the C and I requirement conflicted with what had been ALPA policy, American raised the question whether they could secure an ALPA approving signature; the negotiating committee expressed optimism. During November the Company met with the pilots and the flight engineers jointly; these conferences led to a memorandum of agreement on crew complement, initialed on December 1 by representatives of the three parties, along the lines indicated.

Meanwhile relationships between the pilots' negotiating committee and the ALPA central organization were deteriorating. Since by this time many other major air lines had concluded agreements incorporating the C and I requirement, ALPA objected strenuously to the non-conforming negotiations of the American pilots and sought, both by resolution and by appeal to the NMB, to terminate the American negotiations until the question of crew complement was resolved in writing to its satisfaction. ALPA's efforts did not prevent initialing of the December 1 memorandum but, on December 6, American agreed with Ruby, over the dissent of O'Connell, that negotiations be recessed until January, 1963 — apparently for the purpose of giving the ALPA negotiating committee and the ALPA central organization time to work out their differences. Nothing was accomplished. At meetings at ALPA's Chicago headquarters early in January, Ruby and the ALPA Executive Committee remained adamant on the C and I, whereas the American MEC resolved unanimously to authorize the negotiating committee to conclude an agreement without this. On January 11, 1963, Ruby notified the committee and American that no negotiations could occur without his approval. The same day O'Connell requested resumption of negotiations and said that any agreement would be submitted for ratification by American pilots, acting with a 75% vote which, he asserted, could readily be secured. American consulted Chairman Edwards of the NMB; he advised that the company had no choice but to bargain with the committee. Negotiations were resumed on ...