SEAFARERS INTERN. UNION v. NAT. MARINE SERVICES

• Citation: 639 F. Supp. 1283
• Decision Date: 18 July 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 85-4618.
• Parties: SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION v. NATIONAL MARINE SERVICES, INC., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

639 F. Supp. 1283

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION v. NATIONAL MARINE SERVICES, INC., et al.

Civ. A. No. 85-4618.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

July 18, 1986.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Louis L. Robein, Jr., Metairie, La., for plaintiff.

D. Michael Linihan, St. Louis, Mo., Terrence C. Forstall, New Orleans, La., for National Marine.

Harry A. Rosenberg, New Orleans, La., for Compass Marine.

OPINION

SEAR, District Judge.

This is an action to enforce a collective bargaining agreement.

The plaintiff, the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf Lakes, and Island Waters ("the SIU" or "the union"), is an unincorporated labor organization representing employees of defendant National Marine Services, Inc. ("National Marine" or "the employer"). The defendants, National Marine and Compass Marine Propulsion, Inc. ("Compass"), are employers in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 142, 185.

Jurisdiction is exercised pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).¹

I. FACTS

The dispute which is the subject of this action was precipitated by recent financial difficulties experienced by National Marine. National Marine is engaged in the barge transport business, primarily the transport of liquid petroleum products. It operates a large fleet of barges and formally operated about 18 tugs in connection with the barges.

In 1985, National Marine decided to sell its tugs in order to streamline its operations and raise cash. It contracted with Compass to sell 14 tugs effective October 9, 1985 for $5,275,000. At the same time National Marine and Compass also entered into a towage contract whereby Compass agreed to dedicate the tugs to move National Marine's barges. In conjunction with the sale, National Marine laid off its employees working on the tugs effective October 9th.

On October 9, 1985, Compass employees assumed operation of the tugs and have operated them since. The status of the sale, however, is unclear. The purchase price has not yet been paid and it is still unclear who has title to the tugs.

The SIU represents the National Marine employees who were laid off because of the sale. On September 27, 1985, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the parties (also called "the agreement"),² the SIU filed grievances challenging the sale of the tugs and the layoff of its members. Its grounds were that the sale of the tugs was a sham and the sale and towage agreement constituted a subcontracting of bargaining unit work in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and that the layoff of its members was a violation of the recognition clause of the collective bargaining agreement. On October 4, 1985, the SIU demanded arbitration of its September 27th grievances pursuant to the binding arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. National Marine refused to submit to arbitration because, among other reasons, the collective bargaining agreement, by its terms, was effective only from October 9, 1982 through October 8, 1985, and therefore the sale and the layoffs would not occur until after its expiration.

On October 7, 1985, the SIU brought this action for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction seeking: (1) an order compelling National Marine to submit the September 27th grievances to binding arbitration as set forth in the collective bargaining agreement; and (2) an injunction prohibiting National Marine and Compass from effecting the sale of the tugs and prohibiting National Marine from laying off bargaining unit employees pending arbitration of the September 27th grievances.

On October 8, 1985, a hearing was held on the SIU's request for temporary restraining order and the request was denied because it was not justified on a balancing of the equities.

The matter is now before the Court following a hearing on the SIU's request for preliminary injunction.

II. REQUIREMENTS OF A LABOR INJUNCTION IN SUPPORT OF ARBITRATION

The jurisdiction of the federal courts to grant injunctive relief in cases arising out of labor disputes is sharply limited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115.

The district courts, however, do have jurisdiction under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 over suits for violation of a collective bargaining agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The district courts' jurisdiction under section 301 includes jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in support of a mandatory arbitration clause. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970); Cf., Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). The district courts may grant injunctive relief against either an employer or a union in order to maintain the status quo relationship between the parties pending the results of arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. See e.g., Gulf Coast Indus. Workers' Union v. Exxon, 712 F.2d 161 (5th Cir.1983) (dictum); Int'l Union v. Dana Corp., 679 F.2d 634 (6th Cir.1982); Local Lodge 1266 Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Panoramic Corp., 668 F.2d 276 (7th Cir. 1981); United Steelworkers v. Fort Pitt Steelcasting, 598 F.2d 1273 (3rd Cir.1979); Lever Brothers Co. v. Int'l Chemical Workers Local 217, 554 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1976).

The requirements for granting status quo injunctive relief in support of arbitration are: (1) the underlying grievance is subject to mandatory binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, i.e. arbitrability; (2) the party seeking the injunctive relief is ready and willing to submit the grievance to arbitration; and (3) injunctive relief is warranted under ordinary principles of equity.³Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 U.S. 702, 721, 102 S.Ct. 2672, 2684, 73 L.Ed.2d 327 (1982); Buffalo Forge v. United Steelworkers, 428 U.S. 397, 407, 96 S.Ct. 3141, 3147, 49 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1976); Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 414 U.S. 368, 374, 94 S.Ct. 629, 635, 38 L.Ed.2d 583 (1974); Boys Markets, supra, 398 U.S. at 254, 90 S.Ct. at 1594.

III. ARBITRABILITY

The threshold issue dispositive of the relief the union seeks is whether its September 27th grievances are arbitrable. If they are not, then the union is not entitled to either an order compelling arbitration or an injunction of the sale of the tugs in support of arbitration, and its complaint must be dismissed. The issue of arbitrability is a question of law which the court must decide. AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 1418, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986); Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 491, 92 S.Ct. 1710, 1712, 32 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).

A. The Union Grievances and the Collective Bargaining Agreement

The essence of the union's September 27th grievances is that National Marine effectively fired union members and replaced them with nonunion labor pursuant to a subcontracting agreement with Compass. The union argues that this conduct violated its contractual rights under the no subcontracting clause⁴ and the recognition clause⁵ of the collective bargaining agreement. The union further argues that whether National Marine's conduct violated its rights under the collective bargaining agreement must be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the mandatory arbitration clause of the agreement.

The arbitration clause requires that:

All complaints, disputes or grievances arising between the parties hereto relating to or in connection with or involving questions of interpretation or application of any clause of this Agreement, or any acts, conduct or relations between the parties, directly or indirectly, shall be processed pursuant to this Article.⁶

The clause requires arbitration of: (1) all grievances related to the parties contractual rights under the term of the agreement; and (2) all grievances related to the relations between parties. If the union's grievances challenged conduct by National Marine which effected the parties' rights or relations under the agreement then the arbitration clause would presumptively require that National Marine submit the grievance to arbitration. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960).

The union's grievances, however, challenge conduct of National Marine which effected the union only after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement expired on October 8, 1985.⁷ Through that date, National Marine owned the tugs and employed only union members on them. At no time during the life of the agreement did National Marine layoff union members or employ nonunion labor.⁸ Not until October 9, 1985 did National Marine sell the tugs and layoff union members. If National Marine violated the union's rights under the collective bargaining agreement by subcontracting out work to Compass, that violation did not occur before October 9th when Compass employees first displaced union members on the tugs.

B. The Effect of the Expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

The expiration of the collective bargaining agreement on October 8th profoundly changed the relations of the parties. Before October 8th, National Marine was obligated under the agreement not to subcontract. After October 8th, the agreement had expired and it is elementary that after the expiration of the agreement, the parties were no longer bound to its terms by operation of the agreement.

The parties, however, were still bound by operation of law to some of the terms of the agreement even after its expiration. The parties could not unilaterally change the "terms and conditions of employment" until they fulfilled their duty to bargain in good faith over those terms and conditions. N.L.R.B. v. Katz, 369 U.S....