SOUTHBRIDGE PLASTICS DIV., ETC. v. LOCAL 759, INT. U., ETC.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. EC 74-90-S.,EC 74-90-S.
• Citation: 403 F. Supp. 1183
• Parties: SOUTHBRIDGE PLASTICS DIVISION, W. R. GRACE AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 759, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF the UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

403 F. Supp. 1183

SOUTHBRIDGE PLASTICS DIVISION, W. R. GRACE AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 759, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF the UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants.

No. EC 74-90-S.

United States District Court, N. D. Mississippi, E. D.

November 3, 1975.

Charles E. Sykes, Lincoln, Neb., and Jeffery H. Orleans (EEOC), Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Charles R. Wilbanks, Corinth, Miss., and Harley M. Kastner and Charles R. Armstrong, Akron, Ohio, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ORMA R. SMITH, District Judge.

This case requires the court to resolve the question of what effect is to be given a duly executed conciliation agreement between an employer and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" hereinafter) when certain of the provisions contained in such agreement conflict with the terms of a previously executed collective bargaining agreement between the employer and its employees' bargaining agent.

Plaintiff herein, Southbridge Plastics Division, W. R. Grace & Co. (hereinafter "Southbridge"), employs approximately 600 hourly workers at its Corinth, Mississippi facility. The defendant, Local 759 International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America (hereinafter "the union") is a labor organization with approximately 420 members, of whom approximately 99 percent are employed by Southbridge. The union has few, if any, female members; however, Southbridge's female employees are represented by the union for purposes of collective bargaining.

Prior to April, 1974, Southbridge employed no females in a production, laboratory, or maintenance capacity at its Corinth facility. On or about April 1, 1974, Southbridge began hiring females in the aforementioned fields on the same terms as males. The instant dispute grows out of the contention of male union members that, due to their seniority at the Southbridge plant, they are to be preferred over the female employees in shift assignments and in case of layoff.

The dispute was culminated by Southbridge's refusal to arbitrate grievances filed by several of the union members as the union maintains is required by the bargaining agreement. Southbridge refuses to arbitrate the grievances because, it maintains, if the arbitrator's decision were favorable to the union members, Southbridge would be required to shunt some of its female employees to different (and, inferentially, less desirable) shifts and to layoff others, solely because of their lack of seniority. Southbridge contends that actions of this sort, even when required as incident to an arbitral decision, would be violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the provisions of the conciliation agreement now in effect between Southbridge and the EEOC.¹ To extricate itself from this unenviable dilemma, Southbridge filed this suit seeking an injunction to preclude the union from utilizing the clauses of the collective bargaining agreement upon which it relies in initiating and processing the instant grievances. The union counter-claimed that Southbridge should be required to arbitrate the union members' grievances concerning seniority in the manner set forth in the bargaining agreement.

Southbridge found itself in difficulty with the EEOC as a result of charges lodged with that agency by certain of Southbridge's female employees. The EEOC's investigation of the charges resulted in a determination by the commission that reasonable cause existed to believe that Southbridge had engaged in unlawful employment practices in its treatment of females in hiring and job classifications and that the system of departmental and plant-wide seniority provided for in the collective bargaining agreement now in effect at Southbridge's Corinth plant is unlawful because it perpetuates the effect of past discrimination against women.

To square itself with the EEOC regarding its female employees, Southbridge entered into a formal conciliation agreement, the portions of which are here in dispute read as follows:

"All recruiting, hiring, training, compensation, overtime, job classifications and assignments, working conditions and privileges of employment shall be maintained and conducted in a manner which does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

. . . . . .

Notwithstanding any provision(s) of any collective bargaining agreement to which it is a party at its Corinth facility, including a contract with the International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America and its Local Union Number 759, Southbridge will adhere to the following:

a. No female employee, whether employed at the present time or hired at a future date, will be removed from her job or her shift by a male employee by utilization of the shift preference provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect at the Corinth facility.

b. In the event that it becomes necessary for Southbridge to lay off employees who are covered by any collective bargaining agreement in effect at the Corinth facility and said layoff will result in females being laid off if the applicable provisions of the collective bargaining agreement were utilized in a greater percentage than they constitute of the bargaining unit, the following procedure will be utilized:

(1) Female employees will be laid off in direct proportion to the percentage which they make up of a bargaining unit covered by a collective bargaining agreement. For example: If in a bargaining unit covered by a collective bargaining agreement which has four hundred (400) members of which three hundred (300) are male sic and one hundred (100) females who have less plant seniority than the males, Southbridge decides to lay off one hundred (100) employees, then since females constitute 25 percent of the bargaining unit, twenty-five (25) females in order of their seniority will be laid off.

(2) In no event will any female employee be laid off by utilization of the foregoing procedure if she would not have been laid off if the applicable contract provisions were utilized. For example if Southbridge were to lay off one hundred (100) employees in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and only ten (10) females would be laid off, then only ten (10) females will be laid off.

The union declined an invitation to sign the conciliation agreement executed between Southbridge and EEOC but, instead, insisted on strict adherence to the following provisions of the collective bargaining agreement:

Seniority is preference or priority measured by length of service with definite rights qualifying for employment when work is available, the purpose of which is to provide a declared policy of work security measured by length of service subject to the limitations set out in the bargaining agreement.

. . . . . .

In the event of a reduction in the work force, employees will bump downward by classification in line with seniority and qualifications within their department.

If no job openings are available within the department, employees will replace employees with less seniority in an equal or lower classification, if qualified, and will be placed on their shift of preference. The affected employees will be laid off in accordance with their plant

...