Teamsters Local Unions v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.

Decision Date28 June 1968
Docket NumberNo. 24099.,24099.
Citation392 F.2d 1
PartiesTEAMSTERS LOCAL UNIONS, 745, 47, 886, 523, 270, 5, 568, 667 and 891, Appellants, v. BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy, Levy & Richards, Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

T. S. Christopher, Fort Worth, Tex., Donald Lee Cotton, El Paso, Tex., Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., Dallas, Tex., Christopher & Bailey, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and DYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion Modified June 28, 1968. See 395 F.2d 655.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

This is a suit brought by the appellants, nine Teamsters local unions, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, seeking to enforce an award of an arbitral body provided for by the National Master Freight Agreement ("the Agreement"), a collective bargaining agreement to which they and the appellee are parties.1

The appellee, Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., ("Braswell") is a common carrier motor freight line. The portion of its operation between El Paso and Los Angeles is known as the Western Division. Since 1949 Braswell has had a series of labor contracts with Teamsters locals not parties to this suit covering 90 employees in the Western Division.

The Agreement contains provisions making it applicable to subsequently acquired operations of the employer. Braswell acquired through merger with a wholly owned subsidiary (Braswell Freight Lines, Inc., hereinafter "BFL") an additional operation (the "BFL operation") operated from Dallas-Ft. Worth to Oklahoma City and Tulsa and east to Memphis, Jackson and New Orleans. The appellant locals are bargaining agents for all employees in the BFL operation. These locals never have had a contract with Braswell in the Western Division nor in the Texas Division (El Paso to Dallas), which is unorganized.

An arbitration proceeding was called for under provisions of the Agreement relating to interpretation of the Agreement, and was held. Braswell did not participate in the arbitration on the merits of the controversy. The arbitral body decided Braswell was required to apply the contract to the appellant locals. Braswell declined and the locals sued. The district judge concluded that Braswell was a party to the Agreement only with respect to its employee bargaining units in its Western Division, and, treating that as dispositive of the case, granted summary judgment to Braswell. We reverse and direct that summary judgment be entered for the appellants.

I

In July, 1953, appellee executed a power of attorney to Motor Truck Association of California as bargaining agent. Pursuant thereto the Association entered into the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement to extend from July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1964, Braswell thereby becoming a party thereto. This agreement contained express recognition of the Teamsters' ambition to obtain a uniform nationwide agreement in the future, and it bound the employers, on written notice, to negotiate toward such an agreement:

ARTICLE 26. NATIONAL AGREEMENTS
The parties to this Agreement accept the principle of a National Over-the-Road Agreement and a National Pick-up and Delivery and City Cartage Agreement. Accordingly, the Employers and the Unions which are parties to this Agreement shall, on written notice from the Union at least ninety (90) days before the termination date of this Agreement, enter into negotiations for the purpose of negotiating such National Agreements. However, nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring any party hereto to be committed to a policy of complete uniformity in all matters which are covered by such National Agreements. (emphasis added)

In 1963 Teamsters unions over the country gave notice to employers of their desire to terminate area contracts then in effect and negotiate a nationwide contract. Industry representatives throughout the United States agreed that a national association should be formed to bargain with the Teamsters on a national basis. The employers' negotiating group, Trucking Employers, Inc., was formed.

The unions sent a letter notice to Braswell in September, 1963 notifying it of the unions' "desire to negotiate changes or revisions in the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement * * * and to enter into a National Agreement as provided in Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Area Master Agreement."

The California Trucking Association (the new name for the Motor Truck Association of California) sent Braswell notice of the union demands for reopening the contract, called attention to Article 26 of the Western States Agreement, and said:

"Authorization To Represent" forms for national negotiations are enclosed herewith covering your operations under the Western Area Over-the-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplement, the Western States Area Pickup & Delivery, Local Cartage & Dock Workers Supplement, or both, depending on authority given CTA under your present labor power of attorney. It is necessary that we receive the executed "Authorization" at the earliest possible date as we will have to advise the Union Negotiating Committee as to the companies who are represented.
If for any reason your company does not wish to execute the "Authorization To Represent," you should advise us immediately and cancel your present labor power of attorney. Otherwise, you will be included in the bargaining unit and bound by the results of the national negotiation but without being represented.
If you sign the enclosed "Authorization" it will not be necessary for you to take any other action or to acknowledge the Union\'s reopening notices.

Subsequent letters to Braswell from the Association reiterated the contents of the above-quoted second paragraph and advised Braswell of steps that should be taken in the national negotiations. Braswell then executed and sent to the Association this Authorization:

Company Authorization to Represent.
The undersigned, party to Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement, which agreements are in effect through June 30, 1964, does hereby authorize the California Trucking Association and/or any other trucking employer group or committee designated by the California Trucking Association to represent the undersigned in collective bargaining negotiations incident to the provisions of the above-named contracts and pursuant to reopening notices given under Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement.
This authorization shall continue in full force and effect until written revocation hereof is made by Certified Mail to California Trucking Association at 3301 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles 7, California.2

The appellant locals executed powers of attorney to the union negotiating committee to represent them in the bargaining on the national contract, and they are parties to the Agreement by reason thereof.

Subsequently the employers, negotiating through Trucking Employers, Inc., and the unions arrived at the National Master Freight Agreement, effective from February 1, 1964 to March 31, 1967. California Trucking Association was one of the employer groups on whose behalf Trucking Employers, Inc., acted. The Agreement established a national single multi-employer unit of employees.

Article 1, § 1, defining Parties to the Agreement, provides "The signatory Associations enter into this Agreement and Supplemental Agreements on behalf of their members under and as limited by their authorizations." The Agreement also contained the following provision:

This provision shall apply to all present and subsequently acquired operations and terminals of the Employer.
* * * * * *
The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all accretions to the bargaining unit including but not limited to newly established or acquired terminals, consolidations of terminals, etc.
Art. 3, § 1(a).

Braswell recognizes the Agreement has been binding on it since execution on regard to the employee units in its Western Division.3

The BFL operation came into the picture in the following way. On July 1, 1957 appellee acquired the stock of D. C. Hall Transportation Company and operated it as a separate corporation under the name Braswell Freight Lines, Inc. (BFL). The corporate entity BFL was not a party to negotiation of the Agreement. Negotiation of the Agreement began in November, 1963, concluded in January, 1964, and the Agreement was ratified in February, 1964. Braswell Freight Lines, Inc., was merged with appellee on July 1, 1964.

Beginning in 1950 or earlier BFL, and its predecessor Hall, were under collective bargaining contracts with the appellant Teamsters locals. In 1961 BFL gave notice of cancellation of the contracts and filed a petition with the NLRB to have appellants decertified on the ground that they no longer had majority status. BFL withdrew the NLRB petition and unsuccessful bargaining followed. Appellants struck BFL in April, 1962; as of January 25, 1965 the strike was still in progress.4

After the merger appellants took the position that the BFL operations were covered by the Agreement by reason of the above-quoted provisions of Art. 3, § 1. Braswell disputed this. Appellants, pursuant to the grievance procedure of Art. 8 of the Agreement, filed with the National Grievance Committee, composed of five employer and five employee representatives, a "Request for Interpretation of National Master Freight Agreement."

Braswell filed a special appearance before the Committee saying:

Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. has been advised of a request for interpretation of National Master Freight Agreement filed by Murray W. Miller, Chairman and Area Director of the Southern Conference of Teamsters. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. makes this special and limited appearance in this proceeding for the sole and only
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Pilot Freight Carriers v. INTERN. BROTH., ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • July 23, 1980
    ...IBT sued under § 301 to enforce its victory at arbitration. Local 208 v. Braswell, 422 F.2d 109; Teamsters Local Unions v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 392 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), modified, 395 F.2d 655 (1968), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 937, 91 S.Ct. 926, 28 L.Ed.2d 217 (1971); Southern Conf......
  • Boire v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 15, 1973
    ...fact compelled and enforced arbitration in cases where representation matters were in issue. E. g., Teamsters Local Union 745 v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 1, on rehearing, 395 F.2d 655; International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers v. International Ass'n of M......
  • JOINT BOARD OF CLOAK, SKIRT & DRESSMAKERS U. v. Senco, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 28, 1968
    ...the parties to an agreement may agree that the arbitrator may himself determine arbitrability. Teamsters Local Unions, etc. v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 5 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 1, 6 n. 6; Metal Products Workers Union, Local 1645, U.A.W.-A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Torrington Co., 2 Cir., 1966, 358 ......
  • Local Union No. 77, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1, Grays Harbor County, 7058-8-II
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1985
    ...of Operating Engineers Local 279 v. Sid Richardson Carbon Co., 471 F.2d 1175, 1177 (5th Cir.1973); Teamsters Local Unions v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines Inc., 392 F.2d 1, 7-8 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 937, 91 S.Ct. 926, 28 L.Ed.2d 217 (1971). In the absence of such proof and a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT