Teamsters Local Unions v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 24099.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24099.,24099. |
| Parties | TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNIONS, 745, 47, 886, 523, 270, 5, 568, 667 and 891, Appellants, v. BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for appellants.
T. S. Christopher, Forth Worth, Tex., Donald Lee Cotton, El Paso, Tex., Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before BELL, GODBOLD and DYER, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION AND SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
The Teamsters locals, claiming to be parties to a collective bargaining agreement with Braswell ("the Agreement"), sued for damages, specific performance and an injunction against breach by Braswell. The district court, in granting summary judgment for Braswell, found the Agreement never applied to these locals. We have held that these locals are parties to the Agreement by virtue of an arbitral award to that effect, which award is entitled to enforcement, and have reversed the grant of summary judgment to Braswell.
The Teamsters sought summary judgment below on the issue of liability alone, with damages reserved, which is authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). Our conclusion, rather than being styled a summary judgment or partial summary judgment for the unions, would more appropriately be styled a ruling as a matter of law on the single issue that the appellant locals became parties to the Agreement. That issue is now established for this action.
Further proceedings as to the scope and quantum of relief to which the unions may be entitled, and defenses, if any, that Braswell may have, are for the trial court in the first instance and not for this court.
While recognizing the right of Braswell to present in the district court its defenses, if any, to liability, we reject summarily the contention made to us that it is a defense to Braswell that the Teamsters locals failed to file any grievance and to pursue grievance procedures under the Agreement. The unions cannot be barred for failing to exhaust grievance arrangements under a contract which Braswell insisted did not apply to them.
Our conclusion that the contract is applicable to these Teamsters locals disposes of the argument of Braswell on rehearing that a retrospective card check is required to determine whether at the time the contract became applicable to the BFL locals these locals in fact represented a majority of the BFL employees, otherwise the employer and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilot Freight Carriers v. INTERN. BROTH., ETC.
...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 Conference of Teamsters v. Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., 374 F.2......
-
Carpenters Local Union No. 1846 of United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc.
...be bound by such arbitration, as it was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement. See Teamsters Local Unions v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 395 F.2d 655, 656 (5th Cir. 1968). Our point is that the question of arbitrability of the Unions' claims against Halmar involves issu......
-
Boire v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC.
...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 Machinists, 5 Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 176. See also Carey v. Westinghouse E......
-
International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Dist. 776 v. Texas Steel Co.
...action for enforcement of an arbitration decision.6 Braswell was modified on rehearing in minor respects not relevant for our purposes at 395 F.2d 655. The case was affirmed after remand in relevant part at 428 F.2d 1371. Certiorari was denied at 401 U.S. 937, 91 S.Ct. 926, 28 L.Ed.2d 217 (......