TEXAS INTERN. AIRLINES v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Civ. A. No. H-80-985.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
Writing for the CourtMcDONALD
PartiesTEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL (ALPA), et al., Defendants.
Decision Date29 June 1981
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. H-80-985.

518 F. Supp. 203

TEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL (ALPA), et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. H-80-985.

United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Houston Division.

June 29, 1981.


518 F. Supp. 204
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
518 F. Supp. 205
L. Chapman Smith, Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff

Bruce A. Fickman, Chris Dixie & Assoc., Houston, Tex., for defendants.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

McDONALD, District Judge.

Introduction

The Original Complaint in this action was filed on May 2, 1980. In summary, plaintiff Texas International Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff or T.I.), a major airline carrier, alleged in the Complaint that the defendant Air Line Pilots Association (hereinafter referred to as defendant or ALPA) and several of its constituent organizational units as well as several named individual defendants and the members of the union were engaging in an unlawful strike or work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Alleging that serious and irreparable injury was threatened by a continuation of such strike, the Complaint sought injunctive relief against further strike activity by the defendants as well as monetary damages.

At the same time the Complaint was filed, plaintiff also submitted a motion that the defendants be temporarily restrained until a hearing could be had upon the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction. In the absence of this Court, this motion was heard by the Honorable Carl O. Bue ex parte and a temporary restraining order was issued. By this order, entered on May 2, 1980, Judge Bue found that the defendants appeared to be engaging in an unlawful strike under the Railway Labor Act and that plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if such strike conduct were not restrained pending the hearing upon plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Judge Bue's order restrained all of the defendants, and all other persons acting with them, from the following:

518 F. Supp. 206
1. Threatening, calling, instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving, or continuing a strike or work stoppage against the plaintiff and all acts in furtherance or support thereof.
2. Picketing or bannering the premises on which plaintiff conducts its operations, including the entrances and any other places where said premises are situated; interfering with ingress to or egress from said premises, including the delivery, unloading, load, dispatch and movement of plaintiff's planes and equipment and the contents thereof; or loitering or congregating at or near any approaches thereto, and upon any public street or highway leading to or from any place which employees of plaintiff or those having business with the plaintiff desire to enter or leave enroute to or from said premises.
3. Slowing down or interfering with in anywise or manner the orderly and prompt continuance of work in plaintiff's operations.
4. In any way carrying out or effectuating or conspiring to carry out or effectuate the activities enjoined in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3.

In addition, the order affirmatively required all of the defendants to take all steps within their power to prevent the occurrence of such a strike or work stoppage.

Judge Bue's order was to expire by its terms within ten days unless extended for a longer period upon good cause shown or unless the defendants agreed to such an extension. The order set down for hearing on May 7, 1980, plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction.

Prior to the expiration of Judge Bue's order, the parties requested that plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction be rescheduled to May 29, 1980, and that the temporary restraining order be continued in effect until the conclusion of such hearing. This request was granted by the Court.

On May 28, 1980, the parties again requested a rescheduling of the preliminary injunction hearing and again agreed to continue the temporary restraining order in effect until the conclusion of the hearing. This request was also granted by the Court.

Thereafter, on a monthly basis, the parties requested that the preliminary injunction hearing be rescheduled and that the temporary restraining order be continued until the conclusion of the hearing. On each occasion, the Court granted these requests.

In their joint request for an extension of the temporary restraining order in August, 1980, the parties requested that the temporary restraining order be modified to include additional language providing that the order would expire if the statutory procedures under the Railway Labor Act were exhausted. This request was granted and the temporary restraining order modified to this effect on August 28, 1980.

On September 4, 1980, defendant ALPA and its constituent subdivisions named as defendants as well as the named officials of the union filed their Answer and Counterclaim. This basically denied the substantive allegations set out in the Complaint and presented a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff had breached its statutory obligations under the Railway Labor Act by refusing to implement an alleged new collective bargaining agreement to resolve the labor dispute underlying this action. Plaintiff filed its Answer on September 22, 1980, denying the substantive allegations set out in the Counterclaim.

On October 18, 1980, the May 2, 1980, temporary restraining order, as modified, was in effect pursuant to the Court's October 7, 1980, order granting the most recent application by the parties to continue the series of extensions of this order. On this date, the parties appeared before the Court upon plaintiff's application that the order be modified to specifically prohibit an additional form of unlawful strike activity allegedly being engaged in by the defendants. After reviewing the affidavits submitted by plaintiff and hearing from counsel for the parties, the Court entered on October 18, 1980, an order vacating the May 2, 1980, temporary restraining order and issued a

518 F. Supp. 207
new temporary restraining order which repeated the prohibitions set out in the May 2, 1980, order and added a prohibition against
5. Taking any form of concerted action, or individual action pursuant to agreement, which would in any respect accomplish the intended result of delaying, disrupting, or interfering with plaintiff's operations including, but not limited to, any use of established procedures to report equipment outages or malfunctions to effect, or attempt to effect, an intended delay, disruption, or interference with plaintiff's operations.

As in the case of the May 2, 1980, order, the October 18, 1980, temporary restraining order was subsequently repeatedly extended upon the joint request of the parties on a monthly basis and the hearing date upon plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction was repeatedly rescheduled on each occasion to coincide with the expiration of the temporary restraining order.

On October 21, 1980, plaintiff requested that the Court issue an order requiring that defendants appear and show cause why it should not be found in contempt of the October 18 temporary restraining order for failing to utilize to ACARS system. Based upon the affidavits submitted by plaintiff and the parties' arguments on this request, the Court entered a show cause order to this effect on October 21, 1980. Soon thereafter, however, the plaintiff reported to the Court that it had been given assurances by defendants that the alleged contempt of the October 18 order would cease and on October 22, 1980, the Court indefinitely postponed the show cause hearing upon plaintiff's request.

On May 7, 1981, the October 18, 1980, temporary restraining order was still in effect pursuant to the most recent agreement by parties in April to extend the order. On this date, the parties appeared before the Court and defendants reported that plaintiff would agree to no further extensions of the temporary restraining order or to any further rescheduling of the hearing upon plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction which was then scheduled to begin on the following day, May 8. Based upon defendants' representations of the unavailability of their counsel to attend this hearing, the Court granted on this date the defendants' application to postpone the preliminary injunction hearing to May 26, 1981. The Court also extended at this time the temporary restraining order until the conclusion of this hearing and further ordered that defendants appear at the May 26 hearing and show cause why they should not be found in contempt of the temporary restraining order.

Following the May 7 orders by the Court the parties conducted extensive discovery in preparation for the May 26 hearing. However, defendants again requested, and the Court granted, a further postponement of the contempt and preliminary injunction hearing until June 1, 1980. At this time plaintiff formally applied for a show cause hearing upon its contempt application and the Court entered a formal show cause order directing defendant ALPA to appear and show cause why it should not be found in contempt of the October 18, 1980, temporary restraining order.

On June 1, 1981, the hearing commenced upon plaintiff's applications to find defendant ALPA in contempt and to obtain a preliminary injunction and upon defendants' request that the Court vacate the temporary restraining order.

On June 11, 1981 the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which was unopposed by the defendant. In the Amended Complaint the plaintiff reurges the allegations contained in the Original Complaint. In addition, the plaintiffs specifically complained that ALPA had engaged in various schemes and stratagems intended to slowdown or disrupt T.I.'s normal operations. These stratagems included concerted efforts to: 1) call in sick; 2) report excessive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Burlington Northern v. Maintenance of Way Employes, No. 4:00-CV-0441-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • April 12, 2001
    ...granted to enforce the provisions of the RLA pending exhaustion of the procedure prescribed by the RLA in the event of a major dispute. 518 F.Supp. 203 (S.D.Tex.1981). The court in that case reached the following legal conclusions that apply as well to the instant Under the Railway Labor Ac......
  • Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern. v. United Air Lines, Inc., Nos. 85-2726
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 30, 1986
    ...could be found, in the appropriate circumstances, violative of the RLA. See Texas International Airlines v. Air Line Pilots Association, 518 F.Supp. 203 (S.D.Tex.1981). Nonetheless, as the district court noted, section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act limits the extent of a union's potential N......
  • United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 80 CIV 6761 (LBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 29, 1981
    ...to schedule due to the increase in the number of parties. We have considered the defendants' arguments and find that no undue delay or 518 F. Supp. 203 prejudice to the defendants will result from intervention. The intervenors do not propose to alter the basic factual context of the origina......
  • US Airways, Inc. v. USA Airline Pilots Ass'n, No. 3:11–cv–371–RJC–DCK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • September 28, 2011
    ...Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 156, Am. Fed'n of Labor, 368 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1966); Tex. Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 518 F.Supp. 203, 216 (S.D.Tex.1981); “safety” campaigns, e.g., IAM, 243 F.3d at 368–69 & n. 14; increased write-ups of maintenance problems, e.g., Texas In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Burlington Northern v. Maintenance of Way Employes, No. 4:00-CV-0441-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • April 12, 2001
    ...granted to enforce the provisions of the RLA pending exhaustion of the procedure prescribed by the RLA in the event of a major dispute. 518 F.Supp. 203 (S.D.Tex.1981). The court in that case reached the following legal conclusions that apply as well to the instant Under the Railway Labor Ac......
  • Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern. v. United Air Lines, Inc., Nos. 85-2726
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 30, 1986
    ...could be found, in the appropriate circumstances, violative of the RLA. See Texas International Airlines v. Air Line Pilots Association, 518 F.Supp. 203 (S.D.Tex.1981). Nonetheless, as the district court noted, section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act limits the extent of a union's potential N......
  • United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 80 CIV 6761 (LBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 29, 1981
    ...to schedule due to the increase in the number of parties. We have considered the defendants' arguments and find that no undue delay or 518 F. Supp. 203 prejudice to the defendants will result from intervention. The intervenors do not propose to alter the basic factual context of the origina......
  • US Airways, Inc. v. USA Airline Pilots Ass'n, No. 3:11–cv–371–RJC–DCK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • September 28, 2011
    ...Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 156, Am. Fed'n of Labor, 368 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1966); Tex. Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 518 F.Supp. 203, 216 (S.D.Tex.1981); “safety” campaigns, e.g., IAM, 243 F.3d at 368–69 & n. 14; increased write-ups of maintenance problems, e.g., Texas In......
  • 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