Transp. Workers Union of Am. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 C 01415,13 C 01415 |
| Parties | TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNIONS 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs, five locals of the Transport Workers Union whose membership consists of mechanics employed by American Airlines (the "Locals"), bring this action against their parent international organization, the Transport Workers Union ("TWU" or "International") to prevent the imminent implementation of a restructuring plan that will result in the dissolution of the Locals and the consolidation of their membership into a Single Line Local Union, as well as the placement of some Local 565's membership into another local. Before the Court is the Locals' motion for a temporary restraining order, which seeks to enjoin implementation of the restructuring plan until the parties and the Court can address the Locals' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court conducted a hearing on the TRO motion on March 14, 2014, and concludes that the Locals have not established even a minimal likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the International's restructuring plan violates its constitution. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order.
At the hearing, the Locals and the TWU agreed that the basic facts of this case, as established through the declarations and exhibits submitted by both parties, are not in dispute. Because the Court does not need to make any findings on disputed facts in order to rule on the TRO motion, and in the interest of providing this ruling to the parties expeditiously, it forgoes a lengthy recitation of the facts.
In summary, the TWU is the exclusive bargaining representative of mechanics employed by American Airlines. The international union negotiates and administers the collective bargaining agreement with the airline. Since 1999, when the membership participated in self-determination elections, the mechanics have been organized into local unions that are specific to their trade and grouped into regions. The plaintiff Locals 561-565 are based in cities in Florida, New York, Illinois, California, and Texas, respectively. They are among the eight TWU local unions consisting primarily of airport "line" mechanics, in contrast to mechanics who work perform "overhaul" work at American bases.
Two significant and related events provide the context for the current dispute: American Airlines entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in 2011—resulting in modifications to its collective bargaining agreements with TWU—, and in February 2013 it announced a merger with U.S. Airways. Different TWU units negotiated different concessionary agreements with American; the Mechanics Unit agreed to eliminate the so-called "Baker letter" as it applied to mechanics. Pursuant to the Baker letter, since 1993 American had paid the local mechanic representatives' compensation for their union representative activities. As for the merger, if approved, it will require the consolidation of employees of the two airlines, including the mechanics, who are represented by two different unions (the International Association ofMachinists represents the US Airways mechanics). Faced with this prospect of elimination of the airline subsidy for Local union leadership and a decline in dues income resulting from the elimination of hundreds or thousands of mechanic positions—also attributable to airlines' purchasing of newer aircraft—the TWU concluded that the financial viability of the Locals was or would soon be in jeopardy, as was the locals' ability to continue the effective representation of the membership, especially against a possible threat of "raids" by other unions.
In October 2012, the TWU announced to the membership a "Line Local Reorganization," part of which prescribed that the Locals would be "merged" into a single local union to be known as Local 591, based in Dallas, Texas, where American Airlines is headquartered. In addition, the base overhaul mechanics in Local 565 would be merged into the base line mechanics' Local 567. The Locals and their members strongly opposed the merger and believed it would be detrimental to the effective representation of the membership; they submitted an "Appeal and Objection" to TWU and otherwise made their objections known. In late October, the IEC established a subcommittee to examine the issues raised by the restructuring proposal. The subcommittee's January 3 report and recommendation endorsed a plan similar to what had been proposed in October. On January 8, the TWU International Executive Council formally adopted a resolution implementing the proposed reorganization, to be effective on March 22, 2013. In support of the resolution, the IEC explicitly incorporated and relied on the interpretation of the TWU Constitution by the TWU International President, which sets forth the basis for the International's authority to restructure locals in the manner recommended by the IEC subcommittee.
On February 25, the Locals filed their complaint, which alleges that the TWU's reorganization plan, particularly the merger of the line mechanics into one "super-local," violatesthe TWU Constitution and the international union's duty of fair representation. The lawsuit seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin implementation the reorganization plan. On March 5, the Locals moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The parties submitted evidence on an expedited basis, and presented their arguments at the March 14 hearing.1
The TWU argues—at least in its papers—that this Court lacks jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115, to enter an injunction in a "labor dispute," unless the statute's stringent standards are met. The Locals have not responded to the jurisdictional question, and the TWU did not press the issue at the TRO hearing, but the Court is independently obligated to consider its own jurisdiction. The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act, which became effective in 1932, was conceived to prevent federal judges from enjoining strikes and other forms of legitimate collective action by workers. See generally Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 U.S. 702, 715-718 (1982). See also 29 U.S.C. § 102 (). It is difficult to conceive how this intra-union dispute implicates the concern that judges will improvidently use injunctions to restrain collective activity out of hostility for labor.
This case implicates the practicalities of how a union will organize and govern its members; that is an internal matter that does not implicate any "labor dispute"—that is, "any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." 29 U.S.C. § 113. The union's collective bargaining agreement—which is negotiated and administered by the International, not the Locals—is not implicated here, nor are the members' terms or conditions of employment. A restructuring of local unions, even one that involves the dissolution of some, is unlike any of the labor activities that the Norris-LaGuardia Act restricts the courts from enjoining. See 29 U.S.C. § 104. Various courts have held that intra-union disputes similar to this one do not trigger application of the Norris-LaGaurdia Act. See, e.g., Parks v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 314 F.2d 886 (4th Cir. 1963) (); Smith v. Bowers, 337 F. Supp. 2d 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (); Tisa v. Potofsky, 90 F. Supp. 175, 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1950) (); Chambers v. Int'l Hod Carriers' Building & Common Laborers' Union of Am., 52 F. Supp. 978 (D.D.C. 1943) (). For the contrary proposition, the International relies primarily on Bodecker v. Local Union No. P-46, 640 F.2d 182 (8th Cir. 1981), but in addition to being factually distinguishable, that case does not provide any explanation for its conclusion that the intra-union dispute at issue was a "labor dispute." See id. at 185. Perhaps some intra-union dispute in another context might fall within the purview of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, but the Court concludes that this one does not. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction if one is warranted.
The International also urges the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial