U.S. v. T.I.M.E.-D.C. Inc.

Decision Date08 August 1975
Docket NumberNo. 73-2214,73-2214
Parties11 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 66, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,361 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., INC. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. T.I.M.E. FREIGHT, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpersof America, Defendant-Appellant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

David L. Rose, William B. Fenton, Joel G. Contreras, Civil Rights Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., Ft. Worth, Tex., Robert B. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lubbock, Tex., for United States.

L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Hal K. Gillespie, Dallas, Tex., for Intern. Brotherhood.

Robert D. Schuler, R. Ian Hunter, A. Read Cone, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant-appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and AINSWORTH and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:

This governmental pattern and practice suit is one more in an ever-increasing number of Title VII employment discrimination cases arising out of the trucking industry and primarily involving the past exclusion of minority group members from the job of over-the-road- -line driver (LD). 1 The Government, T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc. and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) all appeal from an order and decree that found that T.I.M.E.-D.C. has engaged in a system-wide pattern and practice of discrimination in violation of §§ 703(a)(1), (2) 2 and 707(a) 3 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This appeal is largely focused on the issues of whether the Government carried its burden of proving pattern and practice, and if so, whether the District Court's award of carry-over seniority relief to the affected class of Black and Spanish-surnamed American (SSA) incumbent employees was appropriate, adequate or both.

This litigation represents the culmination of the consolidation of two separate suits filed by the United States against T.I.M.E.-D.C. and the Teamsters. 4 The first was filed on May 15, 1968 in the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging that T.I.M.E. Freight, Inc. (a predecessor of T.I.M.E.- D.C., Inc., see table, note 6, infra ), the IBT, and Teamster Local 480 (representing T.I.M.E. Freight employees at the Nashville terminal) were engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII at T.I.M.E.'s Nashville terminal.

The second suit was filed January 14, 1971 in the Northern District of Texas, charging T.I.M.E.-D.C. and IBT with engaging in a pattern and practice of discrimination on a systemwide basis. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers was subsequently joined as a defendant. After transfer the suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Texas on April 30, 1971.

The Government's Claim

Essentially the Government charged T.I.M.E.-D.C. with engaging in a pattern and practice of discrimination by

(a) Refusing to recruit, hire, transfer and promote black and Spanish-surnamed persons on an equal basis with whites.

(b) Assigning blacks and Spanish-surnamed persons to lower paying, less desirable job classifications while reserving the higher paying, more desirable classifications for whites.

(c) Refusing to employ black and Spanish-surnamed persons as casuals (non-regular) employees on the same basis as whites.

(d) Refusing to promote or transfer black and Spanish-surnamed employees, or to provide an opportunity for such employees to transfer, to road driver, mechanic and managerial jobs on the same basis it has promoted, transferred and provided the opportunity to transfer for white employees to these jobs.

(e) Maintaining a system of promotions and transfers which perpetuates the effects of the company's past discrimination against black and Spanish-surnamed persons.

Pretrial Order P 2.

The Government also alleged that IBT by itself and through its Area Conferences 5 and locals engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination by entering into contracts which perpetuate the effects of past discrimination by impeding the transfer of Blacks and SSAs to more desirable jobs and by failing to take affirmative action to correct continuing effects of past discrimination.

Although the Government alleged and offered proof on a wide variety of discriminatory practices, its main complaint centered on the charge that T.I.M.E.-D.C. and its predecessors had refused to initially hire Blacks and SSAs as LDs and continued to perpetuate that discrimination by refusing to permit or discouraging them to transfer to LD vacancies.

T.I.M.E.-D.C.'s Operations

T.I.M.E.-D.C. Inc. is a major interstate common carrier operating on a transcontinental basis, with headquarters in Lubbock, Texas. T.I.M.E.-D.C. operates 51 terminals in 26 states and three Canadian provinces and employs 6,472 people. T.I.M.E.-D.C. nationwide motor freight system is a product of 10 mergers over a 17 year period. 6

IBT is an unincorporated labor organization. T.I.M.E.-D.C. has signed a total of 124 separate collective bargaining agreements with 83 individual Teamster locals at its various terminals. Each contract consists of three basic parts, the National Master Freight Agreement, an Area Supplement and Local Riders or Addenda. The National Master and the Area Supplements are negotiated nationally on a multi-union, multi-employer basis. See Rodriguez, supra, at 47 and 60.

Job Classifications and Seniority System

Non-managerial employees of T.I.M.E.-D.C. represented by IBT are divided into four basic bargaining units road (LD), city, garage, and clerical 7 each with its own separate contract.

The four basic bargaining units each operate under a separate local rider and area supplement although all are covered by the National Master Freight Agreement. Accordingly each maintains its separate seniority roster.

There are generally no lines of progression within the garage. When a vacancy occurs notice is posted and any member of the unit capable of meeting the minimum qualifications for the job may bid on the basis of seniority. The same is essentially true of the city. There is no line of progression and any member of the unit may bid on the basis of seniority on any job within the unit when a vacancy arises, if the employee meets the minimum qualifications.

LD is the only job classification within the line unit. All drivers within the unit are placed on the seniority board. Unit seniority controls the bidding on particular line runs, overtime and protection against layoffs, as well as transfer preference within the Southern Conference under the Modified Seniority plan. (See text accompanying note 9, infra ). A new LD with low seniority is required to "sweat" the extra board awaiting extra line runs as they arise. As he accumulates seniority he may bid on and obtain the less desirable regular line runs, looking eventually to the day he will have accumulated enough seniority to qualify for the most desirable regular runs.

Nothing in the union contracts prohibits an employee from transferring between separate bargaining units at a given terminal, but he loses his pre-transfer accumulated seniority for bid and layoff. 8

While city drivers have occasionally and at some terminals frequently transferred to LD, it was a more normal practice for the terminal to hire many of its LDs "off the street".

Ordinarily an employee would not be allowed to transfer from one terminal to another and take his seniority with him. However those terminals within the Southern Conference have adopted a "Modified Seniority System" under which a LD domiciled within the Southern Conference who has been laid off at his home terminal is permitted to use his unit seniority to either fill a vacancy at another terminal within the Southern Conference or bump a junior LD at such other terminal. Such transfer right must be utilized within 30 days of the layoff. The transferring LD then has the option to return to his old terminal prior to new hirees when a vacancy arises. 9

Proceedings Below

The consolidated litigation was tried in the Northern District of Texas in early May 1972. All parties introduced live testimony including that of many alleged discriminatees, supervisory and management personnel of T.I.M.E.-D.C., teamster officers, and various experts including a government statistician and a social psychologist who testified for T.I.M.E.-D.C. In addition the Government introduced over 80 depositions and 19 summaries of depositions taken at 10 of T.I.M.E.'s terminals.

(1.) Decree In Partial Resolution Of The Suit

Following the trial but before decision, the Government and T.I.M.E.-D.C. entered into a Decree in Partial Resolution of the suit. It stated that it was neither an adjudication on the merits nor an admission by T.I.M.E. of a Title VII violation. It dealt largely with the matter of applicants for new hires. Under the decree T.I.M.E.-D.C. agreed (i) to engage in a minority recruitment program in all communities where it operates terminals in cooperation with community organizations, (ii) to provide all minority applicants who inquire about employment with an application blank and notification of any vacancies, (iii) to keep specific employment records and file periodic reports with the District Court, and (iv) to abide by certain job qualification standards with respect to future hiring and promotion. 10

Of greater significance to the issues on appeal, the decree mandated priority to discriminatees and subsequently a one-to-one minority-white hiring ratio. 11

Finally T.I.M.E.-D.C. agreed to pay $89,500.00 in full settlement of its "alleged obligation" to individual and class discriminatees as found...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Sagers v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 2, 1976
    ...of liability. Sabala v. Western Gillette, Inc., S.D.Tex.1973, 362 F.Supp. 1142, aff'd 5 Cir. 1975, 516 F.2d 1251; United States v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., 5 Cir. 1975, 517 F.2d 299; United States v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., M.D.N.C.1972, 4 FEP Cases 472. We find no error in the district court's......
  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States Inc v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1977
    ...of equity, to balance their interest against the legitimate expectations of other employees innocent of wrongdoing. Pp. 371-376. 5 Cir., 517 F.2d 299, vacated and Robert D. Schuler, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for petitioner in No. 75-672. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for petitioner in N......
  • Larkin v. Pullman-Standard Div., Pullman, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 21, 1988
    ...396 (1977). The Court rejected what had become this circuit's standard approach to seniority systems. See, e.g., United States v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., 517 F.2d 299, 320 (5th Cir.1975) (collecting cases), rev'd sub nom. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. at 324, 97 S......
  • Swint v. Pullman-Standard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 30, 1976
    ...the close of the evidence. United States v. United States Steel, 520 F.2d 1043, 1053 (5th Cir. 1976); citing, United States v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., 517 F.2d 299, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1975); Rodriguez v. East Texas Motor Freight, 505 F.2d 40, 53-55 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Hayes International......
  • 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