UNITED INDUS. WKRS. OF SEAFARERS INT. U. v. Board of Trustees, 23929.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. 23929.,23929.
• Citation: 368 F.2d 412
• Parties: UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF the SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC GULF, LAKES AND INLAND WATERS DISTRICT, MARINE ALLIED WORKERS DIVISION, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the GALVESTON WHARVES, and the City of Galveston, Texas, Appellees. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the GALVESTON WHARVES and the City of Galveston, Texas, Appellants, v. UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF the SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC GULF, LAKES AND INLAND WATERS DISTRICT, MARINE ALLIED WORKERS DIVISION, AFL-CIO, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

368 F.2d 412 (1966)

UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF the SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC GULF, LAKES AND INLAND WATERS DISTRICT, MARINE ALLIED WORKERS DIVISION, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the GALVESTON WHARVES, and the City of Galveston, Texas, Appellees.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the GALVESTON WHARVES and the City of Galveston, Texas, Appellants, v. UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF the SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC GULF, LAKES AND INLAND WATERS DISTRICT, MARINE ALLIED WORKERS DIVISION, AFL-CIO, Appellees.

No. 23929.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

November 16, 1966.

Newton B. Schwartz, Houston, Tex., C. Paul Barker, Dodd, Hirsch, Barker & Meunier, New Orleans, La., for appellants.

V. W. McLeod, McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, Galveston, Tex., for appellees.

Before JONES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.

DYER, Circuit Judge:

This is the second appearance of this case before us. On the first appeal this Court reversed the District Court's denial of the Union's application for a preliminary injunction.¹

We observe, in limine, that the main thrust of appellee's argument on this appeal and cross-appeal, and reiterated in its post-argument supplemental brief, is that this court's prior opinion was erroneous, and that we should therefore review and revise the conclusions therein reached. Our previous ruling is the law of this case and will not be reconsidered on this second appeal. Hildreth v. Union News Company, 6 Cir. 1963, 315 F.2d 548.

The facts are set forth in our prior opinion and need not be fully restated.

Under the collective bargaining agreement between the Carrier, Galveston Wharves, and the Union, having an expiration date of September 30, 1964, the Union served an opener notice on July 20, 1964, to negotiate. The Carrier declined on July 23, 1964, because it had leased its elevator (where the employees worked), and gave notice of a lay-off on July 31, 1964. On July 29, 1964, the Union served a "Section 6"² notice under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 156.

The Union sought and was denied a preliminary injunction. In reversing we said that the dispute was major, not minor; and that after a timely demand by the Union under Section 6, the Carrier was required to bargain before it could put into effect, during the term of the collective bargaining agreement, a lease which would put to an end the need for its employees. We concluded by saying:

"We think that we need not direct that the lease be unscrambled at this time. But these employees\' rights have been so clearly violated, some suitable relief and sanction should be imposed so that bargaining about this operational termination, now so long delayed, may go forward. We do not blueprint these matters. They are best left to the discretion of the District Judge." 351 F.2d at 191, 192.

On remand, the order entered on the mandate merely required the parties to bargain in good faith and failed to impose any sanctions. It is plain that this order did not provide the suitable relief and sanction that this Court found to be not only appropriate but necessary. Although recognizing that returning the parties to their pre-lease status would be the usual remedy under these circumstances, the District Court nevertheless refused, on the ground of hardship, to afford any relief. The District Court apparently mistook the breadth of the discretion afforded it for the existence of discretion, for the discretion granted the District Court was not whether to restore the status quo but only how to restore it. There must be an impact on the duty to bargain to prevent the employer from getting a windfall for having...