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 |
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.
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:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UNITED IND. WKRS. OF SEA. IU v. Board of Tr. of Galveston Wh.
...the suitable relief and sanction that this Court found to be not only appropriate but necessary." United Industrial Workers, etc. v. Board of Trustees, 5 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 412, 413.5 Again we remanded the proceedings, leaving details of relief "to the sound discretion of the District On t......
-
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America-Airline Div. and Teamsters Local 19 v. Southwest Airlines Co.
...is without merit. The district court correctly rejected this as irrelevant in view of this Court's prior opinion." United Industrial Workers, 368 F.2d 412, 414 (5th Cir.1966). The majority's reliance on Railway Express Agency v. BRAC, 437 F.2d 388 (5th Cir.1971), is misplaced because the de......
-
Mungin v. Florida East Coast Railway Company
...of "some suitable relief and sanction." 351 F.2d at 191-192. Showing that the molding of relief was no mechanical proposition, Galveston Wharves II held that the order to bargain was insufficient. 368 F.2d at 413. In Galveston Wharves III we reversed the Trial Court's third holding that, in......
-
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Airline Div.) v. Texas Intern. Airlines, Inc.
...S.Ct. 294, 24 L.Ed.2d 325 (1969); United Indus. Workers v. Galveston Wharves, 351 F.2d 183 (5th Cir.1965), on appeal following remand, 368 F.2d 412 (1966), on appeal following second remand, 400 F.2d 320 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1747, 23 L.Ed.2d 219 (1969). The carrier h......