United Mine Workers of America, District 22 v. Roncco

• Decision Date: 20 April 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 4558.
• Citation: 204 F. Supp. 1
• Parties: UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 22, Plaintiff, v. Leo RONCCO, Jr., and Pete Cavalli, partners doing business as Roncco Coal Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming

204 F. Supp. 1

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 22, Plaintiff, v. Leo RONCCO, Jr., and Pete Cavalli, partners doing business as Roncco Coal Company, Defendants.

Civ. No. 4558.

United States District Court D. Wyoming.

April 20, 1962.

Robert S. Lowe, Rawlins, Wyo., for plaintiff.

Richard S. Kitchen, Sr., Denver, Colo., and Gerald A. Stack, Thermopolis, Wyo., for defendants.

KERR, District Judge.

This action is brought by a labor organization as the collective bargaining representative of the employees of defendants. Plaintiff seeks $30,000.00 damages for the alleged violation of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, as amended, and prays also for a declaration of the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties under said contract.

Defendants have filed two motions to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit for the reason that plaintiff has failed to join indispensable parties plaintiff, namely, the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950, the officers, agents, and employees of the plaintiff, and the employees of the defendant allegedly injured; and (2) that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the reason that it has not exhausted its administrative and contractual remedies. Defendants' motion to strike and motion for more definite statement need not be discussed herein because of my findings and conclusions on the aforesaid motions to dismiss.

Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. The alleged contract violations upon which plaintiff predicates its claim for damages are particularized in paragraph 9 of the complaint as follows:

(1) Defendants do not pay time and a half for overtime for work performed beyond the established work day, nor for Saturday work;

(2) House coal is not sold to employees as provided for in the agreement;

(3) Defendants refuse to comply with the seniority provisions of the 1952 National agreement;

(4) Defendants do not recognize the Grievance and Safety Committee as required by the agreement;

(5) Defendants refuse to check off dues and initiation fees as stipulated in the agreement;

(6) Defendants fail and refuse to pay into the welfare fund the 40¢ per ton royalty.

Clearly, the allegations numbered herein (1) through (3) are for the benefit of the individual employees who are not parties to this action. Under the rule enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 1955, 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 489, 99 L.Ed. 510, federal courts have no jurisdiction over the enforcement of rights, such as those numbered (1) through (3), which are "uniquely personal" to the employees. The plaintiff, as the collective bargaining representative of the defendants' employees has no right to seek redress in this court to enforce any rights personal to such employees. Under the terms of Section 301 of the Act federal court jurisdiction is limited to "contract violations of `peculiar concern' to the Union as an organization * * *." United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO), Local Union No. 4264 v. New Park Mining Company, 10 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 352, 355.

Plaintiff has provided the Court with no test by which to determine the jurisdiction of this Court over the allegation numbered above as (4). I have scrutinized the agreement and its amendments and I have not found therein the "Grievance and Safety Committee" which the complaint avers is not "recognized" by defendants. The only possible conclusion in the light of the pleadings and arguments of counsel is that the parties have not contracted with reference to such Committee. The Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction under the Act over such subject matter for the reason that "Section 301 of the Act is concerned with violations of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees * * *." United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO), Local Union No. 4264 v. New Park Mining Company, supra, at page 357. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of these first four allegations is well taken.

The allegations above numbered (5) and (6) are within the realm of contract rights which the Union may assert in the Federal court under the proper circumstances. Both the employer and the Union have a limited interest in the management of the welfare fund. Lewis et al., Trustee v. Benedict Coal Corp., 1960, 361 U.S. 459, 80 S.Ct. 489, 4 L.Ed. 2d 442. The trustees are the real parties in interest, and the only parties legally interested when suit is brought to enforce payment into the fund. Lewis et al. v. Quality Coal Corp., 7 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 769; International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL et al. v. Jay-Ann Company, Incorporated, 5 Cir., 1956, 228 F.2d 632. Plaintiff is in effect attempting to compel the employer to make the agreed upon royalty...