Vincent v. General Dynamics Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4-2221.
• Citation: 427 F. Supp. 786
• Parties: Raymond VINCENT et al. v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

427 F. Supp. 786

Raymond VINCENT et al. v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. et al.

Civ. A. No. 4-2221.

United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

February 23, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard U. Simon, Jr., Brown, Crowley, Simon & Peebles, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiffs.

Otto B. Mullinax, Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy & Baab, Inc., Dallas, Tex., for International Ass'n of Machinists.

Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., Clinton & Richards, Austin, Tex., for Office & Professional Employees.

J. Olcott Phillips, McDonald, Sanders, Ginsburg, Phillips, Maddox & Newkirk, Fort Worth, Tex., for General Dynamics Corp.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MAHON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, thirteen employees of General Dynamics Corporation hereinafter "GD" at its Fort Worth, Texas, facility, have sued their employer and the unions that are the certified collective bargaining representatives of certain of GD's employees. Plaintiffs claim that certain provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreements between GD and the unions, those which provide for an "agency shop," are violative of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5154a §§ 8,¹ 8a,² & 11³ and 5207a,⁴ and of Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. § 15.03(a)(4).⁵

The collective bargaining agreements under attack are executed and administered pursuant to National Labor Relations Board certifications between GD and Defendant unions — International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO hereinafter "International Union", International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 776 hereinafter "Lodge 776", and Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 277 hereinafter "Local 277" — which are the exclusive collective bargaining agents for GD employees pursuant to § 9 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159.

Plaintiffs refuse to comply with the bargaining agreements in their entirety. By this lawsuit, they seek an injunction against enforcement of the "agency shop" requirement and unspecified damages.

This action was removed from state court to this Court on 27 March 1973, a few days prior to its trial setting in state court, upon the filing of Plaintiff's "First Amended Original Petition." In October 1975, all parties agreed that this case should be decided on cross motions for summary judgment and that the case should be submitted to the Court entirely on briefs, without oral argument. Since that date, and through December 1976, the parties have submitted their motions for summary judgment and numerous extensive memoranda of law concerning the motions.⁶

I FACTS

By document dated 23 October 1975, all parties have agreed to stipulate the following facts:⁷

1. By Warranty Deed dated September 10, 1941, the City of Fort Worth conveyed 967.121 acres of land in Tarrant County, Texas, to the United States of America. Such Deed was duly recorded in . . . the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas . . ..

2. By Warranty Deed dated September 24, 1941, the City of Fort Worth conveyed 435.954 gross acres, being 428.36 net acres, in Tarrant County, Texas, to the United States of America. Such Deed is duly recorded in . . . the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas. . . .

3. By letter dated December 14, 1942, the Secretary of War of the United States of America requested that the Governor of the State of Texas execute the necessary instruments to place the acreage described in the Deeds designated in Paragraphs 1. and 2. above completely under the control and jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

4. The State of Texas executed a deed of cession dated December 30, 1942, to the United States of America. This deed described two tracts of land in Tarrant County, Texas. Tract I covered 967.121 acres, being the same 967.121 acres described in the Deed referred to in paragraph 1. above. Tract II covered 435.954 gross acres, 428.36 net acres, being the same 428.36 acres described in the Deed referred to in Paragraph 2. above. . .

5. By letter dated January 18, 1943, the Secretary of War of the United States of America notified the Governor of the State of Texas that the War Department acknowledged receipt of the deed of cession dated December 30, 1942, executed by the Governor on behalf of the State of Texas, ceding exclusive jurisdiction to the United States of America over the 1403.075 acres of land described in said deed of cession and noted the land was being used for military purposes. The letter further stated that the United States of America accepted cession of jurisdiction effective as of January 30, 1943, at 12:00 noon. The original of the letter of acceptance was received in the office of the Governor and duly receipted for by the Governor of the State of Texas of January 27, 1973. . . .

6. . . . A map of Air Force Plant # 4, Texas Military Reservation, dated September 24, 1952, prepared by the Department of the Army, Office of the District Engineer, Fort Worth, Texas, being further identified by reference to Project No. 3188, . . . accurately reflects the real estate comprising Air Force Plant # 4, including the 428.36 net acres described as Tract II in the deed of cession dated December 30, 1942, referred to in Paragraph 4, above.

7. . . . A map designated "Ownership Legend — Air Force Plant # 4," prepared by the Industrial Facilities Department of General Dynamics Corporation on March 11, 1974, . . accurately reflects by the pink colored area those portions of Air Force Plant # 4 covered by deeds of cession from the State of Texas to the United States of America, and owned in fee by the United States of America. The blue colored area reflects land owned by the United States of America in fee, but which is not covered by a deed of cession from the State of Texas. The green portion of the map reflects acreage leased by the United States of America. No deed of cession from the State of Texas covers the green area. The pink portion of the map reflects 434.87 acres of which 428.36 acres are covered by the deed of cession dated December 30, 1942, referred to in Paragraph 4. above, and the remaining 6.51 acres consist of three small tracts covered by a deed of cession dated November 7, 1951, from the State of Texas to the United States of America. Said three small tracts totaling 6.51 acres are designated as Tract Nos. 2, 4 and 9 on the Department of Army map of Air Force Plant # 4 dated September 24, 1952, . . . referred to in Paragraph 6. above. The . . . "Ownership Legend — Air Force Plant # 4" prepared by Industrial Facilities of General Dynamics Corporation dated March 11, 1964, accurately sets forth the location of the buildings, physical structures and facilities located on Air Force Plant # 4 and located on the immediately adjoining area to the East thereof in Craswell Air Force Base. (Plaintiffs, by agreeing to these stipulations do not in any way stipulate, agree or admit that the area colored in pink in the . . . map reflecting "Ownership Legend — Air Force Plant # 4" prepared by the Industrial Facilities Department of General Dynamics Corporation, dated March 11, 1974, is a "Federal Enclave" as is reflected by such legend.)

8. General Dynamics Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters in the City of Clayton, Missouri.

9. Since September 18, 1972, and for many years prior thereto, Defendant General Dynamics has been in possession of Air Force Plant # 4 by virtue of Facilities Agreements between Defendant General Dynamics and the United States of America.

10. Approximately 138.99 acres of land upon which Air Force Plant # 4 is located are not within a Federal Enclave.

11. As of October 12, 1972, approximately 225 employees of Defendant General Dynamics at Air Force Plant # 4 were permanently assigned to a non-Federal Enclave area.

12. None of the Plaintiffs and none of the employees in the bargaining units live in Air Force Plant # 4.

13. Defendant General Dynamics entered into an Agreement effective September 18, 1972, with Defendant International Union and Defendant Lodge 776. Said agreement covered the production and maintenance unit of the Fort Worth Operation as defined therein and contained the following provision:

"ARTICLE TWO SECURITY

". . .

"Section 2. Each employe in the bargaining unit shall, beginning on the 31st day following the execution of this Agreement or the 31st day following his employment, rehire, reinstatement, reemployment, recall, transfer or regression into the bargaining unit, as a condition of continued employment in the bargaining unit, execute and deliver to the Company a payroll deduction authorization as provided for in this Article, or pay directly to the Union an amount of money equal to the Union's regular and usual initiation fee and its regular, uniform and usual monthly dues."

Such agreement expired on September 21, 1975. The same parties, by an agreement effective September 22, 1975, and extending until October 29, 1978, continued in effect the same Section Two as set forth next above.

Defendant General Dynamics and Defendant Local 277 executed an Agreement effective September 18, 1972, extending until September 21, 1975, and containing the same Section Two as set forth next above. The Agreement covered a unit of the Fort Worth Operation defined therein. Effective September 22, 1975, Defendant General Dynamics and Defendant Local 277 entered into an agreement containing the same Section Two. This Agreement provides that it will extend until October 29, 1978.

14. The respective offices of the Defendant Unions are not located within Air Force Plant # 4. Their respective offices and the properties upon which said offices are located are not owned by the United States of America.

In more detail, the relevant portions of Article Two of the collective bargaining agreement which Plaintiffs attack are:

Section 1. Membership in the Union is not compulsory. Employes have the right to join, not join,

...