Vincent v. General Dynamics Corp.
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | MAHON |
| Citation | Vincent v. General Dynamics Corp., 427 F.Supp. 786 (N.D. Tex. 1977) |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4-2221. |
| Parties | Raymond VINCENT et al. v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. et al. |
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.
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
By document dated 23 October 1975, all parties have agreed to stipulate the following facts:7
In more detail, the relevant portions of Article Two of the collective bargaining agreement which Plaintiffs attack are:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Professional Hel. Pilots, Loc. 102 v. Lear Siegler
... ... question in this case through a certification to Attorney General John Ashcroft and to Leura Garrett Canary, United States Attorney for the ... moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ... old laws do not conflict with the laws of the new sovereign." Vincent v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 427 F.Supp. 786, 795 (N.D.Tex.1977). "[L]ocal law ... ...
-
Thomas v. Securiguard Inc.
... ... the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ... See e.g. , Vincent v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. , 427 F. Supp. 786, 795 (N.D. Tex. 1977) (Texas ... Particularly at summary judgment, the "general expectation [is] that ... the District Court will focus on the third ... ...
-
Lord v. LOCAL UNION NO. 2088
... ... Service Corp ... MEMORANDUM DECISION ... GEORGE ... denied, 434 U.S. 1065, 98 S.Ct. 1242, 55 L.Ed.2d 766 (1978); Vincent v. General Dynamics Corp., 427 F.Supp. 786 (N.D.Tex.1977); and Cooper v ... ...
-
Taylor v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
... ... ( Vincent v. General Dynamics Corp. (N.D.Tex. 1977) 427 F.Supp. 786, 795; see also People v. Crusilla ... ...