Volkman v. United Transp. Union

• Decision Date: 11 January 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 93-3300,93-3302,s. 93-3300
• Citation: 73 F.3d 1047
• Parties: 151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2452 Jerry W. VOLKMAN; Paul W. Will; Lyle W. Wade; Leroy G. Wells; Paul D. Cohan; Dennis P. Swiantek; William E. Donahue; Lonnie L. Schneider; Howard Howser; Charles Blackburn; and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and Roger (Buckie) Moore; Richard L. Humble; Franklin A. Callaway; Phillip D. Brunow, Joseph F. Edwards; Lowell D. Molloy; L.D. Ward; Kenneth W. Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION; Fred A. Hardin, R.H. Arnett, as representatives of the United Transportation Union; St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company; Southern Pacific Company; Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Defendants-Appellees. , and 93-3303.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1047

73 F.3d 1047

151 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2452

Jerry W. VOLKMAN; Paul W. Will; Lyle W. Wade; Leroy G Wells; Paul D. Cohan; Dennis P. Swiantek; William E Donahue; Lonnie L. Schneider; Howard Howser; Charles Blackburn; and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Roger (Buckie) Moore; Richard L. Humble; Franklin A Callaway; Phillip D. Brunow, Joseph F. Edwards; Lowell D. Molloy; L.D. Ward; Kenneth W. Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION; Fred A. Hardin, R.H. Arnett, as representatives of the United Transportation Union; St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company; Southern Pacific Company; Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 93-3300, 93-3302, and 93-3303.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1996.

Bruce H. Stoltze, of Brick, Gentry, Bowers, Swartz, Stoltze, Schuling & Levis, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellants.

Norton N. Newborn, of Norton N. Newborn Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee United Transportation Union.

Wayne M. Bolio and Robert S. Bogason of San Francisco, California, for appellee Southern Pacific Transportation Company.

Mark L. Bennett, Jr., and Ann Hoover, of Bennett & Dillon, of Topeka, Kansas, for appellee St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company.

Before BRISCOE, COFFIN, ^* and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

This is a class action by railroad workers formerly employed by the now defunct Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (Rock Island), whose Tucumcari Line was acquired by St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. (SSW), against defendants United Transportation Union (UTU), SSW, SSW's parent corporation Southern Pacific Transportation Co., and Southern Pacific's parent corporation Southern Pacific Co. In March 1980, SSW, other railroads acquiring portions of Rock Island, and labor organizations representing Rock Island employees entered into a labor protective agreement to protect the employment and seniority rights of Rock Island employees.

Plaintiffs alleged that under the agreement, they were entitled to preferential hiring and certain seniority rights from SSW on the Tucumcari Line, and that UTU breached its duty of fair representation in implementing the labor protective agreement. The district court found that UTU had breached its duty of fair representation, and that defendants had breached the labor protective agreement, but concluded only a small portion of the plaintiff class was entitled to relief.

Appellants are eight class members who worked for Rock Island on non-Tucumcari lines that shared a terminal with the Tucumcari Line. They were first hired by SSW to work on rehabilitation of the Tucumcari Line, and later worked as regular brakemen or conductors. These eight appellants appeal the district court's ruling that the labor protective agreement did not entitle former Rock Island employees who worked on non-Tucumcari lines to preferential hiring by SSW.

UTU and SSW cross-appealed the judgment entered in favor of the Tucumcari Line plaintiffs, but later settled with them and dismissed the cross-appeals. There are no cross-appeals pending. In their briefs, defendants raise errors of the district court only as alternative grounds for affirming the judgment.

The district court's findings of fact in Volkman v. United Transp. Union, 724 F.Supp. 1282 (D.Kan.1989), and 770 F.Supp. 1455 (D.Kan.1991), provide a clear and complete narrative of the events. We will set out a brief summary of the main events.

After the bankruptcy of Rock Island, SSW, with the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission, acquired Rock Island's Tucumcari Line, which ran from New Mexico through Kansas City to St. Louis. This route is 400 miles shorter than SSW's El Paso to St. Louis route, the Corsicana Line, which ran south through Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Corsicana, Texas, between Dallas and Houston. SSW renamed the Tucumcari Line the Kansas City Division, and the Corsicana Line became the Pine Bluff Division.

Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 11347, ICC was required to impose conditions to protect employees affected by the purchase of a railroad line by another railroad. ICC carried out that requirement by approving a March 4, 1980, labor protective agreement negotiated by UTU, other unions, SSW, and other railroads acquiring portions of the Rock Island and another bankrupt railroad. The agreement governed preferential hiring of Rock Island employees for positions resulting from SSW's acquisition of the Tucumcari Line, and required the parties to enter further agreements implementing its provisions. The implementing agreement between UTU and SSW was reached on February 23, 1982.

The Kansas City to St. Louis section of the Tucumcari Line was inoperable. Rather than repair it at great expense, SSW obtained permission from ICC in September 1982 to use Missouri Pacific Railroad track between Kansas City and St. Louis. In granting approval, ICC imposed labor protective conditions to protect SSW employees adversely affected by the acquisition. ICC required that SSW employees furloughed or dismissed because of the transaction be given priority in hiring for comparable positions, and that the railroad and unions attempt to reach an agreement for selecting the work force to handle traffic altered by the transaction. If no agreement was reached, ICC required the parties to submit disputed issues to arbitration. UTU and SSW reached a partial agreement and submitted other issues to arbitration. Traffic diverted from the Corsicana Line began running over the Missouri Pacific track and the Tucumcari Line in January 1983.

It was in the interest of SSW Corsicana Line employees to obtain priority for as many jobs as possible. It was also in SSW's interest to give priority to its own furloughed employees because, if SSW hired Rock Island employees, SSW was still obligated to pay its furloughed employees unemployment benefits.

The agreement implementing the March 4 agreement and the arbitration decision arising out of acquisition of the Missouri Pacific trackage rights were reached without input from former Rock Island employees. The Rock Island employees viewed the agreement as giving SSW employees a disproportionate share of the jobs on the Tucumcari Line and Missouri Pacific track.

Jerry Volkman, one of the class representatives, filed an internal union appeal challenging the implementing agreement as unduly favorable to SSW employees. The UTU Board of Appeals decided in his favor on March 11, 1983, and ordered UTU to enter negotiations with SSW for a new implementing agreement. Negotiations reached an impasse and, on September 30, 1983, the union president informed Volkman that SSW would not accept the union proposals and that Volkman was free to take legal action. (The district court found UTU informed former Rock Island employees that negotiations were also intended to rectify the results of the arbitration arising out of the Missouri Pacific trackage rights transaction.) Volkman filed this case in December 1983.

The district court found the statute of limitations was tolled and the action was timely. The court also found that in negotiating the implementing agreement and in the arbitration, SSW and UTU excluded the representative of the Rock Island workers so that the union was represented by a negotiator whose constituents were SSW Corsicana Line workers. The court concluded UTU had breached its duty of fair representation and had negotiated agreements favoring SSW employees over former Rock Island employees, and that defendants had failed to comply with the March 4 labor protective agreement. The court granted relief to some of the Rock Island Tucumcari Line employees, concluding that former Rock Island employees from lines other than the Tucumcari were not entitled to relief because they were not entitled to preferential hiring under the March 4 agreement. Appellants moved for reconsideration and requested that the record be reopened to permit them to present evidence in support of their claims. The court denied the motion.

Appellants' contentions.

Appellants contend that as Rock Island employees who worked on a line that shared a terminal with the Tucumcari Line, they were entitled to preference over SSW employees under the March 4, 1980, protective agreement. We conclude the language of the agreement gave all eligible Rock Island employees, whether on-line or off-line, preference in hiring for positions resulting from the Rock Island acquisition.

Although collective bargaining agreements are not ordinary contracts and are not governed by the same common law concepts that govern private contracts, see Transportation-Communication Emp. Union v. Union Pac. R. Co., 385 U.S. 157, 160-61, 87 S.Ct. 369, 371-72, 17 L.Ed.2d 264 (1966), reh'g denied 385 U.S. 1032, 87 S.Ct. 737, 17 L.Ed.2d 680 (1967), certain basic contract interpretation principles apply to construction of labor agreements. See Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 350 U.S. 270, 279, 76 S.Ct. 349, 356, 100 L.Ed. 309, reh'g denied 351 U.S. 980, 76 S.Ct. 1043, 100 L.Ed. 1495 (1956). If the language of the agreement is unambiguous, it may be construed as a matter of law without resort to extrinsic evidence of intent. See, e.g., Ill. Conference of Teamsters Wel. Fund v. Mrowicki, 44 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir.1994).

Here, the district court held the agreement was ambiguous, looked to extrinsic evidence of intent, and concluded the eight appellants were not entitled to any relief. However, whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Central States v. Independent Fruit & Produce Co., 919 F.2d 1343, 1350 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied 502 U.S. 811, 112 S.Ct. 59, 116 L.Ed.2d 35 (1991). On the limited issue presented by the eight appellants, we conclude the agreement is unambiguous, and that the eight appellants are entitled to preferential hiring under the plain language of the agreement.

Article II...