Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Flight Engineers Internat'l Ass'n

• Decision Date: 13 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. 510-61.,510-61.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: WESTERN AIR LINES, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. FLIGHT ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, etc., et al., Defendants.

194 F. Supp. 908

WESTERN AIR LINES, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. FLIGHT ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, etc., et al., Defendants.

No. 510-61.

United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.

June 13, 1961.

Darling, Shattuck & Edmonds, Los Angeles, Cal., for Western Air Lines.

Brundage, Hackler & Flaum, Los Angeles, Cal., for Flight Engineers International Ass'n, AFL-CIO.

HALL, Chief Judge.

The matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant Union and the individual defendant members thereof from picketing its places of business and otherwise interfering with the normal operations of its business by picketing and other forms of coercive action such as communicating with plaintiff's suppliers and their employees and with orginating places of business for the plaintiff, like travel agencies.

The defendants did not file any counter-affidavits, and hence the statements of fact in plaintiff's affidavits must be taken as true, as well as the factual allegations in the complaint. In addition thereto, both parties agreed that the Court take judicial notice of the files, records and proceedings in case No. 362-61.

In that case, the Union (defendant here) was plaintiff, and sought the processes of this Court to compel Western Air Lines (plaintiff here) to discharge the persons hired by Western to replace the flight engineers who had walked out on February 17, 1961, which, if granted, would have resulted in rehiring the displaced flight engineers. After the flight engineers of Western walked out on February 17th, Western continued operation of its air line so far as possible, replacing the flight engineers with pilot-trained persons, which Western claims is in accordance with the negotiated contract of April 11, 1958, between the Union and Western, conceded by both parties to be still in force pending the negotiation of a new contract.

Injunctive relief was denied by this Court on the ground that the matter involved in case No. 362-61 was a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and that the parties had not exhausted the preliminary procedures required by their own negotiated contract and by the Railway Labor Act. See transcript of oral opinion in case No. 362-61 for fuller discussion.

The roots of the differences between the parties lie deep in the developments over the past several years in the air-passenger-carrying industry. The history of that development, as effecting flight engineers and air pilots, is set forth in detail in Exhibit 6 which is the report of a committee appointed under Section 2, ninth, of the Railway Labor Act 45 U.S.C.A. § 152, Ninth in a representation dispute between the Air Line Pilots Association and the Flight Engineers Association, whose members were employed by United Air Lines. Western was not a party to that dispute. That report was released February 6, 1961. It pointed out the necessity, in the operation of up-to-date aircraft carrying many persons, of each person in the cockpit being able to do the work of every other person in the cockpit in an emergency, including the piloting of the aircraft, and concluded that all persons in the cockpit constituted one "craft or class for purposes of representation and collective bargaining under the Railway Labor Act, and should be voted together on one ballot for the purposes of representation under Sec. 2, ninth, of the Railway Labor Act as amended."

It is unnecessary to recite all of the facts as alleged in the affidavits and the complaint and as judicially noticed in case No. 362-61, but a statement of certain events, in addition to those outlined above, is essential in understanding the problem.

In protest of the above-mentioned decision of February 6, 1961, by the National Mediation Board, the flight engineers on all air lines over the United States walked out on February 17, 1961. Western Air Lines was the only one which attempted to operate. It specifically requested each flight engineer to report for work at the regular time that he was to be called for duty. Each one refused, and was replaced by a pilot-trained employee. The other air lines continued struck until the Secretary of Labor of the United States issued a statement on February 21, 1961, after a conference with the struck carriers, except Western, wherein he pointed out that the decision of the National Mediation Board was by its terms limited in its nature to United Air Lines, and that "With respect to the decision in its limited application to United Air Lines, the Board is an independent agency duly established by law, whose rulings cannot be changed by the President, myself or anyone in the Executive Branch of Government. We are a government of laws and not of men. If the decision is considered erroneous, it can be challenged only in the courts."

Many flight engineers are not pilot-trained, and the statement also pointed out the fears of flight engineers that their jobs would be in jeopardy by the decision of the National Mediation Board.

The flight engineers, by walking out, apparently regarded that decision as presaging the same conclusions on other air lines when and if the question was raised as to each air line. Western apparently took the same attitude by immediately adopting the policy of hiring only pilot-trained employees to replace those who refused to go on their jobs when requested.

The statement by the Secretary of Labor was followed by an order of the President establishing a commission to inquire into the situation and make a recommendation to the President, and to assist in achieving an amicable settlement and agreement. Both parties to this controversy concede that that order was not an order made under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 160, providing for an emergency board. The parties to the action concede that both of them would be at liberty to disregard the order of the President. The statement of the Secretary of Labor requested the striking employees, on all air lines except Western, to return to work, and they did.

On February 23, 1961, an amendment was made to the Presidential Order of February 21, 1961, which included Western Air Lines. By that time, Western had requested each individual employed as a flight engineer to report...