Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, No. 1061-W.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
Citation266 F. Supp. 651
Decision Date13 April 1967
PartiesW. H. WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHEELING STEEL CORPORATION, etc., Defendant.
Docket NumberNo. 1061-W.

266 F. Supp. 651

W. H. WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WHEELING STEEL CORPORATION, etc., Defendant.

No. 1061-W.

United States District Court N. D. West Virginia.

April 13, 1967.


266 F. Supp. 652

Gilbert S. Bachmann, Melvin W. Kahle, Wheeling, W. Va., James A. Ashton, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Thomas B. Miller, Schmidt, Laas, Schrader & Miller, Burr A. Horn, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Wheeling Steel Corp., Wheeling, W. Va., for defendant.

James P. Clowes, Wheeling, for United Steel Workers of America, as amicus curiae.

MAXWELL, Chief Judge.

This suit, purporting to be a class action, was brought by a number of former employees of the Wheeling Steel Corporation against their employer.1 The defendant, Wheeling Steel Corporation, has filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This motion was made pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, it is within the narrow procedural framework of this motion that the Court now considers the claims of these plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs allege, and the record at this juncture does not contradict the allegation, that they were members in good standing of the union which represented them during the events which lead to this controversy. The union, the United Steelworkers of America (hereinafter Steelworkers), was originally a party defendant in this suit but was dismissed with prejudice by an order entered on October 22, 1962. The plaintiffs, at that time, made no objection to the dismissal of the Steelworkers.

The plaintiffs set forth the factual background of their alleged cause of action in paragraphs 9 and 10 of their amended complaint, filed with this Court on November 1, 1962.

"On or about March 5, 1956, defendant, Wheeling Steel Corporation, announced and represented to its employees that one of their plants, namely the Wheeling Factory located in the City of Wheeling, West Virginia, was to close. Simultaneously with the aforesaid action of the Wheeling Steel Corporation, said corporation did announce to all employees of the Wheeling Factory that they would be required to make a final and irrevocable choice of one of the following options:
(a) Interplant transfer option, or
(b) Pension option for those who may be eligible, or
(c) Severance pay option for those who may be eligible,
and each employee was required within five (5) days following the contact to make known his or her choice of option on a form to be signed by the employee.
"Plaintiffs allege and aver that the representations of the defendant, Wheeling Steel Corporation, that said plant would close, was false and fraudulent and/or a material misrepresentation of fact; that in fact, said plant did not close and was still operating as late as 1962 and continued in active operation from the 5th day of March 1956 until the early part of January 1961."

The amended complaint goes on to specify some five categories into which the plaintiffs, and those whom they claim to represent, allegedly fall. Without attempting to delineate with precision the

266 F. Supp. 653
bounds of plaintiffs' categories, each of the wrongs alleged flows from the three options which the plaintiffs were given on March 5, 1956

In essence, the plaintiffs contend that they were denied their contractual rights to continued employment from the time that they were actually laid off until the time that they would have been laid off if the contractual provisions covering the "phasing out" of the Wheeling Factory had been followed.

There are two collective bargaining agreements between Wheeling Steel and the Steelworkers which cover the employment status of the plaintiffs. The first of these contracts is the "1954 Agreement" which covered all of the employees of Wheeling Steel. This agreement is of little importance here, except that it outlines the grievance adjustment procedure.2

The Court assumes, and has not been advised to the contrary, that the arbitration provisions of the 1954 Agreement are applicable to the Supplemental Agreement of 1956. However, if the arbitration provisions did not apply there would be no question that the plaintiffs here could maintain their suit. Smith v. Evening News Ass'n, 371 U.S. 195, 83 S.Ct. 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., Nos. 13926
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 27, 1978
    ...fail to meet it. The plaintiff's burden in resisting a motion to dismiss is a relatively light one. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 266 F.Supp. 651 Page 921 We believe the complaint, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, with its allegations taken as true, states a......
  • McGinnis v. Cayton, No. 15658
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • January 27, 1984
    ...245 S.E.2d 157 (1978). The plaintiff's burden in resisting a motion to dismiss, then, is a light one. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 266 F.Supp. 651 A trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment, or an appellate court's decision to overturn the granting of such a motion, does n......
  • Slagley v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, No. 16682.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 30, 1968
    ...representation. Desrosiers v. American Cyanamid Co., 2 Cir., 377 F. 2d 864 (1967); Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, D.C.N.D.W.V., 266 F. Supp. 651 (1967). Appellant's complaint is plainly insufficient. It contains no allegation that he attempted to use the contract grievance procedur......
  • Seidenberg v. McSORLEYS'OLD ALE HOUSE, INC., No. 69 Civ. 2728.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 9, 1969
    ...are entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of their claim. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 266 F.Supp. 651, 654 (N.D.W.Va. 1967); Black v. Board of Educ., 31 F.R.D. 44, 46 (E.D.N.Y.1962); 2A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 12.08 at 2266 (2d ed. 1968).......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., Nos. 13926
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 27, 1978
    ...fail to meet it. The plaintiff's burden in resisting a motion to dismiss is a relatively light one. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 266 F.Supp. 651 Page 921 We believe the complaint, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, with its allegations taken as true, states a......
  • McGinnis v. Cayton, No. 15658
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • January 27, 1984
    ...245 S.E.2d 157 (1978). The plaintiff's burden in resisting a motion to dismiss, then, is a light one. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 266 F.Supp. 651 A trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment, or an appellate court's decision to overturn the granting of such a motion, does n......
  • Slagley v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, No. 16682.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 30, 1968
    ...representation. Desrosiers v. American Cyanamid Co., 2 Cir., 377 F. 2d 864 (1967); Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, D.C.N.D.W.V., 266 F. Supp. 651 (1967). Appellant's complaint is plainly insufficient. It contains no allegation that he attempted to use the contract grievance procedur......
  • Seidenberg v. McSORLEYS'OLD ALE HOUSE, INC., No. 69 Civ. 2728.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 9, 1969
    ...are entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of their claim. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 266 F.Supp. 651, 654 (N.D.W.Va. 1967); Black v. Board of Educ., 31 F.R.D. 44, 46 (E.D.N.Y.1962); 2A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 12.08 at 2266 (2d ed. 1968).......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT