decided: April 25, 1985.
WILLIAM STARKS, SOLOMON SCRIVENS, THOMAS SANDERS, ROY WASHEL, ELESTER MOORE, CHARLES LUKOMSKI, CHARLES WEHRLE, GEORGE NANCE, LEROY EVANS, GEORGE KRUMENACKER, FRANK KRUMENACKER, HARRY NEILEY, JOHN O'NEILL, LOUIS CASSIDY, JOHN RACEK, JOHN WALKER, MILTON HURNTON, ROBERT MCCLELLAND, FRANK HALL, JOSEPH WOOD, ELMORE LEIGH, JOHN BEECH, WILLIAM BEECH, FREDERICK DEAL, LONNIE LEIGH, JOSEPH STUART, LEONARD PHILLIPS, ROBERT CROSS, GERARD SENECHAL, MELVIN SLAUGHTER, DAVID STUART, GENE O'MARA, CARL MCKNIGHT, MICHAEL JACONSKI, FRANK BROWN, JAMES LANDI, EDMOND CZERNIAK, RICHARD GUNNING, FRANK PEMPKOWKI, WALTER WIELGUS, GEORGE CAMPBELL, WILLIAM SUBSTALAE, THOMAS AMORATES, ROBERT MOSELY, JULIUS KRAJEWSKI, ROBERT RICHARDSON, MARIO BASILE, GEORGE LEVIN, EMANUEL ROSEY, PAUL HILLIAS, GREGORY ANTHONY, ANTHONY GILBERT, WILLIAM FITZGERALD, HENRY HICKS, ROBERT MOSES, RONALD MOORE, RICHARD GUSOVIUS, JOHN VAN NATTA, JOHN DEL RASO, ROBERT DILBECK, APPELLANTS,
PERLOFF BROTHERS, INC., WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 169, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL 676, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil No. 83-5047, E.D. of PA.
Seitz, Sloviter and Gibbons, Circuit Judges. Gibbons, Circuit Judge, concurring.
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court against their erstwhile union, against their former employer, and against another union pursuant to §§ 301 and 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 185 & 187 (1982). The district court dismissed each of plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Appellate jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982).
The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiffs are warehousemen who were members of defendant Warehouse Employees Union Local 169 ("Local 169") and who were employed by defendant Perloff Brothers, Inc. ("Perloff") at its Packer Avenue warehouse in Philadelphia. In December of 1982 Perloff began to consolidate its business operations, including those of its wholly-owned subsidiary Alfred Lowry & Brother, Inc. ("Lowry"), into its Packer Avenue warehouse. Lowry had been located in Camden, New Jersey, and had employed members of defendant Truck Drivers & Helpers Union Local 676 ("Local 676").
A jurisdictional labor dispute arose with respect to Perloff's consolidated operations at the Packer Avenue warehouse. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between Perloff, Local 169, and Local 676 to submit the dispute to binding resolution before Teamsters Joint Council No. 53 ("Joint Council"). The Joint Council awarded jurisdiction over the warehouse to Local 676, and that decision was affirmed by the International Brotherhood of Warehousemen and Teamsters ("International").
Plaintiffs allege that, prior to the agreement among the defendants to submit the dispute to binding resolution, Local 676 "threatened violence, illegal strikes [and] other unfair labor practices." Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, para. 12. They allege that it did so "for the purpose of coercing and inducing [Perloff] to unlawfully breach [a collective bargaining] agreement with plaintiffs and deprive them of job positions, seniority and other benefits." Id. They further allege that Perloff, Local 676, and Local 169 "conspire[d] to violate the rights due plaintiffs under the agreement by agreeing among themselves to unlawfully terminate plaintiffs' employment and arbitrarily award jurisdiction to [Local] 676 in violation of the agreement, depriving [plaintiffs] of their rightful job positions, seniority and other benefits." Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, para. 17.
Plaintiffs allege that Local 169 carried out the scheme to deprive them of their rights by:
(a) failing to exhaust grievance procedures under said contract between [Perloff] and [Local] 169;
(b) failing to present at a hearing before Teamsters Council No. 53 . . . and in a subsequent appeal . . . to the International Brotherhood of Warehousemen and Teamsters the true factual situation which would have established violations of the plaintiffs' rights and their entitlement to redress for said violation;
(c) failing to seek judicial and injunctive relief for said violation;
(d) failing to inform and deliberately misinforming plaintiffs of steps being taken to protect plaintiffs' rights, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the opportunity of ...
Buy This Entire Record For