Between 1966 and 1972, plaintiffs worked on permit status as described above. When a reduction in employees became necessary in 1972, plaintiffs were returned to their metal trades jobs and have been continually on these jobs since that time.
Plaintiffs filed grievances asserting that NAVCO had violated their contract rights by causing their removal as permit journeymen. These were denied after the Union, company, and grievants met consistent with contract grievance procedures, and after opportunity for discussion, decided that the reduction of forces was carried out in conformity with the June 9, 1966, memorandum hereinabove referred to. Subsequently various grievance and unfair labor practice charges were filed relative to plaintiffs' removal as permit men. In each instance, no basis for reinstatement was found to exist. The Court likewise can discern no basis for finding any liability on the part of any defendant. While plaintiffs have been uniformly unsuccessful in passing the journeymen's qualifying test, it has not been established that this requirement was made more difficult for plaintiffs than any other person seeking entrance into journeyman status. Certainly, the Union did all it could to process and perfect plaintiffs' grievances within the framework of the collective bargaining agreement in force; and the plaintiffs, fully aware of the custom and practice relative to the permit journeymen arrangement, benefitted from it for many years. In fact, while working in this capacity, plaintiffs received benefits which on the average cost NAVCO approximately 18 1/2 cents per hour more than regular steamfitters.
Although plaintiffs assert entitlement to seniority as journeymen based on the time they worked as permit men, they have not shown any contractual provision which gives them this right. Plaintiffs have not proven this at all and the Court cannot rewrite the contract for them. Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U.S. 40, 67 S. Ct. 982, 91 L. Ed. 1328 (1947); NLRB v. Corsicana Cotton Mills, 179 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1950). Moreover, charges of unfair representation by plaintiffs against defendant Unions have been uniformly denied by the NLRB. While this does not amount to res judicata, such findings are entitled to be given considerable evidentiary weight. Smith v. Local 25, Sheet Metal Workers International, 500 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1974). Since the Court finds no deprivation of any contractual rights, a fortiori there is no basis upon which to premise any conspiracy between NAVCO and the Union. What these defendants have done is to engage in collective bargaining in its broadest sense.
In view of the foregoing, it is the considered judgment of the Court that the instant proceeding should be dismissed, there being no liability on the part of any defendant.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been separately stated but are included in the body of the foregoing opinion as specifically authorized by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
An appropriate Order is entered.
And now, this 12th day of February, 1975, the above captioned proceeding is hereby dismissed with prejudice.