Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
UNITED TRANSP. UNION v. UNION R.R. CO.
December 30, 1982
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
UNION RAILROAD COMPANY and UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER
Plaintiff United Transportation Union (UTU) seeks an injunction against U.S. Steel and the Union Railroad to maintain the job assignments of its members at U.S. Steel's National-Duquesne and Edgar Thompson works. Because we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, we hereby dismiss the action.
UTU is a labor organization representing certain employees of the Union Railroad, and is party to collective bargaining agreements with the Railroad. Labor relations between these parties are regulated by the provisions of the National Railway Labor Act, which provides for arbitration of certain labor disputes. Union Railroad is an independently incorporated rail carrier, and is wholly owned by U.S. Steel Corporation. Union Railroad serves a number of substantial customers although U.S. Steel is its primary customer.
Union Railroad owns and operates its own railroad equipment and trackage, linking various U.S. Steel plants. U.S. Steel also owns and operates its own railroad equipment and trackage within its individual plants. U.S. Steel trackage interchanges with Union Railroad trackage at each of five plants, including the two at issue here.
Union Railroad crews have traditionally performed certain tasks on trackage within U.S. Steel plants. On three recent occasions, U.S. Steel has informed Union Railroad of its decision to perform certain of those tasks with its own railroad personnel instead of employing Union Railroad crews. Those three instances are as follows:
1. By letter of June 9, 1982, U.S. Steel advised Union Railroad that upon resumption of blast furnace operations at the Edgar Thompson works, scheduled for March 1983, U.S. Steel will use its own crews and equipment rather than the Railroad's crews and equipment to transport hot cinder from the furnace. The UTU was notified of this change by letter of June 11, 1982 from the Railroad. Whereas previously the Railroad had hauled cinders to slag pits five miles from the furnace, U.S. Steel will now haul cinders across its own tracks to a pit within the plant.
3. By letters of November 17 and 22, 1982, U.S. Steel informed the Railroad that beginning December 27, 1982, U.S. Steel crews would transport hot iron from the furnace to processing points within the National-Duquesne works. Such movements are termed "hot metal movements." Union Railroad would retain responsibility for transporting such materials to and from other U.S. Steel plants. The UTU was notified by the Railroad's letter of November 26, 1982.
Plaintiff claims that the changes in operations described above are in violation of the existing collective bargaining agreements and amendments. UTU specifically identifies the following sections:
4. Duquesne Division crews shall perform all switching and weighing in connection with servicing the Duquesne Plant . . . (7/11/58).
6. Edgar Thompson Division crews shall perform all switching and weighing in connection with servicing the Edgar Thompson Plant . . . (3/1/44).
UTU contends that these provisions allocate the defined work to Union Railroad and UTU members, and that the recent changes are in violation of this allocation of work responsibilities in the agreement. Defendants respond that these provisions only define the division of Seniority Districts within the UTU, and do not guarantee Union Railroad or UTU members all switching work at a specified plant. Members of the appropriate UTU Seniority District are to perform all switching work in a plant that the Union Railroad is called upon to perform, but the agreement does not create a right to perform all switching duties.
Defendants have raised a serious jurisdictional challenge. It is settled law that a "minor" dispute under the Railway Labor Act, 45 USC § 151, et seq., is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Adjustment Board. Andrews v. Louisville and Nashville RR Co., 406 U.S. 320, 32 L. Ed. 2d 95, 92 S. Ct. 1562 (1972); United Transportation Union v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 505 F.2d 542 (3rd Cir. 1974). Plaintiff however contends that this is ...
Buy This Entire Record For