Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-07130/USCOURTS-caDC-94-07130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1More detailed recitations of the facts can be found in the district court's and this court's earlier

decisions. See Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 783 F. Supp. 657 (D.D.C. 1992); Beckett v.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 11, 1995 Decided July 18, 1995

No. 94-7130

STEWART W. BECKETT, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 90cv01867)

Robert F. Gore argued the cause for the appellants.

Jerry D. Anker argued the cause for the appellee. On brief were Gary Green, Clay G. Warner and

Michael E. Abram.

Before: SILBERMAN, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

Separate concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The appellants, forty-nine nonunion airline

pilots formerly employed by Pan American Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), brought this action to recover

pension payments held by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA or Union). ALPA has withheld the

payments as a set-off against unpaid union assessmentslevied to support a sympathy strike by ALPA

members at Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (Eastern). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district

court granted judgment in favor of ALPA. Because there is a genuine dispute of fact whether the

sympathy strike assessment was "germane" to ALPA's collective bargaining activity, we reverse the

judgment and remand for further proceedings.

We begin with a brief summary of the undisputed facts.1In 1986 Pan Am settled a pension

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ALPA, 995 F.2d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

fund grievance filed by ALPA, agreeing to make five annual payments to the Union, beginning in

September 1986, for distribution to eligible pilots. In December 1986 two representative plaintiffs

filed a class action on behalf of more than 400 affected pilots challenging the method used to

distribute the payments. The litigation ended in 1989 with the entry of a consent decree incorporating

a settlement agreement between ALPA and the plaintiff pilots. Fagerland v. ALPA, C.A. No. 86-

3410 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 1989).

In February 1990 ALPA's Pan Am Master Executive Council adopted a resolution providing

that "all[Pan Am] pilots who are delinquent in dues,service charge or assessment paymentsto ALPA

... as of February 20, 1990 ... shall receive their full payment minus all the money owed to ALPA in

the form of back dues, service charges and/or assessments." Appendix (App.) 37. ALPA then

disbursed the funds from the first four annual payments to all eligible Pan Am pilots but withheld

$139,306.95 from the appellant pilots to offset delinquent assessments. In December 1990, after

receiving the final installment from Pan Am, ALPA made a second distribution, withholding an

additional $22,340.31 from 13 of the appellants. Of the total withheld funds, $100,160.47 was for

assessments made to support a 1989 strike by Eastern pilots in sympathy with an economic strike by

Eastern machinists belonging to the InternationalAssociation ofMachinists and Aerospace Workers.

The appellant pilots brought this action to recover the withheld funds, alleging causes of

action for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and violation of both the Employee Retirement and

Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Railroad Labor Act (RLA). In its answer ALPA asserted, as

a defense as well as a counterclaim, that it was entitled to retain the money to offset the unpaid

assessments.

By order and memorandum filed February 14, 1992 the District Court granted summary

judgment in favor of ALPA on all claims, holding that (1) no cause of action existed under ERISA

for withholding payments from the settlement fund; (2) the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction

over the pendent breach of trust claim (which, in any event, was meritless because the Fagerland

decree did not create a trust in the appellants'favor) and (3) ALPA was entitled to withhold the funds

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2Although the pilots failed to raise the jurisdictional argument below, we must nevertheless

consider it on appeal. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)

("[E]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to "satisfy itself not only of its own

jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review,' even though the parties are

prepared to concede it.") (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)); Citizens for

Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. v. Metropolitan Wash. Airports Auth., 917 F.2d 48, 53 (D.C.

Cir. 1990) ("[I]t is well established that a court of appeals must first satisfy itself of its own

jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, before proceeding to the merits."), aff'd, 501 U.S. 252

(1991). 

to recoup unpaid assessments. Beckett v. ALPA, 783 F. Supp. 657 (D.D.C. 1992).

On appeal, this court reversed the judgment in part, holding that the district court had retained

subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce its 1989 consent decree and that ALPA breached its fiduciary

duties as trustee and agent under the decree by diverting to its own use funds deposited for

distribution to the pilots as beneficiaries ofthe settlement fund. Beckett v. ALPA, 995 F.2d 280 (D.C.

Cir. 1993). We then remanded the case "so that the district court may decide in the first instance (1)

whether appellee raised a viable counterclaim and, if so, how that issue should be resolved, and (2)

the amount of interest due appellants." Id. at 289 (order on petition for rehearing).

On remand the district court again granted summary judgment in ALPA's favor, relying on

its earlier ruling that the assessments were chargeable against the nonunion pilots and that ALPA was

therefore entitled to set them off against the unpaid disbursements. The pilots again appeal, raising

three grounds for reversal. We address each ground in turn.

First, the appellants assert the district court lacked jurisdiction over ALPA's set-off

counterclaim because it raises a "minor dispute," that is one "arising out of the interpretation of

collective-bargaining agreements," and must therefore be submitted to arbitration under section 204

of the RLA. See ALPA v. Eastern, 863 F.2d 891, 895-96 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).2 We

disagree. Section 204 of the RLA, on which the appellants rely, requires arbitration only of "disputes

between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers." 45 U.S.C. §§ 153, 184. The

present controversy, however, is between the employees and the Union. It in no way affects the now

defunct carrier, Pan Am. Thus, section 204 does not govern the dispute and arbitration is not

required. Accord Bagnall v. ALPA, 626 F.2d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1125

(1981); Verville v. International Ass'n of Machinists &Aerospace Workers, 520 F.2d 615, 618 (6th

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3ALPA similarly contends the pilots should have exhausted their contractual remedy of

arbitration before challenging the assessments in court. See App. 67-70. While this position may

have merit, to remand for arbitration at this late stage would only yield futile swink. See Pilots

Against Illegal Dues v. ALPA, 938 F.2d 1123, 1133 (10th Cir. 1991) (concluding "[i]t would be

redundant at this point ... to order the matter to be submitted to an arbitrator."). 

Cir. 1975); Brady v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 401 F.2d 87, 92 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393

U.S. 1048 (1969).3

Next, the pilots contend ALPA failed to exhaust its contractual remedies before seeking

judicial relief because the Union never sought to have the delinquent pilots discharged pursuant to

section 29 of the Pan Am Shop Agreement. We reject this argument as well. Section 29 only

authorizes the Union to seek termination of delinquent pilots' employmentit does not provide a

means to recover the overdue assessments. Thus, the section offers the Union no real remedy to

exhaust. Cf. Bagnall v. ALPA, 626 F.2d at 342 (pilot need not exhaust contractual right to contest

discharge for dues nonpayment because "such a remedy is tantamount to no remedy at all.").

Finally, the pilots assert ALPA is not entitled to the set-off because the sympathy strike

assessments are not authorized under section 2 Eleventh of the RLA. Because the evidence, when

viewed most favorably to the pilots, supports this contention, we conclude the judgment must be

reversed and the case remanded for further fact-finding.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 2 Eleventh of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152,

Eleventh, to authorize assessments against nonunion employees for expenses "necessarily or

reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the

employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues." Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry.,

Airline & S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 448 (1984). Thus, "objecting employees may be compelled to

paytheirfairshare of not onlythe direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining

contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings

normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive

representative of the employees in the bargaining unit." Id.

In Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, 500 U.S. 507 (1991), the Supreme Court set out a

three-part test for determining which union expenses may be charged nonunion employees:

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

"[C]hargeable activities must (1) be "germane' to collective-bargaining activity; (2) be justified by

the government's vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding "free riders'; and (3) not

significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in the allowance of an agency or

union shop." Id. at 519. Applying this test, the Court concluded that "a local bargaining

representative may charge objecting employees for their pro rata share of the costs associated with

otherwise chargeable activities of its state and national affiliates, even if those activities were not

performed for the direct benefit of the objecting employees' bargaining unit." Id. at 524 (emphasis

added). Following Lehnert, in Crawford v. ALPA, 992 F.2d 1295 (4th Cir. 1993) (en banc), cert.

denied, 114 S. Ct. 195 (1993), the Fourth Circuit upheld ALPA assessments against nonunion pilots

to support strikes at other airlines, a holding deemed compelled by Lehnert. See id. at 1302

(Wilkinson,J., concurring)("Judges are in the business oftaking language seriously, and the language

in Lehnert nails the result here to the mast."). We reach a different result under the particular

circumstances here.

Both the Lehnert and theCrawford decisions were based largelyon the district courts'specific

factual findings that the challenged expenses were "germane" to the collective bargaining process.

See Lehnert, 500 U.S. at 527 ("The District Court found these costs to be germane to collective

bargaining and similarsupport services and we decline to disturb that finding."); Crawford, 992 F.2d

at 1297-99 (describing district court's findings of fact and reasonable inferences therefrom as

"essential to an understanding of whyALPA's expenditures are germane to collective bargaining with

all the airlines whose pilotsit represents"); see also id. at 1302-03 (Wilkinson,J., concurring). Here,

by contrast, we lack the factual findings necessary to support a similar conclusion. Unlike the lower

courts in Lehnert and Crawford, the district court below issued its ruling on a motion for summary

judgment. On appeal from that ruling we must grant the appellants "the benefit of all reasonable

evidentiaryinferencesthat can be drawn in [their] favor" and can uphold the summaryjudgment "only

where there is no genuine issue of materialfact, and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Sherwood v.

Washington Post, 871 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (internalquotations omitted). Under this

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

standard, the judgment here cannot stand.

The district court found the sympathy strike assessments germane to collective bargaining

based on ALPA's "plausible" contention that the strike was part of a comprehensive strategy to

strengthenALPA's own bargaining position at Eastern. 783 F. Supp. at 663-64. The appellant pilots,

however, disputed ALPA's rationale for the strike, see, e.g. App. 136 WW 9-11, and credibly so. A

sympathy strike differsfromother kinds ofstrikes and a union's participation therein may be intended

merely to express solidarity with the primary striking union rather than to advance its own collective

bargaining objectives. See John Morrell &Co. v. Local Union 304A of United Food &Commercial

Workers, 913 F.2d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 1990) (distinguishing economic and sympathy strikes and

explaining: " "A sympathy strike involves two unions; one is striking to force some concession from

the employer; the other strikes in sympathy with the first's objectives. Sympathy strikes are a

common manifestation of traditional union solidarity.' ") (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1276 (5th

ed. 1979)), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1683 (1991). If that was the case here, as may be reasonably

inferred, then the sympathy strike assessments were not "germane to collective-bargaining activity"

or chargeable to the nonunion pilots. See Crawford, 992 F.2d at 1305 (Russell, J., dissenting)

("Plaintiffs stated at oral argument that the strike at Eastern was a sympathy strike in support of a

strike by a Machinists' Union unit. If plaintiffs' statement is true, the expenditures on the Eastern

controversy would have had no effect on the plaintiffs' collective bargaining and clearly could not

have been charged.") (citing Beck v. Communications Workers, 776 F.2d 1187, 1212 (4thCir. 1985),

aff'd, 487 U.S. 735 (1988)). Given this genuine dispute of material fact, we cannot uphold the

judgment in ALPA's favor.

For the preceding reasons, we reverse the district court's summary judgment and remand for

trial and findings of fact regarding whether the sympathy strike assessments are germane to ALPA's

collective bargaining activity. The district court should also consider again whether the sympathy

strike assessmentssatisfy the third prong of the Lehnert test. The Lehnert plurality found that union

lobbying expenses, for example, are nonchargeable because of their substantial burden on dissenters'

free speech rights. See 500 U.S. at 522 ("By utilizing petitioners' funds for political lobbying and to

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

4Four justices dissenting in Lehnert would have disallowed the assessments because the

underlying expenses were not "incurred for the conduct of activities in which the union owes a

duty of fair representation to the nonmembers being charged." 500 U.S. at 558-60. 

5The district court here acknowledged that "requiring the nonunion pilots in the Pan Am

bargaining unit to support financially a strike by Eastern pilots in sympathy for the machinists at

Eastern does significantly burden free speech." 783 F. Supp. at 665. 

garner the support ofthe public in its endeavors, the unionwould use each dissenter as "an instrument

for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.' The First

Amendment protects the individual's right of participation in these spheres from precisely this type

of invasion.") (quoting Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977)).4 Given the inherently

expressive nature of a sympathy strike, the assessments here may very well be nonchargeable for the

same reason. See Lehnert, 500 U.S. at 524 ("The union surely may not, for example, charge

objecting employeesfor a direct donation or interest-free loan to an unrelated bargaining unit for the

purpose of promoting employee rights or unionismgenerally. Further, a contribution by a local union

to its parent that is not part of the local's responsibilities as an affiliate but is in the nature of a

charitable donation would not be chargeable to dissenters.).5

So ordered.

SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring dubitante: I join Judge Henderson's opinion up to

the point that she reaches the issue whether the assessments to support the ALPA strike at Eastern

were "germane" to collective bargaining. And, although I do not object to the remand for findings

as to the actual relationship between the strike at Eastern and the dynamics of collective bargaining

in appellants' unit, I doubt that further findings will provide much illumination on the issue presented

in this case. Judge Henderson is certainly correct that the Fourth Circuit in Crawford purported to

rely heavily on the district court's factfinding and that the Supreme Court in Lehnert also referred to

the facts as found by the district judge. Nevertheless, whether an expenditure is to be considered

"germane" is not merelya question ofitsfactualrelatednessto the union's bargaining efforts on behalf

of the objecting members' bargaining unit, because even certain classes of clearly related activities

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

have been deemed "non-germane." Our primary problem is that, when assessments have been levied

for expenditures relating to activities at another bargaining unit, it is impossible to detect in the

Supreme Court casesparticularly Lehnerta principled basis for distinguishing expenditures that

are "germane" from those that are not. And findings of fact are only useful if a court has available

a legal framework into which to place those findings.

The Supreme Court has held that non-members cannot be charged for general union

organizing costs, for lobbying activities, or for litigation expenses not directly associated with their

collective bargaining unit (the latter since the Supreme Court understands such litigation to be

"political"). See Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 446 U.S. 435, 448 (1984);

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, 500 U.S. 507, 519-22, 528 (1991) (plurality holding); id. at 555

(Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). Non-members can be assessed, however, for their share of

expenses associated with the chargeable bargaining activities of affiliates"even if those activities

were not performed for the direct benefit of the objecting employees' bargaining unit," Lehnert, 500

U.S. at 524for convention costs(including reasonable social expenditures), forstrike preparations,

and for the costs of union publications reporting on otherwise chargeable union activities. See Ellis,

446 U.S. at 448-56; Lehnert, 500 U.S. at 524-31.

It is beyond my powers of comprehension to understand why litigation expenses incurred by

the union in another unit on a matter that relates to collective bargainingperhaps even an

interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement identical to that of the objecting employees'

unitare not thought "germane," but certain strike preparations are. Perhaps it is the Supreme

Court's unique perception of litigation that leadsit to describe that process as "political." I only wish

the matter seemed as clear to me as it does to Judge Wilkinson, who said in Crawford that "the

language in Lehnert nails the result to the mast."

I recognize the analytical difficulty in drawing a line between those expenses that, if charged

to unwilling agency shop employees, would offend the First Amendment, and those thought to be

germane to collective bargaining. But surely the Court can give us some principles on which to base

our decisions. In the absence of such, I cannot quarrel with the majority's decision to remand for

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

factfinding. The district judge will at least be able to determine just how related these particular

expenditures were to collective bargaining in appellants' unit.

USCA Case #94-7130 Document #136304 Filed: 07/18/1995 Page 9 of 9