Opinion ID: 720717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First, Second, and Third Causes of Action

Text: 37 Legal authority holds, and Plaintiffs apparently concede, 27 that ratification of a seniority arrangement is a valid defense to complaints about a union's actions in making that arrangement. See, e.g., Rakestraw v. United Airlines Inc., 981 F.2d 1524 (7th Cir.1992), reh'g denied, 989 F.2d 944, cert. denied sub nom. Hammond v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 510 U.S. 861, 114 S.Ct. 175, 126 L.Ed.2d 134 (1993); Marshall v. Local Union No. 6, Brewers & Maltsters and Gen. Labor Dep'ts, 960 F.2d 1360 (8th Cir.1992); Papcin v. Dichello Distribs., Inc., 697 F.Supp. 73 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 862 F.2d 304 (2d Cir.1988). 38 For example, in Rakestraw, pilots of a small airline (Ozark) acquired by a larger airline (TWA) voted to approve an agreement which merged the seniority lists by date of hire, even though they knew that this would leave the TWA pilots with the pick of the assignments. See Rakestraw, 981 F.2d at 1526-27. Concededly, the vote was made under duress, since delay caused by the TWA pilots' objections to Ozark's proposed slotted seniority system had caused TWA to announce that it would simply operate Ozark's planes with TWA's pilots. Id. at 1527. Thus, [s]taring unemployment in the face, Ozark's pilots accepted a merger of the seniority lists by date of hire. Id. Later, a class of Ozark's former pilots sued the union for, among other things, violating its DFR. 28 Id. In its opinion, the court first pointed out the Ozark pilots' weak bargaining position and the uphill battle that the union faced in resolving conflicts between TWA, the TWA pilots, and the Ozark pilots. 29 Id. at 1533. In this regard, the court stated that even if the union had made a mistake of judgment, a mistake of judgment does not violate the duty of fair representation. Id. More importantly, the court stated that [a]ll of the Ozark pilots' remaining contentions, variously expressed in terms of the Railway Labor Act, the LMRDA, and the wraparound agreement, founder on their own vote in favor of the merger and the ensuing new collective bargaining agreement. Id. 39 A similar situation is found in Marshall, wherein a union was sued for a DFR breach due to its failure to negotiate a dovetailed seniority list for a group of yeast workers. See Marshall, 960 F.2d at 1362. The facts show that the yeast workers had been informed by their employer that they would lose their jobs when the plant where they worked was sold and/or closed. Id. Their union subsequently negotiated an agreement giving the yeast workers the right to be transferred to a brewery (also owned by the employer) with modified endtailing--although the union had originally suggested to the yeast workers that seniority would be dovetailed. In finding that the union had not breached its DFR, the court noted that the union used its best efforts to assist the yeast workers who would otherwise have been out of a job, and that the yeast workers themselves ratified the collective bargaining agreement that called for modified endtailing. Id. at 1370. 40 Plaintiffs' arguments against the ratification defense in the instant case are essentially that: (1) an oblique reference to transfer of pilots according to the terms of an earlier agreement could not incorporate the challenged seniority agreement into the SWAPA-Morris CBA, (2) Morris pilots were not informed by SWAPA that a vote in favor of the SWAPA-Morris CBA would also ratify their seniority endtailing as outlined in the Letter of Agreement, and (3) even a negative vote on the SWAPA-Morris CBA would not have given Morris pilots the right to reject the seniority integration. See Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Memo. at pp. 27-28; Plaintiffs' Opposition Memo. at pp. 9-12. 41 These arguments are unpersuasive for several reasons. First, it appears to the court that Plaintiffs themselves recognized the interplay between the Letter of Agreement and the SWAPA-Morris CBA. Indeed, Plaintiffs' naming of Morris as a defendant appears to contradict their contention that an oblique reference to the terms of an earlier agreement did not incorporate the seniority terms of that agreement into the SWAPA-Morris CBA. Plaintiffs' Complaint describes the grounds for Morris' liability thusly: 42 Southwest has participated in and facilitated SWAPA's breach of the duty of fair representation by, among other things, succumbing to pressure from SWAPA to acquiesce in and enter into an agreement which it knew devastated the seniority rights of the Morris Air pilots. Morris Air has similarly participated in and facilitated SWAPA's breach of the duty of fair representation. 43 See Complaint at pp. 11-12 (emphasis added). Based on this statement, and given the limited role Morris appears to have played in this case, it can be surmised that Plaintiffs base Morris' liability at least partially on its status as a party to the SWAPA-Morris CBA--particularly since no evidence has been presented that Morris was involved in negotiations surrounding the Letter of Agreement. If so, Plaintiffs apparently believed that the challenged seniority terms had been incorporated into the SWAPA-Morris CBA, otherwise Morris could not have similarly participated in and facilitated SWAPA's alleged breach by acquies[ing] in and enter[ing] into an agreement which it knew devastated the seniority rights of the Morris Air pilots. 44 Even if this were not the case, the language of the SWAPA-Morris CBA itself is sufficiently clear to inform Morris pilots that to ratify the CBA was also to ratify the effect of the Letter of Agreement. The SWAPA-Morris CBA clearly states that the parties to this agreement recognize that Morris pilots will be transferred to the parent in accordance with the terms of an agreement between Southwest Airlines and the Association dated January 1, 1994. In view of the extensive oral and written information which the Morris pilots were provided regarding the Letter of Agreement, it would be disingenuous to suggest that they were unaware of either the existence or terms of the aforementioned agreement between Southwest Airlines and the Association. Indeed, the events culminating in the Letter of Agreement were so critical to the Morris pilots' livelihoods that the court must conclude that they knew or should have known every detail contained in that document. 45 In addition, the SWAPA-Morris CBA states that [u]pon transfer to Southwest Airlines, Morris Air pilots will become part of the pilot bargaining unit at Southwest Airlines and will be governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and Southwest Airlines. Plaintiffs concede that they knew that the Letter of Agreement was an amendment to the SWAPA-Southwest CBA. See Plaintiffs' Opposition Memo. at p. 5. Thus, if parties to the SWAPA-Morris CBA recognized that transfer pilots would be governed by the SWAPA-Southwest CBA, Plaintiffs must have known that ratifying the SWAPA-Morris CBA signified assent to the seniority arrangements contained in the amendment to the SWAPA-Southwest CBA. 46 Furthermore, there is no evidence--nor have Plaintiffs alleged--that the Morris pilots were excluded from negotiation of the SWAPA-Morris CBA or that either SWAPA or Morris withheld information concerning its contents or effect. It is undisputed that two Morris pilots participated in the negotiation of the SWAPA-Morris CBA as members of the SWAPA team. In addition, two meetings were held to explain the terms of that document, and copies of the proposed SWAPA-Morris CBA were made available to the entire Morris pilot group. There is no evidence suggesting that SWAPA discouraged questions, comments, or objections at those meetings. Thus, in view of the fact that the Morris pilots had extensive prior information regarding the Letter of Agreement, they must have recognized the implications of the seniority arrangement implicit in the SWAPA-Morris CBA. 47 Moreover, Plaintiffs do not dispute that the specific section of the SWAPA-Morris CBA which is at issue here was explained in the meetings. Although Plaintiffs concede that the explanation was given, however, they argue that Defendants have failed to show that this explanation was sufficient to allow the Morris pilots to make a knowing and voluntary waiver. See Plaintiffs' Response Memo. at p. 10, n.7. In particular, Plaintiffs contend that [w]e are left in the dark concerning what Mr. Palmason may have said about Section 1. Id. Despite this assertion, however, Plaintiffs themselves have presented no affidavits or other evidence stating or suggesting that the explanation given was deficient in any way. 48 Finally, Plaintiffs' remaining contention--that even a negative vote on the SWAPA-Morris CBA would not have given the Morris pilots the right to reject the seniority integration--is speculative. It is uncontroverted that the Morris pilots, as SWAPA members, overwhelmingly ratified a contract which specifically subjected them to the terms of a document that contained apparently distasteful seniority provisions. It is therefore futile to contend that SWAPA would not have allowed the Morris pilots to stand on their assumed rights if they had chosen not to ratify the CBA. After all, the SWAPA-Southwest CBA is a fluid document that could again be amended by either Southwest or SWAPA. 49 In short, Plaintiffs and other Morris pilots were, or should have been, well-informed as to both the Letter of Agreement and the SWAPA-Morris CBA. There are no allegations of irregularities during either SWAPA-Morris CBA negotiations or voting, and relevant information was readily available to all who chose to avail themselves of it. Nor have Plaintiffs presented evidence that the disputed section of the SWAPA-Morris CBA was either incorrectly or inadequately explained. As the Seventh Circuit has stated: 50 A voluntary choice may not be withdrawn because the choice was an effort to make the best of a bad situation. Adult pilots, of sound mind and well aware of the consequences of their acts, must expect to keep their contracts, even when they wish they could have made better deals. 51 Rakestraw, 981 F.2d at 1534. 52 Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing and the fact that Plaintiffs' first three causes of action are interrelated, 30 it is the court's opinion that the May of 1994 vote by Morris pilots in favor of the SWAPA-Morris CBA ratified SWAPA's disputed actions and the seniority arrangement, thereby disposing of all three claims. 31 53