Stewart W. Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Association

BECKETT, аl., Appellants, et Stewart W. ASSOCIATION, LINE

AIR PILOTS

Appellee.

No. 94-7130. Appeals,

United States Court

District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 1995. July

Decided

Rehearing Aug. Denied payments. litigation ended in

ute the The entry a decree consent incorporating agreement settlement be plaintiff pilots. Fager ALPA and the tween ALPA, land C.A. No. 1989 WL (D.D.C. 1989). Dec. February In Am ALPA’s Pan Master Gore, argued Springfield, F. VA Robert adopted pro- Executive Council a resolution cause, appellants. for the pilots “all viding [Pan that whо are Am] DC, Anker, argued dues, Washington, Jerry delinquent charge D. in service or assess- cause, Gary appellee. payments February On brief the ment ALPA ... as of DC, Warner, Green, Clay Washington, payment G. ... shall receive their full Abram, City. E. money Michael New York minus all the owed to ALPA the dues, charges form of back service and/or SILBERMAN, Before: SENTELLE Appendix ALPA (App.) assessments.” HENDERSON, Judges. Circuit then disbursed the from the first four funds pilots payments eligible to all Pan Am annual by the Circuit Opinion for court filed $139,306.95 appellant from the but withheld Judge HENDERSON. delinquent In pilots to offset assessments. receiving after final in- concurring by December opinion filed Separate Am, Pan ALPA a sec- stallment from made Judge SILBERMAN. Circuit distribution, withholding an additionаl ond HENDERSON, LeCRAFT KAREN $22,340.31 appellants. from 13 of Of the Judge: funds, $100,160.47 total withheld was for as- forty-nine appellants, nonunion airline by made to strike a 1989 formerly employed American by Pan pilots -withan economic Eastern (Pan Am), Airways, brought Inc. this action by belonging Eastern strike machinists Air pension payments held to recover of Machinists the International Associаtion Union). (ALPA Association Line Pilots Aerospace Workers. payments withheld the as a set-off ALPA has pilots brought action to appellant unpaid union levied to funds, alleging causes of the withheld recover by ALPA mem- fiduciary duty, conver- action for breach (Eastern). Lines, Air at Eastern Inc. bers Employee Re- and violation both the sion summаry judgment, the On cross-motions (ERISA) Security Income Act tirement and in favor of granted judgment district court (RLA). In its Railroad Labor Act and the genuine ALPA. Because there is a asserted, ALPA as a defense as well answer assess- fact whether counterclaim, entitled as a that was was to ALPA’s ment money unpaid assess- retain the offset activity, we reverse ments. proceedings. and remand further February By filed order and memorandum begin with brief We granted District sum In Am settled a undisputed facts.1 1986 Pan ALPA, on all grievance mary judgment favor of ALPA fund filed pension (1) claims, action holding no cause of payments make agreeing to five annual withholding pay Union, beginning under ERISA for September existed fund; eligible from the settlement pilots. December ments distribution subject-matter jurisdiction over a class lacked representative plaintiffs filed 1986two (which, in breach of trust claim pendent 400 affected on behalf more than action event, Fager any was because challenging the to distrib- meritless method used Int'l, (D.D.C.1992); F.Supp. 657 Beckett v. can be detailed the faсts 1. More recitations of ALPA, (D.C.Cir.1993). earli- this court's found in the court's and F.2d 280 See Beckett v. Air Line Pilots er decisions. land decree did not create a trust appellants rely, requires arbitration favor) appellants’ ALPA was entitled “disputes employee between an group recoup unpaid to withhold the funds to as employees and а carrier or carriers.” F.Supp. sessments. Beckett v. §§ present U.S.C. 184. The controver (D.D.C.1992). 657 sy, however, is employees between the way the Union. It in no appeal, affects the now judg- On this court reversed the carrier, Thus, defunct Pan part, holding ment in Am. that the district section 204 subject-matter jurisdiction govern had does not retained the and arbitration required. ALPA, enforce its 1989 ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‍consent decree is not and that Bagnall Accord fiduciary (4th ALPA breached 336, duties as trust- Cir.1980), denied, 626 F.2d 342 cert. agent ee and under the diverting decree 1125, 943, 449 U.S. 101 S.Ct. 67 112 deposited to its own use funds for distribu- (1981); Verville v. International Ass’n pilots tion to the as beneficiaries of the set- Machinists Aerospace & 520 F.2d ALPA, tlement fund. Beckett v. 995 F.2d (6th 615, Cir.1975); 618 Brady v. Trans (D.C.Cir.1993). 280 We then remanded the Airlines, Inc., 87, (3d World 401 F.2d 92 may case “so that the district court decide in Cir.1968), denied, 1048, cert. 393 U.S. 89 the appellee first instance whether raised (1969).3 21 L.Ed.2d 691 and, so, a viable counterclaim how that Next, pilots the resolved, contend ALPA issue should faded the amount (order exhaust its appellants.” of interest contractual remedies due Id. at before 289 judicial petition seeking rehearing). on relief because the Union nev sought er to have delinquent pilots the dis again granted On remand the district court charged pursuant to section 29 of the Pan summary judgment favor, relying ALPA’s Shop Agreement. Am reject argu We this ruling on its earlier the assessments ment only as well. Section 29 authorizes the chargeable against were pilots the nonunion Union to seek delinquent pi termination of and that ALPA was therefore entitled to set employment lots’ provide does not them off unpaid the —it disbursements. means to recover the overdue assessments. pilots again appeal, raising three Thus, the section offers the Union no real grоunds for reversal. We address each remedy ALPA, Bagnall exhaust. ground in turn. Cf. (pilot F.2d at 342 need not exhaust con First, appellants the assert the dis right tractual discharge contest for dues jurisdiction trict court lacked over ALPA’s nonpayment remedy because “such a is tan set-off counterclaim because it raises a “mi all.”). remedy tamount to no dispute,” nor “arising that is one out of the Finally, interpretation pilots assert ALPA collective-bargaining agree is not enti- ments,” tled to the and must set-off therefore be submitted because the arbitration under section 204 of assessments are not the RLA. authorized under Eastern, See ALPA v. 863 F.2d section 2 895-96 Eleventh of the RLA. Because the (D.C.Cir.1988) omitted).2 (quotаtion evidence, We dis when favorably viewed most to the agree. RLA, Section 204 of the on which pilots, supports contention, this we conclude Although jurisdic failed sary, to raise the merits.”), proceeding before aff'd, to the below, argument tional we must nevertheless 111 S.Ct. 115 L.Ed.2d 236 appeal. consider it on See Bender v. Williams (1991). Dist., port ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‍534, 541, Area Sсh. 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, (1986) ("[E]very 89 L.Ed.2d 501 similarly ALPA contends the should have appellate federal special obligation court has a remedy exhausted their contractual of arbitration 'satisfy jurisdiction, itself not of its own but challenging before the assessments in court. See also that of the lower courts in a cause under App. merit, review, position may 67-70. While this though have parties prepared even are it.”) Maurer, (quoting stage remand for concede arbitration at this late Mitchell v. would 237, 244, only yield U.S. (1934)); Against Illegal 79 L.Ed. futile swink. See Pilots Noise, Abatement (10th Citizens Dues v. Cir. of Aircraft Auth., Metropolitan Airports Inc. v. Wash. 1991) (concluding "[i]t would be redundant at (D.C.Cir.1990) ("[I]t F.2d is well estab point ... to order the matter to be submitted appеals lished satisfy that a court of must first arbitrator."). to an jurisdiction, itself of sponte its own sua if neces ( (Wilkinson, J., concurring) Judges are case judgment must be reversed language seriously, taking fact-finding. business for further remanded language and the in Lehnert nails the result interpreted Supreme Court has mast.”). here to the We reach a different RLA, U.S.C. Section Eleventh particular result under circumstances Eleventh, § to authorize assessments here. employees against nonunion Both Lehnert “necessarily reasonably incurred for the largely decisions were based on performing the of an exclu purpose of duties specific courts’ factual that the chal employees deаl representative of sive lenged expenses to the col labor-management ing employer Lehnert, process. bargaining 500 lective See Ry., v. Brotherhood Airline issues.” Ellis of (“The U.S. at S.Ct. at 1963 District 448, Clerks, 435, 104 S.Ct. & S.S. germane these to be to found costs (1984). 1883, 1892, Thus, L.Ed.2d 428 80 bargaining support collective and similar ser compelled “objecting employeеs may be to vices find and we decline to disturb that only the of not direct pay their fair share (de ing.”); Crawford, F.2d at 992 1297-99 administering negotiating of and a col costs scribing district court’s of fact and settling of lective-bargaining contract and reasonable inferences therefrom as “essential grievances disputes, but also the ex and why ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‍understanding expendi to an of ALPA’s undertakings normally of penses activities germane bargaining tures are to collective reasonably employed implement to or ef repre with all the airlines whose of the as exclusive fectuate the duties union (Wilkinson, sents”); also see id. at 1302-03 representative employees bar J., contrast, Here, concurring). we lack gaining unit.” Id. findings necessary support the factual to Faculty Ferris 500 Lehnert v. similar conclusion. the lower courts Unlike 507, 1950, 114 L.Ed.2d 572 U.S. in Crawford, Lehnert and (1991), Court set out three- ruling below issued its on a motion for sum determining union part test for which ex mary ruling judgment. appeal On from that may penses charged employees: be nonunion grant the aрpellants we must “the benefit (1) “[CJhargeable ‘ger be must activities evidentiary all that can reasonable inferences activity; collective-bargaining be mane’ uphold the be in favor” and can [their] drawn justified government’s policy vital in judgment “only is no where there peace avoiding in ‘free rid terest labor fact, and, viewing genuine issuе of material ers’; significantly add to the not light in most evidence favorable speech burdening of free that is inherent nonmoving party, the movant is entitled agency shop.” or union the allowance of an prevail v. as a matter of law.” Sherwood 519, Applying at 111 at this Id. S.Ct. Post, F.2d 1147-48 Washington 871 test, “a local the Court concluded that bar omitted). (D.C.Cir.1989) (intеrnal quotations gaining representative may charge objecting standard, can Under this here employees pro rata share of the for their not stand. chargeable costs associated with otherwise affiliates, sympathy The district court found the activities its state national bar performed germane not collective even those activities were “plausible” conten objecting employ gaining ALPA’s the direct based benefit part comprehen 111 of a bargaining at tion that the strike was ees’ unit.” Id. S.Ct. added). Following strategy strengthen ALPA’s own bar (emphasis 1961 Leh sive nert, F.Supp. at 783 gaining position 992 F.2d 1295 Eastern. — (4th (en however, Cir.1993) denied, dis banc), appellant phots, cеrt. see, strike, —, puted ALPA’s 114 126 L.Ed.2d 153 rationale U.S. S.Ct. ¶¶ (1993), credibly A e.g. 136 so. upheld App. the Fourth Circuit ALPA as kinds of sympathy from other nonunion strike differs airlines, participation therein holding and a union’s strikes at other deemed ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‍strikes express solidarity may merely to compelled by 992 F.2d at be intended Lehnert. See id. 1280 primary striking utilizing petitioners’ union rather than political lobby funds for its own ing garner advance ob and to public

jectives. endeavors, See John Morrell & Co. v. Local the union would use each dis Union United Food & Commercial senter as ‘an fostering public instrument for 304A of (8th Cir.1990) ideological adherence to point an of view he (distinguishing sympathy unacceptable.’ economic and finds The First Amendment “ protects explaining: sympathy strikes and ‘A right participation individual’s unions; striking spheres involves two these precisely type one is from force invasion.”) (quoting Wooley employer; Maynard, some concession from the the oth 705, 715, U.S. objec er strikes with S.Ct. the first’s (1977)).4 Sympathy inherently expressive tives. strikes are a Given the common man strike, nature of a solidarity.’”) ifestation traditional union thе assessments (5th (quoting may very here Dictionary nonehargeable Black’s Law well be for the 1979)), denied, Lehnert, same reason. ed. cert. See U.S. at (“The (1991). not, surely may 114 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. at 1961 If that here, example, may charge objecting was the case reasonably employees as inferred, a direct then the donation or strike assess interest-frеe loan to an “germane bargaining ments were not unrelated unit for purpose to of collective-bar gaining activity” promoting employee chargeable rights gen to the non unionism erally. Further, pilots. Crawford, a by See 992 F.2d contribution a at 1305 local (Russell, J., (“Plaintiffs parent union to dissenting) part that is not stated at of the responsibilities argument oral local’s that the strike at as an Eastern was affiliate but is in sympathy a strike in nature of a by of a strike charitable donation would not dissenters.”).5 chargeable be plaintiffs’ Machinists’ Union ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‍unit. If to state true, expenditures ment is on the East So ordered. controversy ern would have had no effect on plaintiffs’ bargaining collective and clear ly could charged.”) not have been (citing SILBERMAN, Judge, concurring Beck v. Communications dubitante: (4th Cir.1985), aff'd, 487 U.S. join I Judge opinion up Henderson’s to the (1988)). L.Ed.2d 634 Giv point that she reaches the issue whether the genuine fact, en of material we assessments to the ALPA strike at uphold cannot in ALPA’s favor. Eastern “germane” were to collectivе bar- preceding reasons,

For the And, we reverse gaining. although object I do not to the district court’s judgment and re- findings remand for as to the actual relation- findings mand for trial and regarding of fact ship between the strike at Eastern and the whether dynamics bargaining appel- germane are bargaining unit, ALPA’s collective lants’ I findings doubt that further will aсtivity. The district court should provide also con- much pre- illumination on the issue again sider whether the strike as- sented in Judge this case. Henderson is satisfy prong the third certainly the Leh- correct that the Fourth Circuit in nert plurality test. The Lehnert found that purported rely heavily on the union lobbying expenses, example, are factfinding district court’s and that the Su- nonehargeable because of their preme substantial Court in Lehnert also referred to the speech burden on dissenters’ rights. free facts as judge. found the district Never- See 500 (“By theless, U.S. at S.Ct. expenditure whether an is to be con- justices dissenting 4. Four in Lehnert would have acknowledged The district court here that "re- disallowed the underly- assessments because the quiring the nonunion in the Pan Am bar- ing expenses were not "incurred for the conduct gaining support financially unit a strike duty activities in which the union owes a Eastern for the machinists at representation fair being to the nonmembers significantly speech.” Eastern does burden free charged.” 500 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. at F.Supp. at 665. litigation it to merely question unique perception of that leads is not “germane” sidered bar- process “political.” only union’s factual relatedness that as I of its describe objecting efforts on behalf gaining matter as me as it wish the seemed clear to unit, cer- bargaining because even members’ Wilkinson, Judge who does to said Craw- have clearly related activities classes tain language that “the Lehnert nails the ford “non-germane.” primary deemed Our been result to the mast.” that, assessments have been problem is when recognize analytical difficulty in I expenditures relating to activities levied that, drawing a line between those unit, is bargaining impossible another agenсy charged unwilling shop employ- particu- Supreme Court detect cases— Amendment, ees, would the First offend for distin- larly principled Lehnert —a basis thought germane to collective those to be expenditures that are guishing bargaining. surely give can But Court fact And from those are not. principles on which our us some to base legal court has useful if a available are such, I cannot decisions. the absence findings. place into those framework which majority’s quarrel with the decision to re- has that non- Supreme held Court factfinding. judge will mand for un- charged general cannot be members just able how related at least be to determine activities, costs, lobbying organizing ion particular expenditures to collec- these directly associ- litigation expenses not or for appellants’ (the tive unit. bargaining unit with their collective ated understands since the latter Ellis v. litigation “political”). See such Clerks, Ry., Airline & S.S.

Brotherhood of (1984); Facul- Lehnert Ferris

L.Ed.2d 519-22, 528, 111 S.Ct. ty 1959-60, at holding); id. at 111 S.Ct. (plurality NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY (Scalia, J., concurring judgment). CORPORATION, Petitioner, however, assessed, can be Nоn-members expenses associated with share of their chargeable bargaining activities of affili FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY per not those activities were ates —“even COMMISSION, Respondent, objecting for the direct benefit formed Lehnert, unit,” employees’ bargaining National Fuel Gas Distribution at 1961—for convention at 111 S.Ct. U.S. Corporation, al., et expendi (including rеasonable social costs Intervenors. tures), preparations, and for oth reporting publications costs of 94-1307. No. Ellis, chargeable union activities. See erwise Appeals, United States Court 1892-96; 448-56, at 104 S.Ct. at Circuit. District of Columbia Lehnert, U.S. Argued April beyond my powers comprehension It is July Decided litigation in- why understand Rehearing unit on Rehearing the union another Suggestion curred bargaining— to collective matter relates Sept. In Banc 1995.* Denied interpretation of a collective perhaps even an agreement identical to that thought objecting employees’ unit —are not preparations

“germane,” but certain Perhaps Court’s is the

are. * Henderson, Judges, participate order. did not in this Silberman

Case Details

Case Name: Stewart W. Beckett v. Air Line Pilots Association

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Aug 24, 1995

Citation: 59 F.3d 1276

Docket Number: 18-1296

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.