The opinion of the court was delivered by: GESELL
The above-captioned cases were consolidated and came before the Court for trial without a jury. The Court's jurisdiction is invoked under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
Plaintiffs own a number of office buildings located mainly in downtown Washington, D.C. They are each affiliated by stock ownership or partnership interest with Blake Construction, a corporation, which manages the office buildings. Each plaintiff has entered into a separate but identical collective bargaining agreement with defendant Local 99. Sometime in the afternoon of Friday, July 26, 1974, Local 82 of the Service Employees International Union set up picket lines around the buildings of the plaintiffs. Thereafter during the week from July 27 to August 3, various members of defendant Engineers Local 99 failed to report to work at some of the picketed buildings, causing damages alleged to total $7,240.81 at four different buildings owned by one of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs contend that Local 99 violated its collective bargaining contract and engaged in an illegal strike or work stoppage. Local 99 claims it did not authorize or support the decision of some of its members not to cross the picket lines and that, in any event, the Local had not bargained away its right to strike or sponsor a work stoppage under the precise situation here presented.
It appears that Local 82 set up its pickets without any advance notice to the Engineers Union and this event caught Local 99 of the Engineers Union by surprise. When some individual members called the Union's office and inquired as to what should be done, no immediate advice could be given and after a series of informal communications a group of some ten to fifteen engineers met at the Union hall around 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 26. The meeting was set up by telephone calls from the Shop Steward. At the Union hall the business manager of Local 99, Reed, and the Union's organizer, Surnack, were present. Sitting around a table with these officials, the members present asked a number of questions. They wished to know if they would be fined by the Union if they crossed the picket line and were told "no." They wished to know whether building management could take any reprisals against them and they were told "no ". There was a general discussion as to what the men should do, what would be the repercussions if they went to work and what the repercussions would be if they crossed the picket line. The Union representatives advised the men that the Union was taking no official position in the matter. Some of the men present expressed the view they should stand as a union and act as a union, even though the business manager present would take no position one way or the other. The business manager did state his personal belief that while it was up to each member, no good union member would cross a picket line. Local 99 had approximately 20-30 representatives covered by the form of agreement here involved and at least half the membership of the Local was present at the meeting.
After a back and forth discussion lasting about an hour, a show of hands was sought and all present voted not to cross the picket line. Thereafter some members of the Union, including some individuals present at the meeting, did in fact cross the picket lines and the actions of the individual members were not uniform. The particular plaintiffs in these actions are owners of buildings that were affected by failure of individual members of the Union to report to work, but there were other buildings owned by the same interests and covered by the same labor agreements which were not affected in any way, even though picket lines existed at these buildings as well.
The Union argues that all that occurred was a "bull session," that the coming together of the Union members was not initiated by the Union, that no formal meeting was held, that no specific directions were given by the Union, that no penalties were threatened for those who might choose to cross the line, and that the resulting action was not uniform. It argues that on the basis of these facts the Court must find on the preponderance of the evidence that no Union action occurred and that the individual members who did not cross the lines simply acted in accord with their individual consciences.
Where a union has entered into a contractual provision not to strike, it may be liable in damages under § 301 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, for breach of its duty to "use its best efforts to return striking workers to their jobs." Wagner Elect. Corp. v. Electrical Workers Local 1104, 496 F.2d 954, 956 (8th Cir. 1974); Vulcan Materials Co. v. United Steelworkers, 430 F.2d 446, 457 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 963, 28 L. Ed. 2d 247, 91 S. Ct. 974 (1971); Internation Union, United Mine Workers of America v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 149, 177 F.2d 29, 36, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 871, 94 L. Ed. 535, 70 S. Ct. 140 (1949). In the light of the actions of the Union's agent, Reed, in encouraging the men not to cross the picket line, the Union will be liable, see 29 U.S.C. § 185(e), if it in fact bargained away its members' rights to refuse to cross the picket lines of another union.
Section 7 of the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 157, protects the rights of employees "to engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection" and this has been construed to include a protected § 7 right to refuse to cross the picket line of another union. See, e.g., Truck Drivers Local 413 v. NLRB, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 149, 334 F.2d 539, 545 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 916, 13 L. Ed. 2d 186, 85 S. Ct. 264 (1964); NLRB v. Alamo Express, Inc., 430 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021, 27 L. Ed. 2d 633, 91 S. Ct. 584 (1971). However, in NLRB v. Rockaway News Supply Co., 345 U.S. 71, 97 L. Ed. 832, 73 S. Ct. 519 (1953), the Supreme Court held that a union could waive this right by agreeing to an appropriately worded no-strike clause.
The no-strike clause involved in this case, which is set out in full below,
is appreciably narrower than that in Rockaway, supra, which, as already noted, provided broadly that the union would not sanction any "cessation of work" whatsoever during the term of the agreement. That is not the case here. Local 99 has only agreed not to strike over any "dispute" with the employer "arising out of the interpretation of or application of" their agreement.
Counsel for defendant now claims the evidence showed no "dispute" within the meaning of the contract between union and employer. This claim was made at final argument after all the testimony had been heard. Plaintiffs had relied on the Court's earlier ruling. In order to avoid prejudice, both sides were then given the opportunity to file post-trial briefs on the issue whether or not refusal to ...