Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants

743 F. Supp. 245, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2185, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10463
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 10, 1990
DocketNo. 89 Civ. 1655 (LLS)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 743 F. Supp. 245 (Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, 743 F. Supp. 245, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2185, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10463 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

STANTON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Gregory Fenderson, James Summers and Carmelo Torre are flight attendants employed by defendant Trans World Airlines (“TWA”). They move for partial summary judgment, seeking a determination that defendants have violated section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act (the “RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh (a) (1982).

BACKGROUND

TWA and defendant the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (the “IFFA” or “union”) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. That agreement contains a union security clause requiring that TWA flight attendants become members of the IFFA as a condition of continued employment.1

In March 1986, the IFFA went on strike against TWA, which then operated using flight attendants hired after the strike began (“new hires”) and flight attendants who did not strike or returned to work during the strike (“crossovers”). In May 1986, TWA accepted the IFFA’s unconditional offer to return to work. TWA retained the flight attendants it employed during the strike, recalling those that had remained on strike (“full-term strikers”) on a seniority basis as vacancies occurred.

TWA recalled the last full-term strikers in 1989, and has since hired new flight attendants. In 1989, TWA hired approximately 300 new flight attendants, at least 39 of whom have joined the IFFA.

In September 1988, the IFFA amended its Constitution and Bylaws (“C & B”) to add a twelve-month “education and orientation period” for those seeking admission or readmission to the union, during which the new member cannot run for office or vote in union elections, referendums or ratifications.2 Other amendments raised the initiation fee from $100 to $250 and created a fee of $250 for those who resign the union and seek readmission.3

[247]*247DISCUSSION

Summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R. Civ.P. 56(c).

Plaintiffs Fenderson and Torre are new hires, and plaintiff Summers is a crossover who resigned from the union. They contend that the amendments to the C & B violate section 2, Eleventh (a) of the RLA, which states in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, or of any other statute or law of the United States, or Territory thereof, or of any State, any carrier or carriers as defined in this chapter and a labor organization or labor organizations duly designated and authorized to represent employees in accordance with the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted—
(a) to make agreements, requiring, as a condition of continued employment, that within sixty days following the beginning of such employment, or the effective date of such agreements, whichever is the later, all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class: Provided, That no such agreement shall require such condition of employment with respect to employees to whom membership is not available upon the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member or with respect to employees to whom membership was denied or terminated for any reason other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.

45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh (a). Plaintiffs assert that because of this violation, the IFFA cannot require them to pay dues as a condition of continued employment.

Plaintiffs contend in this action that the amendments were used to exclude them from participation in the union and to punish them for their activities during the strike. However, in this motion they contend that the amendments violate section 2, Eleventh (a) on their face and without reference to the motivations behind them. Thus, the basis for plaintiffs’ motion is that even if the amendments had been passed in good faith for wholly legitimate reasons, they would violate the RLA.

1. The one-year education and orientation period

The education and orientation period creates a class of members in the IFFA from whom the right to vote is temporarily withheld: they therefore lack the ability to participate fully in important union decisions. For a year, the union requires those new TWA employees to pay it dues as a condition of continued employment while their membership rights are substantially less than those of other union members.

Section 2, Eleventh (a) prohibits unions from imposing such restrictions on membership while simultaneously demanding that all employees pay dues or face discharge from employment. A union that enforces a union security clause must, according to the statute, make membership available to such employees “upon the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member”.

New IFFA members are precluded from voting on any union matter, no matter how critical or fundamental it may be to the organization to which they are required to pay dues. Thus, their membership is not upon the same terms and conditions as that generally available to other members, and [248]*248accordingly the union cannot enforce the union security agreement.

The IFFA asserts that this interpretation restricts its right to regulate its internal affairs, and that section 2, Eleventh (a) did not intend such restrictions.

However, section 2, Eleventh (a) does not impose any restrictions on union administration. It merely states that when a union enforces a union security agreement it must make membership available to all on the same terms and conditions. Thus, the statute gives the IFFA a choice: make membership available to all on the same terms and conditions and enjoy the benefit of the financial support of all employees under the union security clause, or exercise the right to restrict certain classifications of members’ rights and forego the right to compel contributions from the disenfranchised employees.

The legislative history of section 2, Eleventh (a) supports this conclusion. In 1950, George M. Harrison, a union president, spoke on behalf of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association in support of the provision, which for the first time permitted union security clauses in agreements covered by the RLA:

It is our understanding that the present bill will protect those employees who, because of restrictions which may exist in the constitutions of some unions, may not be eligible to membership or be eligible to membership only on a limited basis.
The bill provides ...

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fenderson v. INDEP. FED. OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
743 F. Supp. 245 (S.D. New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
743 F. Supp. 245, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2185, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenderson-v-independent-federation-of-flight-attendants-nysd-1990.