Motor Car. Coun. of St. Louis, Inc. v. Local U. No. 600
This text of 384 F. Supp. 214 (Motor Car. Coun. of St. Louis, Inc. v. Local U. No. 600) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MOTOR CARRIERS COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS, INC., a corporation, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LOCAL UNION NO. 600, affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendant.
United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.
Charles A. Seigel, Charles H. Spoehrer, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs.
Clyde E. Craig, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HARPER, District Judge.
This is an action brought by plaintiffs, the Motor Carriers Council of St. Louis, Inc., and seventy-nine trucking firms (the trucking firms will hereinafter be referred to as employer-plaintiffs) for damages resulting from the breach of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement by defendant, Local Union 600, Affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter referred to as Local 600). By leave of Court, nineteen of the seventy-nine employer-plaintiffs dismissed their cause of action herein with prejudice. Local 600 maintains its principal office in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. This Court has jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
This Court previously separated the issues in this case and tried it initially on the question of liability only. In the initial trial this Court found the issue of liability for the employer-plaintiffs and against the defendant, and granted the defendant the right to apply for an appeal on the question of liability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took the case on appeal on the question of liability and affirmed this Court's finding on that issue. (486 F.2d 650)
Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial on the question of damages.
Carroll Shelton, Certified Public Accountant of the accounting firm of Shelton *215 & Von Cloedt, prepared exhibits for most of the employer-plaintiffs as to the loss sustained by each during the work stoppage period from April 1, 1970, through May 8, 1970.
The defendant stipulated with respect to said exhibits prepared by Shelton that it would waive the best evidence rule on a representative from each of the said employer-plaintiffs testifying that the figures furnished Shelton for the purpose of preparing the exhibit for said employer-plaintiff were accurately taken from the books and records of the company kept in the ordinary course of business.
Shelton in past years has prepared many business interruption claims with respect to claims for insurance under business interruption policies and has testified in court with respect to many of the claims. Before each employer-plaintiff's exhibit was prepared by the employer-plaintiff, Shelton conferred with a group of approximately twelve employer-plaintiffs, all of whom were ICC carriers, to establish the best method of determining the reconstruction of the operating revenue which would have been earned had there been no interruption in their operations due to the strike and the total expenses that would have incurred with respect to said operations.
All of the employer-plaintiffs involved, except two, were under the ICC regulations, which requires the use of a certain form of accounting procedure. The ICC sets up account numbers for various classifications of operating income and expenses.
After Shelton's conference with the group of employer-plaintiffs, he prepared Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, consisting of several pages, is divided into two categories. The first is a group of what could probably be referred to as ledger sheets, on which account numbers have been inserted, and were prepared for the purpose of recording thereon from the books and records of the carrier in question certain information regarding income and expenses. In addition, on the ledger sheets a column was provided for projected figures. The second part of the exhibit consists of two letters, of one page each, and eight pages of detailed instructions as to how Exhibit 2 should be filled out from the carrier's records and the manner to be used in arriving at the projected figures.
Each of the carriers whom Shelton was assisting was furnished by Shelton & Von Cloedt, the accounting firm of which Shelton was a member, with a copy of Exhibit 2. Shelton testified in detail as to his qualificaions and as to the manner in which Exhibit 1, which is a copy of the ledger sheets from Exhibit 2, was filled in by the employees of Gordon Transports, Inc., according to the instructions which are a part of Exhibit 2. On the first page of Exhibit 1, Shelton made the calculations from the other figures on Exhibit 1 with respect to the loss sustained by Gordon Transports, Inc., due to the work stoppage attributable to the strike in St. Louis. It is not necessary to set out the detailed information that Shelton gave on the preparation of Exhibit 1, since the instructions attached to Exhibit 2 clearly explained how Exhibit 1 was to be prepared, and Shelton testified it was so prepared.
The figures on Exhibit 1 and the other exhibits are accurately transposed from the books of the carrier involved, with the exception of the projection figures. The instruction sheets in Exhibit 2, which set out the manner of arriving at the projection figures, were followed in arriving at the projection figures inserted on the exhibits. In the preparation of the exhibit with respect to each of the carriers which Shelton prepared, the account numbers used in ICC reporting by the carrier were used with respect to revenue and expenses on the exhibits.
Various accounting periods were involved in the preparation of these exhibits with respect to the various carriers, in that some of the firms kept their records on a quarterly basis and some *216 on a monthly basis, and since the period involved during the work stoppage was April 1 to May 8, it was necessary in all instances to include a longer period than this particular period, since the reporting periods overlapped. In order to reconstruct the income and expenses for the period April 1 to May 8, 1970, the income and expenses for the calendar years 1968, 1969 and 1971 were used in other words, the two years before and the year after the work stoppage. It was necessary with respect to the companies whose operations extended to other areas such as Chicago, Minneapolis and Atlanta, where for a part of the time in question there was work stoppage similar to that in St. Louis, to only allocate to the recapitulation shown on the first page of the various exhibits that part of the loss attributable to St. Louis alone. The expenses are based upon various factors as they are on the format of the ICC reporting forms, including expenses based upon mileage, and various other factors which are normally used in the ICC accounting procedure. Some of the expenses are attributable to the overall operation of the company, while others pertain only to St. Louis.
The preparation of Exhibit 1, which dealt with the carrier, Gordon Transports, Inc., and Exhibit 3, which dealt with Middlewest Freightways, Inc., was explained in detail by Shelton, as was the loss attributable to the St. Louis walkout, which loss was based on the figures set out on the respective Exhibits and inserted by Shelton.
The testimony with respect to Gordon Transports, Inc., and its Exhibit 1, was heard on June 10, 1974. Following Shelton's testimony with respect to the exhibit, a Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
384 F. Supp. 214, 77 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 10,892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motor-car-coun-of-st-louis-inc-v-local-u-no-600-moed-1974.