December 17, 2010: A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit ABF Freight System filed against rival trucker YRC Worldwide and the Teamsters aimed at blocking a labor agreement central to YRC’s survival.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled after a hearing that ABF did not have jurisdiction to sue over the agreement, which ABF claims is illegal under the common National Master Freight Agreement the union signed with the companies.

Click here to read more at The Journal of Commerce.

December 10, 2010: The International union has responded in detail to the lawsuit filed by ABF against the IBT and YRCW. The lawsuit demands that ABF be given concessions by the IBT to match those given to YRCW and approved by YRCW Teamsters.

A point-by-point response is provided in an affidavit by Jim McCall, the IBT attorney for the Freight Division. That document is available here.

December 6, 2010: The Teamsters union at one point pressured ABF Freight System to buy ailing rival YRC Worldwide, ABF Freight System revealed on a company Web site.

Teamster negotiators put a potential acquisition on the table in talks with ABF earlier this year, the less-than-truckload carrier said on abflegalaction.com

Click here to read more at The Journal of Commerce.

Note: This case involves salaried (non Teamster) employees. Teamster YRC employees are in Teamster pension plans and are not affected by the falling price of YRC shares.

December 1, 2010: Former YRC Worldwide Inc. salaried employees are not entitled to a jury trial in their action alleging the fiduciaries of the company's pension plan breached their fiduciary duties by continuing to invest in YRC stock when its stock price plummeted, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled Nov. 29 (In re YRC Worldwide Inc. ERISA Litigation, D. Kan., No. 09-2593, 11/29/10).

Granting YRC's motion to strike the former employees' jury demand, Judge John W. Lungstrum rejected the employees' argument that their claim for money damages to remedy the alleged breach was a legal claim because they did not seek “true restitution” in the case. In particular, the employees argued that under the language of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 27 EBC 1065 (6 DLR AA-2, 1/9/02) they were not seeking equitable restitution because, even though they sought to force the defendants to restore to the plan's fund the amount that was lost, they were not seeking to disgorge from the defendants particular funds that the defendants removed from the plan.

In Knudson, the Supreme Court said that for restitution to lie in equity, the action must seek to restore to the plaintiff particular funds or property in the defendant's possession.

Disposing of the employees' argument, the court said it did not agree that Knudson overturned the “traditional” view that the employees' claims were equitable ones arising under trust law for purposes of the Seventh Amendment.

Drop in Stock Price

The putative class action alleged that the fiduciaries of YRC's defined contribution pension plan breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when they continued to invest in YRC's stock as the stock price fell from a high of $25.96 per share in October 2007 to a low of 45 cents per share in March 2010. They sought relief under ERISA Sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3), requesting actual damages to be paid to the plan to restore the loss in the value of the plan's assets that resulted from the alleged fiduciary breaches. The employees also sought other declaratory and equitable relief.

In an earlier decision in the case, the court adopted the “presumption of prudence” and said the employees set forth sufficient allegations that, if proven, could overcome the presumption; 50 EBC 1172. The court said the presumption of prudence could likely be rebutted given that YRC stock became virtually worthless during the class period.

In that decision, the court also dismissed the employees' claim that the plan's fiduciaries breached their duties by failing to disclose material information about the company to employees who invested in YRC stock.

Court Strikes Jury Demand

In the current decision, the court struck down the employees' request for a jury demand. Under the Seventh Amendment, plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial when their claims and requested relief are legal rather than equitable in nature. The employees argued that in light of Knudson, they brought a legal claim—a claim for monetary relief for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 502(a)(2)—requiring a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

While a claim for money damages is traditionally a form of legal relief, damages are characterized as equitable when they are restitutionary or when a monetary award is incidental to or intertwined with injunctive relief. Among other things, the employees argued that Knudson affected the analysis as to the restitution exception.

The district court said that Knudson “hardly governs the present situation,” as Knudson did not involve ERISA Section 502(a)(2), a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, or a claim against a trustee or fiduciary that had breached its fiduciary duties to participants. The claim at issue in Knudson was more akin to a breach of contract action, whereas the YRC employees' claim was essentially a claim for a breach of trust arising from a fiduciary duty, the court added.

Even if the court accepted the employees' argument that Knudson created a new, narrower definition of equitable restitution, the court said it would still conclude that the employees' claim for monetary relief was equitable for purposes of applying the Seventh Amendment because it was incidental to or intertwined with their equitable claims.

The plaintiffs were represented by Edward W. Ciolko, Mark K. Gyandoh, Joseph H. Meltzer, Peter A. Muhic, and Julie Siebert-Johnson of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pa.; Gregory M. Egleston of Brooklyn, N.Y.; Stephen J. Fearon and Garry T. Stevens of Squitieri & Fearon in New York; Robert A. Izard of Izard Nobel in West Hartford, Conn.; and Patrick J. Kaine and Don R. Lolli of Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle in Kansas City, Mo.

The YRC defendants were represented by David M. Buffo and James D. Griffin of Husch Blackwell in Kansas City, Mo.; Charles C. Jackson of Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Chicago, Ellen L. Perlioni in the firm's Dallas office, and Christopher A. Weals in the firm's Washington, D.C., office.

By Meredith Z. Maresca for BNA Daily Labor Report

November 30, 2010: Smaller trucking companies and expedited carriers are asking a federal court to stay a portion of the federal CSA 2010 safety initiative set to take effect next month.

The carriers, represented by three industry groups, filed suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington to block the release of carrier safety data in several categories by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration starting Dec. 5.

Click here to read more at The Journal of Commerce.

Updated November 22, 2010: YRC local management wasted no time abusing the newly ratified agreement at the barns. At Chicago Heights, they laid off some 50 Local 705 drivers. These include Teamsters who shuttle trailers to the rail yard: now the company claims they can have road drivers do the shuttle work en route.

Chicago drivers are up in arms over this betrayal. They see it as corporate revenge because Local 705 members have been a center of resistance to YRC managements’ attacks on the union.

Layoffs are disproportionately hitting this terminal, as the company diverts their work. What good is an International union leadership which allows one terminal or group to be sacrificed – with no solidarity.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allows “one pick up or delivery” by a road driver – it does not say anything about rail shuttle work.

Similar management moves against jobs and conditions are coming down at many terminals.

YRC Teamsters in every terminal, in every local, need to form a united movement to demand contract enforcement.

Most of the rank and file voted for the agreement because they want the company to survive. But do not want all their rights as Teamsters stripped away. And they want the International Union to quit being YRC’s door mat and defend Teamster rights.

Why did we vote to save our jobs and our union if the company can destroy jobs at will and walk on our union, with the International union standing by.

At the Copley Ohio breakbulk, a strong pushback from members and Local 24 helped to stop unilateral changes, at least for now and got a steward reinstated who was fired on a bogus claim of initiating a work stoppage.

Normally contract changes as big as those in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be implemented with the agreement of the union. But management is using the MOU as an excuse to do whatever they want.

A big sticking point with Copley Teamsters was that management moved to immediately eliminate all the straight eight hour bids, and would eliminate seniority with respect to yard work.

These changes differed from what management told Teamsters earlier, when they were campaigning for a Yes vote on the MOU.

Management expected a grievance but they got a united bunch of Teamsters. Local 24 fired off an angry letter to the IBT Freight Division, requesting help to block it. “This shameful deceit of members must not stand,” the letter insisted.

Local 24 officials told stewards on November 5 that word came down that if the company instituted the changes unilaterally, a work stoppage may result. When a steward discussed this report with the rank and file, management fired him.

The resulting firestorm led to his reinstatement and put a hold on the company’s unilateral changes in working conditions. But at this point there is no settlement in writing, and the steward has to grieve for six days of lost wages.

Chicago, Copley, Tampa, Kansas City… the attack is coming down everywhere. The International is not going to lift a finger unless members and locals demand action.

November 19, 2010: YRC local management wasted no time scurrying to implement the newly ratified agreement at the barns, and in ways that destroy long-standing practices. At the Copley Ohio breakbulk, their high-handed actions included firing a shop steward for a nonexistent work slowdown.

A strong pushback from members and Local 24 helped to reinstate the steward and to stop unilateral changes, at least for now.

Normally contract changes as big as those in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would be implemented with the agreement of the union. But at Copley, and some other terminals, management is using the MOU as an excuse to do whatever they want.

A big sticking point with Copley Teamsters was that management moved to immediately eliminate all the straight eight hour bids, and would eliminate seniority with respect to yard work.

These changes differed from what management told Teamsters earlier, when they were campaigning for a Yes vote on the MOU.

Management expected a grievance but they got a united bunch of Teamsters. Local 24 fired off an angry letter to the IBT Freight Division, requesting help to block it. “This shameful deceit of members must not stand,” the letter insisted.

Local 24 officials told stewards on November 5 that word came down that if the company instituted the changes unilaterally, a work stoppage may result. When a steward discussed this report with the rank and file, management fired him.

The resulting firestorm led to his reinstatement and put a hold on the company’s unilateral changes in working conditions. But at this point there is no settlement in writing, and the steward has to grieve for six days of lost wages.

The same kind of unilateral changes are being reported at a number of terminals. For example, in Kansas City management is distorting the language of the MOU to eliminate bid jobs shuttling trailers to the rail yard.

The rank and file voted for the agreement because they want the company to survive. But do not want all their rights as Teamsters stripped away. And they want the International Union to quit being YRC’s door mat and defend Teamster rights.

November 17, 2010: YRC Worldwide has filed a motion asking a court to dismiss a suit by rival less-than-truckload carrier ABF Freight System, and said separately it will close 31 terminals around the country to reorganize its network and trim costs.

YRC’s New Penn Motor Express and USF Holland units filed the motion in the U.S. District court for the Western District of Arkansas to dismiss ABF’s suit which alleged that YRC’s recent deal with the Teamsters union violates the National Master Freight Agreement.

Click here to read more at Transport Topics.

November 16, 2010: YRC has submitted a proposed change of operations to the International Union in which 31 terminals would be closed. In addition, line haul lanes will be adjusted and some reversed.

In one more in what seems like a never-ending series of changes, YRC management is seeking to consolidate operations in the Midwest, South, and Eastern Seaboard to improve efficiency and service.

A number of small terminals are slated for closure, and some medium-sized facilities such as Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Nearly 500 Teamsters are slated to relocate.

A summary of the proposal and the impact on various terminals is available here.

The entire 80-page proposal is available here.

November 3, 2010: Freight Teamsters have every reason to be mad. YRC Teamsters were backed into accepting concessions. ABF Teamsters are under the gun, too.

Years of inaction and worse by the Hoffa administration has put us into a bad position.

Is there a positive course of action? How about replacing Hoffa with a leader committed to rebuilding Teamster organizing, power and contract strength in freight and trucking!

Click here to help spread the word.