Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROSSA v. FLYING TIGER LINE

June 26, 1958

STEVEN EUGENE ROSSA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FLYING TIGER LINE, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THIS DISTRICT, ARTHUR N. MEYER, WILLIAM E. BARTLING, KENNETH E. HENDERSON, AND VERNON L. WASTMAN, MEMBERS OF THE FLYING TIGER LINE, INC., PILOTS' SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Igoe, District Judge.

This cause comes on to be heard on motion of the defendant, The Flying Tiger Line, Inc., for summary judgment. The four individual members of The Flying Tiger Line Inc. Pilots' System Board of Adjustment were also named as defendants in the complaint but none of them has been served and none has appeared. For the purpose of passing upon this motion, the court has considered the facts as to which there is no genuine issue on the basis of the complaint, the answer thereto of defendant, The Flying Tiger Line Inc., plaintiff's reply to the defendant's answer, the affidavit in support of the motion, the answer of plaintiff to the motion, and plaintiff's counter-affidavit in opposition to the motion. In determining whether the facts not in dispute warrant a summary judgment, the court has taken as true all facts well pleaded in plaintiff's complaint and reply. Having considered the pleadings and affidavits in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the briefs filed by the parties and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Facts

1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Defendant, The Flying Tiger Line Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, is doing business in this district, and is a duly licensed, certificated, chartered carrier by air.

2. Plaintiff was employed by defendant, Flying Tiger, as a pilot on or about December 4, 1950 and continued in that employment until he was discharged effective February 28, 1955. He was at all relevant times a member in good standing of the Air Line Pilots Association International, a labor organization, which was at all relevant times the collective bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., for all pilots employed by defendant, Flying Tiger.

3. A collective bargaining agreement, known as the "Pilots' Agreement", was entered into between the defendant, Flying Tiger, and the Air Line Pilots in the service of The Flying Tiger Line Inc. as represented by The Air Line Pilots Association International on November 23, 1953 which with the exception of certain amendments, effective January 19, 1955, not pertinent here, has been continuously in effect since that time. The provisions of said collective bargaining agreement were applicable to plaintiff's employment as a pilot by defendant, Flying Tiger.

4. Section 17 of the above mentioned collective bargaining agreement reads as follows:

Investigation and Discipline

A. Hearing:

    1. A pilot shall not be disciplined or dismissed
  from the Company without notification in writing as
  to any such action, and such pilot shall not be
  disciplined or dismissed without an investigation and
  hearing, provided that the pilot makes written
  request to the Director of Flight Operations for an
  investigation and hearing within seven (7) days after
  receiving such notification.
    2. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
  prevent the Company from holding a pilot out of
  service prior to written notification of charges
  preferred against him and such written notification
  stipulated in Paragraph A-1 of this Section shall be
  furnished the pilot with expeditiousness not
  exceeding seven (7) days.
    3. Such investigation and hearing shall be held by
  a junior operating official of the Company designated
  at the time by the Company for that purpose and shall
  be held within ten (10) days after the Company
  receives the written notification from the pilot for
  an investigation and hearing, as stipulated in
  Paragraph A-1 of this Section.
    4. Prior to such investigation and hearing the
  Company shall furnish such pilot a copy of the
  precise charge or charges against him. He shall be
  given the necessary time, not more than ten (10)
  days, in which to prepare and to secure the presence
  of witnesses and shall have the right to be
  represented by an employee of the Company of his
  choice or by his duly accredited representative or
  representatives.
    5. Within ten (10) days after the close of such
  investigation and hearing, the Company shall announce
  its decision in writing respecting any such
  discipline, discharge or any other action and shall
  furnish the pilot, or his duly accredited
  representative, a copy thereof.

B. Appeal:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.