The opinion of the court was delivered by: Decker, District Judge.
In May 1966 two trucking companies merged. All States Freight,
Inc., became a part of the surviving Pacific Intermountain
Express Company. Both before and after the combination, truck
drivers for the companies were represented by Local 705 of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Under the respective
collective bargaining agreements, each company had its own
seniority list which defined the truckers' rights vis-a-vis the
other drivers employed by that corporation. After the merger,
these two lists had to be integrated in some manner.
The surviving corporation and Local 705 negotiated extensively
concerning the seniority issue. Unable to reach a consensus, they
then submitted the question to arbitration and to a Joint
Grievance Committee. Concluding that the corporate acquisition
was a "buy out" rather than a "merger," both the grievance
committee and the arbitrator placed the entire list of All
States' drivers below the drivers for P.I.E. The All States
drivers therefore instituted this suit, claiming that (1) P.I.E.,
as the successor to the liabilities and duties of All States,
breached the collective bargaining agreement between the drivers
and All States, and (2) the union violated its statutory duty of
Both the employer and Local 705 have now moved for summary
judgment, maintaining that the testimony and exhibits adduced
before the Joint Grievance Committee establish that there is no
genuine issue for trial. F.R.Civ.P. 56(e) provides that when such
a motion is made,
"an adverse party may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of his pleading, but his
response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in
this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial."
Since plaintiffs have failed to furnish detailed facts or other
evidence supporting their allegations, summary judgment is
appropriate. See, e.g., Crest Auto Supplies, Inc. v. Ero
Manufacturing Co., 360 F.2d 896, 902 (7th Cir. 1966); Balowski
v. International Union, United Auto, Aerospace and Agr. Implement
Workers of America (U.A.W.), 372 F.2d 829, 835 (6th Cir. 1967).
Two successive collective bargaining agreements are involved.
An initial contract governed labor relations from January 1, 1964
to March 31, 1967, while a later one, executed about July 18,
1967, determined the parties' relationship between April 1, 1967
and March 31, 1970. The aggrieved drivers rely upon the 1964-67
agreement, emphasizing article 8, section 1 which stated that:
"Employee seniority * * * shall prevail for all
purposes and in all instances. Seniority shall be
broken only by discharge for just cause, voluntary
resignation or more than two (2) years layoff."
Although the corporate combination was consummated in May 1966,
the drivers' seniority rights were not affected until the
terminals were physically merged in September 1967. Plaintiffs'
causes of action therefore accrued during the 1967-70 collective
bargaining agreement and are subject to its provisions. Article
8, section 7 of the current contract specifically provides that:
"When operations of bought-out company are merged
with operations of the buyer: In the event an
Employer buys out another Employer and merges the
operations of the bought-out Employer into his own,
those employees of the bought-out Employer who are
employed by the acquiring Employer will begin to
accrue seniority with the new Employer and the
beginning of such employment."
By industry practice, trucking firms' combinations are
classified as either "buy-outs" or "mergers." In the latter type
of acquisition, seniority is dovetailed on a one-for-one basis,*fn1
but in a "buy-out" the drivers of the acquired company uniformly
go to the bottom of the seniority list of the acquiring firm. In
cases of disagreement, both the 1964-67 and the 1967-70
collective bargaining agreements established a two-step
arbitration procedure. First, the disagreement is submitted to
one representative of each side. If not settled, the controversy
is then considered by a Joint Grievance Committee composed of
five employer representatives and five union representatives. The
decision of the committee is "final and binding upon the
Initially, P.I.E. contended the acquisition was a "merger," and
Local 705 claimed it was a "buy-out." Unable to agree at their
meeting, the parties submitted the controversy to a single
arbitrator, Judge Joseph Burke, who decided against the
plaintiffs. The Joint Grievance Committee then met and ratified
Judge Burke's holding on March 17, 1967.*fn2
Since the Joint Grievance Committee's decision is binding on
P.I.E. and Local 705, the employer's motion for summary judgment
must be granted. Obligated to enforce arbitration awards, the
federal courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the
arbitrators. See, e.g., United Steelworkers of America v.
Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596, 80 S.Ct. 1358,
4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); I.A.M. District No. 8, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v.
Campbell Soup Co., 406 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1969). Each of the
plaintiffs' contentions was thoroughly considered by the
committee. After hearing all the evidence, the arbitration
committee determined that the acquisition was a "buy-out," that
the 1967-70 collective bargaining agreement governs the drivers'