wirnams law office pik - psc.state.wv.us

WIrnAMS LAW OFFICE pIk One Union Sq., Bldg 2, Ste 201

Charleston, WV 25302

(304) 720-2448 facsimile (304) 720-2434

September 14,2009 L

Sandra Squire, Director Executive Secretary Division Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

Fax: (304) 340-0325

Re: Case No. 09-1276-MC-FC, Dennis Austin v. Duane Zobrist Group, LLC, dba Greenbrier Valley Limo and Executive Services

Dear Ms. Squire:

Please be advised that I represent the Maintenance Workers Local 1 182, a local union affiliated with the West Virginia Appalachian Laborers District Council and the Laborers International Union of North America, I am recently in receipt of your letter dated September 3, 2009, to Mr. Dennis Austin and Mr. Duane Zobrist, and the attached Utilities Division Initial Memorandum dated September 2,2009, and the attached Initial Joint Staff Memorandum dated September 3,2009. Deficiencies in the Complaint were noted in the memorandums and your cover letter allows 10 days to respond in writing to address the deficiencies. I am unclear as to when the time periodLEEspond eiids-iiid I ETpectfull~reqSstptKat%is letter-ziiid the-- attachments hereto be considered as a portion of the response to your list of concerns. Furthermore, I respectfully request that the Complainant(s) be allowed additional time for further, more in depth, responses. Please consider the following.

~

Dennis Austin filed the Public Service Commission Complaint pro-se.

Dennis Austin is Local 1 182’s Vice President and a union steward, as well as an employee of the Greenbrier Hotel where he works as a chauffeur. The names and unverified signatures of the additional Complainants filed after Mr. Austin’s initial Complaint are those of union members and The Greenbrier Hotel employees also working in the guest transportation services area at the hotel.

Sandra Squire, Director September 14,2009

Local 1 182 bargained long and hard with The Greenbrier Hotel for the exclusive right to provide the chauffeur and transportation services for the hotel’s guests. As I understand the P. S . C. M. C. Certificates awarded to Mr. Zobrist’s group, only when specific circumstances dictate, can the Greenbrier Valley Limo transport passengers to and fiom The Greenbrier Hotel and the Greenbrier Valley Airport.

I am currently performing my own investigation and gathering evidence to provide to you and the Public Service Commission. Additionally, I must now defend Mr. Austin and Mr. Delmas Workman, another union member and hotel employee that signed the additional list of complainants, because Mr. Zobrist has sued them in the Magistrate Court of Greenbrier County, West Virginia, for tortious interference with his contract with The Greenbrier Hotel. I am hopeful that discovery in the civil suit brought by Mr. Zobrist will shed some light on this matter and said discovery will be shared with the Public Service Commission.

To be very clear, Mr. Austin does not represent The Greenbrier Hotel (and did not intend for the Public Service Commission to believe he represented the hotel), but is an employee of the hotel along with other union members who have a very important stake in the outcome of this case. His actions were taken on behalf of Local 1 182’s membership in his capacity as the local’s Vice President and union steward.

Enclosed please find copies of the two separate Magistrate Court Complaints filed by Mr. Zobrist against Mr. Austin and Mr. Workman. Also enclosed are copies of Mr. Austin’s and Mr. Workman’s Answers. These are shared to help you understand the gravamen of Mr. Austin’s assertions.

I am hopeful that you will grant my request for an extension to correct the deficiencies you noted. If you do, in the very near future I believe I will be able to provide you with the additional pmof that complaint on the correct P.S.C. forms.

uested-along-withthe-formal-verifications and an amended

If you have any questions or comments please call me. My cell phone number is (304) 542-2736. My e-mail address is [email protected].

A

:RDW cc Gary Tillis

Phil Bostic Diane Parker Dennis Austin Delmas Workman Duane Zobrist Group llc

mailto:[email protected]

I

IN THE MAGISTRATE CQURT OF Laercfi b w L Name, Address & Phone Number of Plaintie

COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

t

C M L COMPLAINT

, on bohalf of the plaintiff acting in the capacity

I NOTICE Any party in a civil action seeking over $20.00 or possession of real estate has L e right to elect that the CBSG be tried by a ' jury. You muat give noticc to tba magishate court eitbw 20 days from whcn Le first timely answer lo L e coinplaint is made or 5 days %om when service of the summons and complaint is made for unlawful entry and detainer actions. If you do nat notif) the magistrate c o w Within the appropriate time period, you give up yow right to B jury trial. The jury fee will be assassed against the losing party if the case i s tried by ajury or may be prorated between the particrs if the rase is mlcd before trial.

NOTICE OF ELECTION As plaintiff in tho above action, I wish to have a jury trial.

1 li 7yqw- -.am-: q- W'P.,'SYWLXUlp) ~ - , L ~ 7 ~ P l ~ ' - * ~ w*qe-ILprr .-*=A%*,.i'.iL9' ..=%-a. ... sigqawc Date

NOTICE: Any perron involved in court proceedings who has a dieability and needs special accommodations should inform the court sufUclentIy in advance sa tbat arrangements can be made if porsibla

W.V& Coda 05 50.4-1, SO-S-8(a); Mag. Ct. Civ. autea 1,6A 0 R e m r] Ddondant

SCA-M207 110.94

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF GREENBRIER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

DUANE ZOBRIST GROUP LLC, DBA GREENBRIER VALLEY LIMOSINE

Plaintiff,

V. CASE NO. 09-M13C-00499

DENNIS AUSTIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND UNION STEWARD OF MAINTENANCE WORKERS LOCAL 1182

Defendant.

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

COMES now the Defendant, Dennis Austin and for his Answer to the Complaint

of Duane Zobrist Group LLC, dba Greenbrier Valley Limo hereby states the following:

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this Defendant upon

which relief can be granted and should therefore be dismissed ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~

SECOND DEFENSE

In response to the specific allegations set forth in the complaint, defendant,

Dennis Austin denies being involved in tortuous interference and demands strict proof

thereof.

Defendant Dennis Austin denies actual knowledge of a contract between

Greenbrier Valley Limo and the Greenbrier and demands strict proof thereof and

production of said alleged contract.

Defendant Dennis Austin denies he has maliciously filed Complaints with the

West Virginia Public Service Commission.

Defendant Dennis Austin denies being involved in any malicious activity against

the Plaintiff.

Defendant Dennis Austin denies any other allegations not specifically admitted

herein.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendant Dennis Austin reserves the right to assert all defenses available to

him as the facts of the case through discovery prove applicable, including all those

available to him under any statute, constitution, common law or rule, including, but not

limited to, those defenses available under Rule 8(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil

Procedure.

FOURTH DEFENSE

To the extent that the facts of the case through discovery prove applicable, the

Plaintiff is barred by the applicable statute of limitations for not having instituted this -

e tiEmiEd-€$the-stitiite follWing %e acciSlTf the allegedcliims.

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Defendant Dennis Austin was not guilty of any negligence, tortiuous

interference or malicious conduct proximately causing or contributing to the damages

allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff.

SIXTH DEFENSE

If the Defendant Dennis Austin were guilty of any negligence, tortiuous

interference or malicious conduct, which is denied, such negligence tortiuous interference

2

or malicious conduct was not the proximate cause of the damages allegedly sustained by

the Plaintiff,

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Any alleged damages or injuries resulting to the Plaintiff are solely the result of

the negligence, tortiuous interference andor malicious conduct of a party or parties other

than the Defendant.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in the Complaint are completely without merit and,

therefore, the Defendant is entitled to an award for damages for attorney fees, litigation

costs and such other costs and expenses which may be awarded to a defendant under

federal andor state law.

NINTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the remedies alleged in the

Complaint and, therefore, those remedies must be stricken.

TENTH DEFENSE ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~

To the extent that the facts of the case thro@hdiscoveTy proGpplicaHShe

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs damages are caused by persons and entities over whom

the Defendant had no control.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendant reserves the right to file additional affirmative defenses, counter

claims, cross-claims andor third-party claims if the sufficient or factual basis therefore is

developed through ongoing investigation and discovery.

3

TWELFTH DEFENSE

All or some of the claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are barred by the statute of

frauds.

By its own conduct, Plaintiff is estopped fiom pursing its claims against

Defendant. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff has suffered any harm or damages, which is

expressly denied, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering against Defendant.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

All or some of the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint are barred by the doctrines of

payment and release.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

By its own conduct, Plaintiffs have waived, implicitly or explicitly, any and all

claims for relief against Defendant, or consented to Defendant’s conduct. Therefore, to

the extent that Plaintiffs have suffered any harm or damages, which are expressly denied,

Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering against Defendant for such harm or damages.

FIFTHTEENTH DEFENSE __

xtent Plaintiffs are seeking recovery for-breach07 conFact,P1$ntiff~

materially breached the terms and conditions of said contract and is entitled to no relief

thereon.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

All or some of the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint are barred due to Plaintiffs

failure and refusal to comply with all contractual and legal conditions precedent to this

lawsuit.

4

SEVENTHTEENTH DEFENSE


failure to mitigate its damages, if any, or must be reduced by those damages that Plaintiff

failed to mitigate.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

All or some of the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint are barred to the extent that the

damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were the result of the acts or omissions of other

parties for which Defendant bears no responsibility.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE


set-off or recoupment.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

The Defendant pleads the affirmative defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the

person, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, improper venue, insufficiency of ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ -

process, insufficiency of service of process and failure to mitigate damages.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

To the extent that any of the following affirmative defenses are applicable, based

upon the evidence adduced in this matter, the defenses of accord and satisfaction,

arbitration and award, contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of

the risk, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, waiver, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud,

illegality, injury by fellow servant, statute of limitation, laches, license, payment, release,

5

,

res judicata, statute of frauds, acquiescence, and any other matter constituting an

avoidance or affirmative defense.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer and to add affirmative

defenses and matters in avoidance in accordance as such may be disclosed by further

investigation and discovery.

TWNTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have any right to recovery herein and demands

that the Complaint be dismissed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, having answered the Complaint filed against him, Dennis Austin

demands that it be dismissed and that he be awarded all costs and reasonable attorney

fees.

COUNTER CLAIM

Comes now the Defendant by his counsel Roger D. Williams, and sets forth the ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~

~~

following as allegations for his Counter Claim against the Plaintiff named herein, as

follows;

1. Defendant Dennis Austin is a resident of Greenbrier County, West Virginia; an

employee of the Greenbrier Hotel; and the local Vice President union steward of

Maintenance Workers Local 1 182 (a local union affiliated with the Laborers’

International Union of North America and the West Virginia Appalachian Laborers’

District Council, West Virginia AFL-CIO, a labor organization representing employees

for collective bargaining purposes, and is a “Union” as defined by the Labor Management

6

Relations Act (LMRA).

2.

with the Greenbrier Hotel, and pursuant to that agreement, provides union members

(hotel employees) to chauffeur and otherwise transport the hotel’s guests.

3.

bargaining agreement and Defendant Dennis Austin, as Vice President and steward of the

Maintenance Workers Local 1 182, filed a complaint against the Plaintiff with the West

Virginia Public Service Commission, the body that regulates common carriers such as the

Maintenance Workers Local 1 182 is a party to a collective bargaining agreement

Plaintiff has maliciously and tortiously interfered with said union’s collective

Plaintiff.

COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

4.

allegedly authorizes the Plaintiff to provide transportation services only when the

Greenbrier Hotel’s own transportation capabilities cannot fill the needs of the hotel’s

guests.

5.

1182 er-Hotelpguestsoutsideth-e pE%%tEs of

the Public Service Commission Motor Carrier Certificates in such a way that it tortiously

interferes with the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the Greenbrier Hotel to

the detriment of the union members and hotel guests.

6.

1 182, alleges that Plaintiff transports Greenbrier Hotel guests outside the parameters of

the Public Service Commission Motor Carrier Certificates in such a way that it has

maliciously taken away bargained for union work, and is aimed at destroying andor

Plaintiff transports the Greenbrier Hotel guests under an alleged agreement that

Based upon information and belief, the Defendant, as Vice President of Local p~

Based upon information and belief, the Defendant, as Vice President of Local

7

harming the union’s contractual obligation with the Greenbrier Hotel to the detriment of

the union members and hotel guests.

COUNT I1 - ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS

7. On or about August 3,2009, Defendant, pro-se, filed a complaint against the

Plaintiff with the West Virginia Public Service Commission alleging that Plaintiff

transports Greenbrier Hotel guests outside the parameters of the Public Service

Commission Motor Carrier Certificates.

8. The instant Complaint against the instant Defendant has been filed in an attempt

to pre-empt the law and the proceedings before the West Virginia Public Service

Commission and to coerce the Defendant fiom exercising his contractual, legal and

constitutional rights and obligations to protect and defend the jurisdiction of union

membership.


to pre-empt the law and the proceedings before the West Virginia Public Service ~~ ~~~~ ~~

Commission in an effort ta discourage or dissuade the legd exercise of the Defendant’s

individual and union rights and obligations.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands judgment against the Plaintiff, in an

amount to be determined by the Honorable Court presiding, to include general and

special damages, punitive damages, costs and fees, and reasonable attorney fees.

8

Defendant Demands ajury trial.

DENNIS AUSTIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND UNION STEWARD OF MAINTENANCE WORKERS LOCAL 1182, By Counsel

Counsel for defendant Williams Law Office, PLLC One Union Sq., Bldg 2, Ste 201 Charleston, WV 25302 (304) 720-2434 Fax (304) 720-2448 rdwil liams@wvdsl .net

9


DUANE ZOBRIST GROUP LLC, DBA GREENBRIER VALLEY LIMO

Plaintiff,

V. CASE NO. 09-M13C-00499

DENNIS AUSTIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND UNION STEWARD OF MAINTENANCE WORKERS LOCAL 1182

Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Roger D. Williams, Esquire, counsel for the Defendant, Dennis Austin herein,

do hereby certify a copy of the Answer and Counter CZaim was served upon the party named

below, by depositing a true and exact copy with United States Postal Service addressed as

follows:

Duane Zobrist Group LLC, dba Greenbrier Valley Limo

This 14th day of September, 2009.

--fold here -- CIVIL COMPLAINT

NOTICE Any party in a civil action seeking over $20.00 or possession of real estate has the right to elect that the case be - ~~

must give s?&ten notice to the magistrate court either 20 days-fim whWthe-Erstpkiii&~r to .the cornplaint 18 made m when service of the -om gd.cogq4aiat i,9 made for unlawfbl enhy ad detainer actions. Ifyou do not notiiji the

'magistrata couit iwithin &e approp& time period, you give up your right to a jury trial. The jury fee wil1 be assessed against the losing party if the case is tried by a jury or may be prorated between the parties if the case is settled before trial.

@pTIoNAL) NOTICE OF ELE@TioN: As plaintiff in the above action, I wish to have a jury trial,

----i.runLLN-r.-., -I-yL-y -. .. :_ Date Signature

NOTICE: Any pereon hvolved lo court proceeding6 who has a disability and needs special accommodations should inform the court stdllchntly in advance eo that arrangements can be made if possfble.

W.V& Code 95 504.1, S0-5.8(a); Mag. Ct. Civ. Rules 2, ac\

SCAM207 I 10-94

0 Return 0 Dehdant 0 File

3 - 0 Phiatiff

1



Plaintiff,

V. CASE NO. 09-M13C-00500 DELMAS R. WORKMAN MAINTENANCE WORKERS LOCAL 1182

Defendant.

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

ANSWER

COMES now the Defendant, Delmas R. Workman and for his Answer to the

Complaint of Duane Zobrist Group LLC, dba Greenbrier Valley Limo hereby states the

following:

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action against this Defendant upon

which relief ~~~~ can be ~ granted and should ~~~~~ therefore be ~~ dismissed ~~~

~~~ ~~ ~~

SECOND DEFENSE

In response to the specific allegations set forth in the complaint, defendant,

Delmas R. Workman denies being involved in tortuous interference and demands strict

proof thereof.

Defendant Delmas R. Workman denies actual knowledge of a contract between

Greenbrier Valley Limo and The Greenbrier and demands strict proof thereof and

production of said alleged contract.

Defendant Delmas R. Workman denies he has maliciously spread demeaning

rumors and demands strict proof thereof

Defendant Delmas R. Workman denies he has filed a false complaint against the

plaintiff and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant admits he signed a Complaint that

was filed with the West Virginia Public Service Commission as did many of his union

brothers and sisters.

Defendant Delmas R. Workman denies being involved in any malicious activity

against the Plaintiff. ,

Defendant Delmas R. Workman denies any other allegations not specifically

admitted herein.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendant Delmas R. Workman reserves the right to assert all defenses

available to him as the facts of the case through discovery prove applicable, including all

those available to him under any statute, constitution, common law or rule, including, but

not limited to, those defenses available under Rule 8(c) of the West Virginia Rules of

FOURTH DEFENSE


Plaintiff is barred by the applicable statute of limitations for not having instituted this

action with the time permitted by the statute following the accrual of the alleged claims.

2

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Defendant Delmas R. Workman was not guilty of any negligence, tortiuous

interference or malicious conduct proximately causing or contributing to the damages

allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff.

SIXTH DEFENSE

If the Defendant Delmas R. Workman were guilty of any negligence, tortiuous

interference or malicious conduct, which is denied, such negligence tortiuous interference

or malicious conduct was not the proximate cause of the damages allegedly sustained by

the Plaintiff.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Any alleged damages or injuries resulting to the Plaintiff are solely the result of

the negligence, tortiuous interference and/or malicious conduct of a party or parties other

than the Defendant.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in the Complaint are completely without merit and, _ _ _ ~ ______ _ _ _ _ ~ ~~~~ _____ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _____

therefore, the Defendant is entitled to an award for damages for attorney fees, litigation

costs and such other costs and expenses which may be awarded to a defendant under

federal andor state law.

NINTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the remedies alleged in the Complaint and,

therefore, those remedies must be stricken.

3

TENTH DEFENSE


Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs damages are caused by persons and entities over whom

the Defendant had no control.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendant reserves the right to file additional affirmative defenses, counter

claims, cross-claims and/or third-party claims if the sufficient or factual basis therefore is

developed through ongoing investigation and discovery.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

All or some of the claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are barred by the statute of

frauds.

By its own conduct, Plaintiff is estopped from pursing its claims against

Defendant. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff has suffered any harm or damages, which is

expressly denied, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering against Defendant.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

payment and release.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

By its own conduct, Plaintiffs have waived, implicitly or explicitly, any and all

claims for relief against Defendant, or consented to Defendant’s conduct. Therefore, to

the extent that Plaintiffs have suffered any harm or damages, which are expressly denied,

Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering against Defendant for such harm or damages.

4

FIFTHTEENTH DEFENSE

To the extent Plaintiffs are seeking recovery for breach of contract, Plaintiff

materially breached the terms and conditions of said contract and is entitled to no relief

thereon.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE


failure and refusal to comply with all contractual and legal conditions precedent to this

lawsuit.

SEVENTHTEENTH DEFENSE


failure to mitigate its damages, if any, or must be reduced by those damages that Plaintiff

failed to mitigate.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

All or some of the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint are barred to the extent that the

damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were the result of the acts or omissions of other

NINETEENTH DEFENSE


set-off or recoupment.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

The Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action,

5

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

The Defendant pleads the affirmative defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the

person, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, improper venue, insufficiency of

process, insufficiency of service of process and failure to mitigate damages.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

To the extent that any of the following affirmative defenses are applicable, based

upon the evidence adduced in this matter, the defenses of accord and satisfaction,

arbitration and award, contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of

the risk, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, waiver, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud,

illegality, injury by fellow servant, statute of limitation, laches, license, payment, release,

res judicata, statute of frauds, acquiescence, and any other matter constituting an

avoidance or affirmative defense.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer and to add affirmative

defenses and matters in avoidance in accordance as such may be disclosed by M e r

investigation and discovery. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have any right to recovery herein and demands

that the Complaint be dismissed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, having answered the Complaint filed against him, Delmas R.

Workman demands that it be dismissed and that he be awarded all costs and reasonable

attorney fees.

6

COUNTER CLAIM

Comes now the Defendant by his counsel Roger D. Williams, and sets forth the

following as allegations for his Counter Claim against the Plaintiff named herein, as

follows;

1. Defendant Delmas R. Workman is a resident of Greenbrier County, West

Virginia; an employee of the Greenbrier Hotel; and a member of Maintenance Workers

Local 1 182, a local union affiliated with the Laborers’ International Union of North

America and the West Virginia Appalachian Laborers’ District Council, West Virginia

AFL-CIO, a labor organization representing employees for collective bargaining

purposes, and is a “Union” as defined by the Labor Management

Relations Act (LMRA).

2.

with the Greenbrier Hotel, and pursuant to that agreement, provides union members

Maintenance Workers Local 1182 is a party to a collective bargaining agreement

(hotel employees) to chauffeur and otherwise transport the hotel’s guests.

3.

bargaining agreement and Defendant Delmas R. Workman, as a member of the

~~ Plaintiff ~ _ _ has maliciously ~ and tortiously ~~~~~ interfered with ~~ said union’s collective

Maintenance Workers Local 1 182, signed, along with other union members, a complaint

against the Plaintiff with the West Virginia Public Service Commission, the body that

regulates common carriers such as the Plaintiff.

COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

4. Plaintiff transports the Greenbrier Hotel guests under an alleged agreement that

allegedly authorizes the Plaintiff to provide transportation services only when the

7

Greenbrier Hotel’s own transportation capabilities cannot fill the needs of the hotel’s

guests.

5 . Based upon information and belief, the Defendant, alleges that Plaintiff transports

Greenbrier Hotel guests outside the parameters of the Public Service Commission Motor

Carrier Certificates in such a way that it tortiously interferes with the union’s collective

bargaining agreement with the Greenbrier Hotel to the detriment of the union members

and hotel guests.

6 . Based upon information and belief, the Defendant, as a member of Local 1 182,

alleges that Plaintiff transports Greenbrier Hotel guests outside the parameters of the

Public Service Commission Motor Carrier Certificates in such a way that it has

maliciously taken away bargained for union work, and is aimed at destroying andor

harming the union’s contractual obligation with the Greenbrier Hotel to the detriment of

the Defendant and other union members and hotel guests.

COUNT I1 -ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS

7. On or about August 3,2009, Dennis Austin a defendant in a similar action - ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~~

broughaefse this Cow, (Case N o wM13C-m99),prfi& bsamcePresidentand

union steward of Maintenance Workers Local 1 182 filed a complaint against the Plaintiff

with the West Virginia Public Service Commission alleging that Plaintiff transports

Greenbrier Hotel guests outside the parameters of the Public Service Commission Motor

Carrier Certificates. Defendant, Delmas Workman signed an amendment to the

Complaint to be added as an additional complainant along with other union members..



Commission and to coerce the Defendant from exercising his contractual, legal and

constitutional rights and obligations to protect and defend the jurisdiction of union

membership.

9.


Commission in an effort to discourage or dissuade the legal exercise of the Defendant’s

individual and union rights and obligations.

The instant Complaint against the instant Defendant has been filed in an attempt

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands judgment against the Plaintiff, in an

amount to be determined by the Honorable Court presiding, to include general and

special damages, punitive damages, costs and fees, and reasonable attorney fees.

Defendant Demands a jury trial.

DELMAS R. WORKMAN, MAINTENANCE WORKERS LOCAL 1182, By Counsel

~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~

Counsel for defendant Williams Law Office, PLLC One Union Sq., Bldg 2, Ste 201 Charleston, WV 25302 (304) 720-2434 Fax (304) 720-2448 [email protected]

9

mailto:[email protected]



Plaintiff,

V. CASE NO. 09-M13C-00500

DELMAS R. WORKMAN MAINTENANCE WORKERS LOCAL 1182

Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Roger D. Williams, Esquire, counsel for the Defendant, Dennis Austin herein,

do hereby certify a copy of the Answer and Counter Claim was served upon the party named

below, by depositing a true and exact copy with United States Postal Service addressed as

follows:

Duane Zobrist Group LLC, dba Greenbrier Valley Limo Rt 2 Box 515E

~ Ronceverte, ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WV 24970 ~ ~~

~~~~~~ ~~

This 14th day of September, 2009.

wirnams law office pik - psc.state.wv.us

Documents