182 F.2d 806 (2nd Cir. 1950), 205, Shirley-Herman Co. v. International Hod Carriers, Bldg. & Common Laborers Union of America, Local Union No. 210
|Docket Nº:||205, 21619.|
|Citation:||182 F.2d 806|
|Party Name:||SHIRLEY-HERMAN CO., Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING & COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 210.|
|Case Date:||May 29, 1950|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Argued May 3, 1950.
Anthony Manguso, of Buffalo, N.Y., for appellant.
Frank G. Raichle, of Buffalo, N.Y. (Edward D. Flaherty, of Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for appellee.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
CLARK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, an employer, has recovered a verdict against the defendant union in an action brought under the Taft-Hartley Act for damages for work stoppage in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Sec. 301, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. Defendant's appeal from the resulting judgment brings up various attacks upon the ruling of the trial judge holding the law here applicable and controlling and submitting the issue of breach to the jury.
Plaintiff is a general contracting company engaged in construction work in the city of Buffalo. It is a member of an association known as General Contracting Employers Association. This association entered into a contract with the defendant union which provided that the latter was to furnish all the men needed for contracting work in that area, and specified the conditions of employment. Article V of that contract, entitled 'arbitration, ' first stated: 'Should differences arise between the parties to this Agreement as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this agreement or should any trouble of any kind arise, there shall be no cessation of work caused by either the employer or the Union and the conditions in effect at the time the difference arises shall be continued by the parties, but such difference or dispute shall be settled in the following manner:' It then went on to set forth grievance procedures, culminating in compulsory arbitration, with the decision of the arbiter final and binding on both parties.
In September, 1948, plaintiff commenced the excavation and concrete work required for certain sprinkler systems in process of installation at two of the plants of the
American Radiator & Sanitary Corporation, which, as the parties stipulate, was a corporation engaged in interstate commerce. The defendant union, under its contract, furnished the labor for each of these jobs. The work on both jobs continued until November, 1948, when differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant over wage rates. The labor furnished by the union went on strike and left the jobs in the latter part of that month. That the work stoppage was with the procurement and connivance of the union is substantially undisputed in the record. The testimony also showed that the plaintiff sought to obtain labor in accordance with its contract with the union, and both orally and in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP