Carroll v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York

• Decision Date: 18 April 1960
• Citation: 183 F. Supp. 636
• Parties: Joseph CARROLL, Charles Peterson and Charles Turecamo, as Treasurer, Orchestra Leaders of Greater New York, Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER NEW YORK and Al Manuti, as President, Max L. Arons, as Secretary and Hi Jaffe, as Treasurer of Local 802, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

183 F. Supp. 636

Joseph CARROLL, Charles Peterson and Charles Turecamo, as Treasurer, Orchestra Leaders of Greater New York, Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED MUSICIANS OF GREATER NEW YORK and Al Manuti, as President, Max L. Arons, as Secretary and Hi Jaffe, as Treasurer of Local 802, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

April 18, 1960.

Schmidt & McDonald, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Ashe & Rifkin, New York City, for defendants.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, orchestra leaders and members of Local 802, Associated Musicians of Greater New York (hereinafter Local 802), which is an affiliate of the American Federation of Musicians, move for a preliminary injunction against Local 802. The Local's membership includes both leaders of musical groups and non-leaders or "sidemen". Plaintiffs seek to prevent Local 802 from enforcing "Regulations For Local 802 Single Engagement Welfare Fund" published in the January 1960 issue of "Allegro", the official magazine of Local 802. These "Regulations" state that "Contributions of $1.00 per engagement per member, including the leader, must be paid as a surcharge by the purchaser of the music, through the leader into the Fund on all said single engagements played on or after April 1, 1960." Local 802 concedes that if the purchasers of the music do not make the $1 payments, the leaders will be responsible for the payments into the welfare fund just as they are responsible for payment of wages to their "sidemen". Plaintiffs contend that any attempt to enforce this "Regulation" by Local 802 against plaintiffs as leaders would violate section 101(a) (3) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (3), section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 186, the federal anti-trust laws, and contracts between Local 802 and plaintiffs. Plaintiffs say that this court has jurisdiction over their claims by virtue of the aforementioned federal statutes. Each one of these statutes applies only where some aspect of interstate commerce is involved.

Section 302(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any employer to pay or deliver, or to agree to pay or deliver, any money or other thing of value to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce."

Plaintiffs argue that they are employers within the meaning of this section and that the requirement that they pay the surcharge into the Local's welfare fund violates the section.

Since section 302(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 186(e), gives this court jurisdiction to restrain violations of section 302, plaintiffs are entitled to succeed in this action if they can establish that the collection of the $1 surcharge would be a violation of that section.

The first question is whether the interstate commerce requirement of section 302 has been satisfied. Preliminarily on this issue it becomes important to know the nature of the activity to which the welfare plan applies. The plan, as its name indicates, applies to the "single engagement" musical field which is to be distinguished from the "steady engagement" field. In the "steady engagement" field there are many thousands of members of the Local under contract on a regular, full-time, basis to radio and television stations, legitimate theatres, hotels, restaurants, night clubs, shipping companies, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, etc. Musicians without such steady employment must depend on obtaining work as leaders or sidemen for "single engagements" such as weddings, bar-mitzvahs, debutante parties, college dances or similar jobs. The Union helps its members secure single engagements by providing an "Exchange Floor" where members who have contracted with a purchaser of music to furnish an orchestra, and are thus leaders for the particular job, may seek out sidemen and sidemen may seek out leaders.

The jurisdiction of Local 802, by its Constitution, embraces New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. Frequently, however, the single engagements which plaintiffs, as leaders and members of Local 802, obtain call for performance outside New York State. The affidavit of plaintiff Carroll states:

"The class we represent gross literally millions of dollars from engagements outside of the State of New York and in various states of the United States."

The Local has nevertheless made it clear that the welfare plan is to apply to single engagements played in New York State only. Appearing on the first page of the March issue of "Allegro" was a notice entitled "Official Notice—Local 802 — Single Engagement Welfare Fund —Essential Information for Members When Acting as Leaders" which contained the following prominently displayed paragraph:

"2. Location of engagements

Applies to engagements played by an all-Local 802 band within the jurisdiction of Local 802 only. (New York City, and Nassau and Suffolk counties.)"

Upon this evidence I find that there has been a showing that Local 802 will not attempt to apply the disputed "Regulations For Local 802 Single Engagement Welfare Fund" to engagements played outside the State of New York. The question remains whether the "Regulations", though applying only to intrastate activities, would require payments by an employer to "any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce", so that section 302 would still apply. Arguably, the "industry" here is the whole "single engagement" music field in which Local 802 represents sidemen and their leaders. I doubt, however, that "industry" within the meaning of section 302 constitutionally could be construed thus broadly where the activities in dispute involve only a segment of this business. See National Labor Relations Board v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 683, 71 S.Ct. 943, 95 L.Ed. 1284. I therefore shall treat the "industry" which must affect commerce for section 302 to apply as the "single engagement" field in New York City and Suffolk and Nassau Counties, New York.

It can no longer be argued, as the court did in Pappas v. American Guild of Variety Artists, D.C.N.D.Ill., 125 F. Supp. 343, at page 347, that the "entertainment and sports industries, by their very nature, are not part of interstate commerce". Since the date of that decision the Supreme Court has ruled that the anti-trust laws do apply to the entertainment world, United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222, 75 S.Ct. 277, 99 L.Ed. 279, and also to the sports world, Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 77 S.Ct. 390, 1 L.Ed.2d 456. But see Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64. It is also clear that Congress intended to exhaust its constitutional power over commerce in the Labor Management Relations Act. Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 3, 77 S.Ct. 598, 609, 1 L.Ed.2d 601. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the actual performance of the engagements would be a purely local affair, just as the Supreme Court has indicated that the performance of legitimate stage attractions and the showing of motion pictures would be. United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222, 227, 75 S.Ct. 277, 99 L.Ed. 279, supra; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 183, 65 S.Ct. 254, 89 L.Ed. 160. The fact that some of the single engagements are played for business establishments engaged in interstate commerce does not alter the situation. I fail to see how an interruption in the supply of music available to such a company for social affairs would have any recognizable effect on the flow of the company's interstate business. I am not dealing here with performances, such as operas by the Metropolitan Opera Company or concerts by the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, likely to be broadcast by radio or television to interstate audiences. These are in the category of "steady engagements" and indeed are covered by a separate union welfare plan which, the union admits, complies with the requirements of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Plaintiffs make the point, without contradiction by Local 802, that if they fail to comply with the "Regulations" they will be subject to intra-union reprisals, including boycott activities, which would prevent them from fulfilling engagements "in many hotels and other places; and their sidemen or employees would not be permitted to work for them". If these engagements were outside the state the dispute would then have a tendency to disrupt the flow of the services of the musicians across state lines. The only effect on the interstate side of the business that I can envisage would emanate from these reprisals which might be inflicted on members who refused to give in to the...