Allen Bradley Co. v. LOCAL NO. 3, IB OF E. WORKERS

• Decision Date: 10 June 1943
• Citation: 51 F. Supp. 36
• Parties: ALLEN BRADLEY CO. et al. v. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

51 F. Supp. 36

ALLEN BRADLEY CO. et al. v. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, et al.

District Court, S .D. New York.

June 10, 1943.

McLanahan, Merritt & Ingraham, of New York City (Walter Gordon Merritt, Burgess Osterhout, and Hyler Connell, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Harold Stern, of New York City, for defendants.

CAFFEY, District Judge.

The Court: My discussion will not be long. At this time I shall not attempt to justify or reason out various views I have adopted. What I shall try to do now is, in substance, merely to indicate quite briefly what I am holding.

There are three law questions. I shall talk about those. Then I shall take up in order and pass on the conclusions of law contained in the report. This will be in the usual way in which we have handled such matters. After I have disposed of those I shall give some general directions.

I shall not go into the matter of whether or not the findings of fact are correct. I accept them as heretofore modified. For the purpose of passing on the conclusions of law, I shall assume that the findings of fact as already modified are correct. I believe that if the findings of fact be accepted, they establish that the anti-trust laws have been violated in the way the amended complaint charges. In saying this, for the moment I ignore the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. Later I shall deal with that.

Though at the present stage I shall not go into whether the findings of fact are correct, I think it indisputable that, if they be right, they show that there has been a violation of the anti-trust laws such as the plaintiffs claim.

My discussion of the law questions, therefore, will be on the assumption I have explained.

The first inquiry, in substance, is: Does the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibit the issuance of an injunction?

As counsel apparently agree, and as I think is manifest, the answer to the inquiry turns exclusively on whether the violation involved or grew out of a labor dispute, as that term is employed in the statute. Otherwise put, the problem is whether the controversy involved or grew out of a labor dispute or whether the issuance of an injunction would be contrary to the public policy laid down by the Act.

The essence of the offense alleged is that there was a conspiracy between three groups (Local No. 3, the New York City manufacturers and the New York City local contractors, as alleged) with respect to electrical products unreasonably to restrain interstate trade in certain of those articles.

As I see the findings of fact, and as I see the evidence, neither the commission nor the conduct of the offense was affected by a controversy which grew out of or involved the employer-employee relationship. I am conscious that, in thus phrasing my statement, I am resting my decision on a somewhat different ground, or at least I am expressing the ground in a somewhat different way, from that followed or adopted by counsel on either side; also that possibly I read the pertinent court opinions somewhat differently from counsel.

At any rate, if we accept the findings of fact, I believe it clear that the offense was not affected or instigated or promoted by a controversy which sprang from or involved the employer-employee relationship. I believe it clear also that, if so, it follows that the violation did not grow out of nor was it contributed to by a labor dispute within the meaning, nor would the awarding of an injunction infringe the public policy, of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. In that situation, the proposition that there was no such labor dispute seems to me squarely sustained by Columbia River Packers Association v. Hinton, 315 U.S. 143, 62 S.Ct. 520, 86 L.Ed. 750. I shall not go fully into the case cited, but I shall refer to or quote from it to some extent.

The plaintiff was a processor of fish. For use in processing, the plaintiff bought fish from a labor union as well as from independents. It distributed its products in interstate and foreign commerce. The complaint charged that the defendants had attempted to monopolize the fish industry in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15, note, and sought an injunction.

The defendants were fishermen and members of a union which sold fish. The dispute dealt with in the case was or arose from a controversy with respect to the terms and conditions under which the defendants would sell fish to the plaintiff. As a condition to selling, the members of the union required that buyers stipulate that they would not buy from non-members of the union.

Though the controversy was about the terms and conditions on which the defendants would sell fish to the plaintiff, as I see it there is not the slightest difference in the legal principle governing whether the complainant was a buyer or was a seller.

Among other things the court made these statements:

"The dispute here arose from a controversy about the terms and conditions under which the respondents defendants would sell fish to the petitioner plaintiff". 315 U.S. at page 144, 62 S.Ct. at page 521, 86 L.Ed. 750.

"* * * a dispute among businessmen over the terms of a contract for the sale of fish is something different from a `controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association * * * of persons * * * seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment' * * *. This definition section 13 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the stated public policy section 2 of the Act * * * make it clear that the attention of Congress was focussed upon disputes affecting the employer-employee relationship, and that the Act was not intended to have application to disputes over the sale of commodities". 315 U.S. at page 145, 62 S.Ct. at page 521, 86 L.Ed. 750.

"* * * the statutory classification, however broad, * * * does not expand the application of the Act to include controversies upon which the employer-employee relationship has no bearing. Our decisions in New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552, 304 U. S. 542, 58 S.Ct. 703, 82 L.Ed. 1012, and Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, 311 U.S. 91, 61 S.Ct. 122, 85 L.Ed. 63, give no support to the respondents' contrary contention, for in both cases the employer-employee relationship was the matrix of the controversy". 315 U. S. at pages 146, 147, 63 S.Ct. at page 522, 86 L.Ed. 750.

"The controversy here is altogether between fish sellers and fish buyers. The sellers are not employees of the petitioners buyers or of any other employer nor do they seek to be. On the contrary, their desire is to continue to operate as independent businessmen, free from such controls as an employer might exercise. That some of the fishermen have a small number of employees of their own, who are also members of the Union, does not alter the situation. For the dispute here, relating solely to the sale of fish, does not place in controversy the wages or hours or other terms and conditions of employment of these employees." 315 U.S. at page 147, 62 S.Ct. at page 522, 86 L.Ed. 750.

I have said that I viewed the law somewhat differently from that contended for by either counsel for the plaintiffs or counsel for the defendants. That does not mean, however, that neither side relied on the case from which I have just been quoting. It was definitely relied on by the plaintiffs. Indeed, it was perhaps the chief support on this branch of the litigation invoked by their counsel. Yet, as I see it, I interpret its effect somewhat differently from the significance attributed to it in argument by either side.

The defendants count chiefly on Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, 311 U.S. 91, 61 S.Ct. 122, 85 L.Ed. 63. They also have urged New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552, 304 U.S. 542, 58 S.Ct. 703, 82 L.Ed. 1012, as supporting them.

I consider it unnecessary to go into a discussion of those two cases, however, for the reason that in the Hinton case Mr. Justice Black himself disposed of them. He said that they were not to the contrary of what he was ruling in the Hinton case, because "in both cases cited and commented on by the defendants during the argument in the present case as sustaining them the employer-employee relationship was the matrix of the controversy." 315 U. S. at page 147, 62 S.Ct. at page 522, 86 L. Ed. 750. I think this is enough to show their inapplicability to and that they do not support the defendants in the case at bar.

As I understand, when the learned Justice said "the matrix of the controversy," as will be indicated by the dictionary, he meant that in the cases distinguished the employer-employee relationship was the origin or foundation of the controversy there involved. On the other hand, in this case I do not see any possibility of maintaining the proposition that the employer-employee relationship was either the origin or the foundation of the controversy. That relationship does not even affect the instant controversy.

Many other decisions have been cited. Many of those lack clarity. Wholly apart from that feature, however, I see no occasion to go into them. I prefer to rest on the Hinton case.

I confess that when one reads all the decisions on the subject—and I have read all or most of them—they are a bit confusing. I imagine that many of them are difficult even for lawyers who practice much in labor cases to understand (and I have had little experience with such cases). I suspect that in many respects what will be the final true interpretation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act has not yet been reached. But, as I see the Hinton case, it is a decision (or at least is the most nearly applicable decision yet announced by the Supreme Court) that bears upon the injunction question presented in the instant case. Whether one agree or disagree with Mr. Justice Black, I think it must be conceded that he is clear. In fact, I have the...