Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 633, Nat. Conference of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers

• Decision Date: 19 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74--1291,ANHEUSER-BUSC,INC,74--1291
• Citation: 511 F.2d 1097
• Parties: 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2785, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,672 , Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 633, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BREWERY AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 1097

511 F.2d 1097

88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2785, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,672

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 633, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BREWERY AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 74--1291.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued Nov. 5, 1974.

Decided Feb. 19, 1975.

I. Philip Sipser, New York City, with whom Sipser, Weinstock, Harper & Dorin, New York City, and Nixon, Christy & Tessier, Manchester, N.H., were on briefs, for appellants.

John J. Delaney, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom William T. Sherry, Jr., Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Boston, Mass., William L. Phinney, Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, Manchester, N.H., Charles P. O'Connor, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

COFFIN, Chief Judge.

This tempest has been brewed in a very small teapot. The dispute which precipitated the filing in this court of more than 80 pages of briefs and an extensive appendix began on July 30, 1974, when appellee Anheuser-Busch posted a notice prohibiting employees at its Merrimack, New Hampshire brewery from wearing tank-top shirts on the job. Tank-tops are sleeveless shirts which leave exposed the shoulders, arms and underarms of the wearer. Beginning on July 31, when three employees were sent home after refusing to doff their tanktops for other shirts, the emotional temperature rose, with over a dozen more employees, including shop stewards, being sent home a few days later. The issue peaked by August 14, when thirteen of the eighteen employees in the Brewing Department wore tank-tops, refused to put on other shirts, and went home. Approximately thirty employees in the Maintenance Department wore tank-tops on August 15. On August 16 no maintenance employees reported for work and production at the brewery was halted.

On August 14 appellee filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages ¹ for what it alleged were violations of the collective bargaining agreement then in force. Labor Management Relations Act § 301(a), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). After an August 16 hearing, the district court enjoined appellants from encouraging or participating in any concerted interference with brewery operations. By the specific terms of the injunction, employees were permitted to wear tanktops only if working in areas of the plant where they were not subject to view by those members of the public or special groups touring the brewery. ² Although the hearing was directed at the question of whether a temporary restraining order should issue, when it became clear that neither party intended to introduce additional evidence, the district court ruled that the order issued 'was and is a preliminary injunction'.

There are several difficult issues, raised by the parties in their briefs, which might require discussion and decision if this were a different case. The district court held that an injunction could be entered against the unions despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., because of the Supreme Court's decision in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970). It is true that strikes and work stoppages are proscribed by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, but that does not settle the question of the applicability of the Boys Markets doctrine, for the plant's shutdown might be viewed as attributable to the employer's choice of disciplinary methods rather than to the employees' failure to conform to the dress code. Other issues raised that need not be addressed here include the possible application of the requirements of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in a case where the Boys Markets exception is available and the suggestion that the employees' actions here were individual, not concerted.

This case may be resolved by reference to the ordinary principles governing equitable relief--principles which, the Boys Markets Court made clear, are to be applied where a labor injunction is sought:

'. . . the District Court must . . . consider whether issuance of an injunction would be warranted under ordinary principles of equity--whether breaches are occurring and will continue, or have been threatened and will be committed; whether they have caused or will cause irreparable injury to the employer; and whether the employer will suffer more from the denial of an injunction than will the union from its issuance.' 398 U.S. at 254, 90 S.Ct. at 1594, quoting Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195, 228, 82 S.Ct. 1318, 8 L.Ed.2d 462 (1962) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

The district court's findings on the question of injury were brief: 'I take judicial notice of the fact that the general public's desire for beer, while a yearround phenomenon, is more acute in the summer. I find, therefore, that continuance of this dispute will cause irreparable injury to the...