Ludlow Mfg. & Sales Co. v. Textile Workers Union

• Decision Date: 22 September 1952
• Docket Number: Civ. 1359.
• Citation: 108 F. Supp. 45
• Parties: LUDLOW MANUFACTURING & SALES CO. v. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

108 F. Supp. 45

LUDLOW MANUFACTURING & SALES CO. v. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA (CIO).

Civ. 1359.

United States District Court D. Delaware.

September 22, 1952.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert H. Richards, Jr. (of Richards, Layton & Finger), Wilmington, Del., Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr. and Allen L. Crouch, III (of Drinker, Biddle & Reath), Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

William E. Taylor, Jr. Wilmington, Del., Morris H. Goldstein and Bernard L. Barkan, Philadelphia, Pa., and Benjamin Wyle, New York City, for defendant.

William Marvel, U. S. Atty., and James L. Latchum, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., Holmes Baldridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Gregory Bruce and Jess H. Rosenberg, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for intervenor, United States.

RODNEY, District Judge.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947¹ for damages resulting from an alleged violation by the defendant, Union, of a "no striking" clause of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. The defendant, prior to answer, filed a motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to § 3 of the United States Arbitration Act² pending arbitration of an issue allegedly arbitrable under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Argument on the motion to stay was had on April 19, 1951. Six days later, April 25, 1951, and still before answer, the defendant moved to dismiss the action because, inter alia, § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, under which the suit was brought, was unconstitutional.

On May 17, 1951, the court certified to the Attorney General, pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2403, that the constitutionality of the above recited Act had been drawn in question and subsequently the United States intervened as a party.

On April 4, 1952, the time for argument of the motion to dismiss was fixed for June 30, 1952, which hearing, as a convenience to parties, was held on July 29, 1952. On April 14, 1952, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 28, 1952, prior to the argument, certain affidavits were filed by the defendant which will be hereafter somewhat discussed.

On July 29, 1952, three motions were heard, viz., 1. A motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint; 2. A motion of the defendant for a stay of the proceedings; and 3. A motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment.

The motions will be considered in the order named and especially for the reason that the motion to dismiss presented questions as to the jurisdiction of the court which, in certain events, might make further consideration of other matters unnecessary.

1. The motion to dismiss the complaint was based upon four grounds.

a. The first ground of the complaint questioned the constitutionality of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,³ under which the action had been brought. In the briefs and at the argument it does not seem that the defendant contends that the cited statute is unconstitutional in the sense that Congress lacked the power to give to the court jurisdiction of the matter, but rather that the language used by Congress was inappropriate and insufficient for that purpose.

It is urged that the judicial power of the United States courts, insofar as this case is concerned and under Article III of the Constitution, is limited to cases where there is either a diversity of citizenship or where the right arises under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. No diversity of citizenship is alleged or expressly relied upon in the complaint. The defendant contends that no jurisdiction exists under any "law of the United States" because, as it is argued, no substantive right is granted by the Statute but that the Statute concerned purely procedural matters. This precise question has been considered and decided in a number of cases in which it has been specifically held that the cited Act did create important substantive rights and provide proceedings for their enforcement.⁴

It is urged by the defendant that the cases determining the question, as cited in footnote 4, have not fully exhausted the reasoning upon which the conclusions are based and urges this court so to do. If this court disagreed with the uniform current of authority, then the reasons for such disagreement would be required, but such is not the case. This court does not flatter itself in the thought that its concurring reasoning is of paramount importance in any subsequent proceeding. I am of the opinion that the whole tenor of the cited Act created important substantive rights cognizable, under the Act, in this court, and therefore the present suit is one arising under the laws of the United States.⁵

b. The motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint is based in part upon the fact that the complaint alleges the actions of the defendant as violative both of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, therein set out in full, as well as certain provisions of the National Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The defendant argues that such contention of the plaintiff alleges an unfair labor practice exclusively cognizable under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

The present motion is one to dismiss the complaint. A complaint will never be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. The present action is one to recover damages for a breach of a written contract between the parties and herein held to be cognizable in this court. The mere fact that the actions of the defendant may or may not make it amenable in another tribunal for other measures of redress cannot deny to the plaintiff his rights to the remedies solely available in this court.

c. Another reason for the motion to dismiss is somewhat analogous to the reason just considered. The defendant contends that because the actions of the defendant complained of, and especially in paragraph 6 of the complaint, constitute torts as well as the claimed breaches of the contract, as alleged by the plaintiff, a suit cannot be maintained without clear showing of the jurisdictional amount and diversity of citizenship. This point will not be greatly elaborated. It seems sufficient to say that if an action of a defendant does constitute a breach of a written agreement upon which a suit for damages has been brought, pursuant to express statutory authority, and which statutory authority dispenses with the requirement of diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy, then such suit is not liable to dismissal because those same actions or conduct of the defendant could also be denominated as torts and subject to these same jurisdictional elements.

d. As an additional ground for dismissal of the complaint the defendant contends that the court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter because the issue involved is referable to arbitration.

This matter will not be here considered as it more properly falls with the separate motion for a stay pending arbitration to be subsequently herein discussed.

I am of the opinion that the motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint must be denied.

2. Defendant's motion for a stay of proceedings will not be considered at length. When the motion was originally argued the plaintiff, in opposing the motion for a stay, relied upon a number of pertinent decisions outside of this Circuit. The defendant, in order to sustain its motion for a stay, relied upon Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 3, 149 A.L.R. 271, and Watkins v. Hudson Coal Co., 3 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 311. With Courts of Appeal divided as to construction, Congress re-enacted the Arbitration Act with unchanged text but modified coverage. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals of this Third Circuit, in Amalgamated Ass'n, etc., v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 1951, 192 F.2d 310, abandoned its earlier construction of the language of the Act and held that arbitration of a dispute growing out of a contract of employment cannot be required under U.S. C.A. Title 9. Subsequently, in Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Amalgamated Ass'n, etc., 1952, 193 F.2d 327, 328, the Court of Appeals for this Third Circuit held that under the decision last cited "the Arbitration Act gives the District Court no authority to compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of a `contract of employment' of a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce with such a contract of employment construed in the same opinion to include a collective bargaining agreement."

In view of these decisions I must refuse the motion for a stay of proceedings.

3. As heretofore stated the plaintiff, on April 14, 1952, filed its motion for summary judgment, which motion was set down for a hearing on July 29, 1952, in connection with the other motions then pending. The plaintiff contends that there is no genuine issue of fact involved and that it is entitled to a summary judgment. The defendant contends that a proper construction of Article III.C. of the bargaining agreement shows that the strike as called by the defendant was authorized by the language of the agreement. The material portion of Article III.C. of the agreement is set out in the footnote.⁶

It is admitted that the Union, on February 27, 1951, authorized the strike which is the basis of this action. The parties differ as to whether the strike was authorized under the provisions of the agreement.

The plaintiff contends that a notice for wage adjustment must be given in writing at least 60 days before February 15, and that if no agreement is reached within 30 days after February 15, then neither party shall be under obligation respectively to refrain from striking or refrain from a lockout. The plaintiff concedes that a written notice for a wage adjustment had been given on December 14, 1950. It is conceded that no...