Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Wkrs. of America, Civ. No. 664.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
Citation181 F. Supp. 809
Docket NumberCiv. No. 664.
PartiesWILSON & CO., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, a labor organization affiliated with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Local Union No. 3 of United Packinghouse Workers of America, a labor organization affiliated with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and John W. Wolfe, individually and as President of said Local Union No. 3 and as a member and representative of the class and membership of said Local Union No. 3; et al., Defendants.
Decision Date29 February 1960

181 F. Supp. 809

WILSON & CO., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, a labor organization affiliated with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and
Local Union No. 3 of United Packinghouse Workers of America, a labor organization affiliated with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and
John W. Wolfe, individually and as President of said Local Union No. 3 and as a member and representative of the class and membership of said Local Union No. 3; et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 664.

United States District Court N. D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

February 29, 1960.


181 F. Supp. 810

V. Craven Shuttleworth, Charles A. Hastings, Ralph W. Gearhart, and Wayne C. Collins (of Elliott, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll), Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for plaintiff.

Robert F. Wilson, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Richard F. Watt (of Cotton, Fruchtman & Watt), Chicago, Illinois, for defendants.

GRAVEN, District Judge.

The complaint of the plaintiff, which was filed herein on June 12, 1959, is in

181 F. Supp. 811
two counts. In Count I the plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the amount of $150,000 from the defendants United Packinghouse Workers of America and Local Union No. 3 of the United Packinghouse Workers of America. The latter defendant will be referred to as Local Union No. 3. In Count II the plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the amount of $150,000 from the defendants to that count, who are designated as officers, agents, or stewards of Local Union No. 3. Liability is asserted against those defendants individually and as agents and representatives of Local Union No. 3. There were approximately one hundred and seventy persons named as defendants to Count II, of whom approximately sixty were personally served with summons. Local Union No. 3 is also listed among the defendants to Count II. It would seem that it is so listed for the purpose of identifying the class represented by the other defendants

The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Its principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. It is duly authorized to do business in the State of Iowa. It operates packing plants at a number of places in the United States including a plant at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in this District. It is engaged in an industry affecting commerce. The defendants to Count I are unincorporated labor unions. The individual defendants to Count II are citizens and residents of the State of Iowa.

The plaintiff alleges that on November 30, 1956, it and the defendant unions entered into a written collective bargaining agreement which was still in effect at the time it filed its complaint herein. The plaintiff further alleges that the two unions were labor organizations representing the employees in an industry affecting commerce. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the said unions breached paragraph 126 of that agreement. That paragraph provides, in part:

"126. Should grievances arise between the Company and the Union or between the Company and the employees pertaining to matters involved in this agreement or incident to the employment relationship, there shall be no strike, stoppage, slowdown or suspension of work on the part of the Union or its members or a lockout on the part of the Company on account of such grievance * * *."

In paragraphs 8 and 9 of Count I the plaintiff makes the following allegations in connection with its claim against the unions:

"8. That commencing on or about June 10, 1959, and to and including the present time the said Defendants herein, acting individually and as a member and representative of the class and membership of said Local Union and U.P. W.A., and in concert with the respective officers and agents of said unions, have violated and breached the said Agreement, Exhibit `A' attached hereto, and in particular Section 11 thereof by causing, directing, influencing, assisting and persuading its members, employees of this Plaintiff, employed at its plant and place of business at Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa, to refuse to work more than eight hours in any one day independent of the directions of the Plaintiff herein, its officers and representatives and the reasonable need therefor, and Plaintiff further alleges that said acts and conduct will continue in the future. Plaintiff further alleges that such acts and conduct and such conspiracy is being employed by said U.P.W.A. and its Local Unions representing employees of this Plaintiff at its plants located in Omaha, Nebraska, and Albert Lea, Minnesota.
"9. The said Defendant Unions, each of them knowingly and willfully, disregarded the terms and conditions of the said Agreement and their duties thereunder, through the acts of their officers and agents, by advising, persuading, directing and/or permitting such strikes,
181 F. Supp. 812
work stoppages and slowdowns by causing and aiding the members of Defendants' Local Union to participate in such strikes, work stoppages and slowdowns."

In paragraphs 6 and 7 of Count II the plaintiff makes the following allegations as to the defendants to that count:

"6. That the said individual defendants herein acting in their individual capacities and as employees of Plaintiff and in their respective capacities as officers and representatives of said Local Union and as a member and representative of the class and membership of said Local Union, acting in concert and with the intent to hinder and prevent Plaintiff from carrying on its business at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant in the usual and customary manner in which it had been conducted and carried on under the terms and conditions of said collective contract, Exhibit `A', knowingly and willfully disregarded the terms and conditions of said Agreement and their duties thereunder, and acting as individuals and as officers and agents of said Local Union and said U.P. W.A. refused and caused other employees of plaintiff at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant to refuse to work more than eight (8) hours in any one day, notwithstanding the needs and requirements of said plant for such work in the usual and ordinary course of its business and the terms and provisions of said collective agreement and particularly the provisions of paragraph 11 thereof.
"7. That the Plaintiff requested its employees at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant and the officers and representatives of said Local Union and U.P.W.A. to cease such prohibited acts, but said Defendants herein, acting individually and as officers and representatives and in concert and in a wrongful conspiracy, refused so to do and encouraged, conspired and confederated to cause other employees of Plaintiff at its Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plant to likewise refuse so to do."

In paragraph 11 of Count I the plaintiff makes the following allegations:

"11. As a direct result of the foregoing illegal acts and conduct of the Defendants in violation of the terms of said Agreement, the Plaintiff's meat packing operations have been willfully interfered with whereby the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, great damage and injury due to the loss of production, sale and profit which it would have otherwise made, and has lost the goodwill of customers to whom it was unable to furnish product, and has otherwise been damaged all to its damage in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00)."

In paragraph 8 of Count II the plaintiff makes identical allegations concerning damages.

Jurisdiction as to Count I is based upon Section 185, Title 29 U.S.C.A., which is a part of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The section referred to appeared as Section 301 of that Act. Because the courts more frequently refer to the section in question as Section 301, it will be so referred to herein. That section provides as follows:

"(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.
"(b) Any labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter and any employer whose activities affect commerce as defined in this chapter shall be bound by the acts of its
181 F. Supp. 813
agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment against a labor organization in a district court of the United States shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual member or his assets.
"(c) For the purposes of actions and proceedings by or against labor organizations in the district courts of the United States, district courts shall be deemed to have jurisdiction of a labor organization (1) in the district in which such organization maintains its principal office, or (2) in any district in which its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in representing or acting for employee members.
"(d) The service of summons, subpena, or other legal process of any court of the United States upon an officer or agent of a labor organization, in his capacity as such, shall constitute service upon the labor organization.
"(e) For the purposes of this section, in determining whether any person is acting as an `agent' of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling."

Count I sounds in contract. The plaintiff in Count I sets forth a violation of a collective bargaining agreement cognizable under Section 301(a). That count meets the jurisdictional and venue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, No. 93-8451
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 30, 1994
    ...contract if the members authorize the contract or subsequently ratify its terms."); Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers of Am., 181 F.Supp. 809, 815 (N.D.Iowa 1960) ("Under the Iowa law where members contract in the name of an unincorporated association, they and all of their member......
  • Health Care Equalization v. Iowa Medical Soc., Civ. No. 79-381-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • November 5, 1980
    ...is an unincorporated association with the capacity to sue under Iowa law. In Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers of America, 181 F.Supp. 809, 815 (N.D.Iowa 1960), Judge Graven in ascertaining the status of the local union defendant under Iowa law cited the United States Supreme Cour......
  • Carter v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • March 23, 1978
    ...claim against Empire. Phillips & Benjamin Co. v. Ratner, 206 F.2d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1953). Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers, 181 F.Supp. 809, 819 (N.D.Iowa, 1960). Louis Schlesinger Co. v. Rice, 4 N.J. 169, 181, 72 A.2d 197 (1950). Prosser, The Law of Torts § 129, at 948 (4th ed.......
  • California Clippers, Inc. v. United States SF Ass'n, Civ. No. 51833.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 2, 1970
    ...7 See Cox v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 126 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1942); Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Wkrs. of America, 181 F.Supp. 809, 815-816 (N.D.Iowa 1960); 6 Am.Jur. Associations and Clubs §§ 46-48, and cases cited 8 There is no requirement that amenability to service of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, No. 93-8451
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 30, 1994
    ...contract if the members authorize the contract or subsequently ratify its terms."); Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers of Am., 181 F.Supp. 809, 815 (N.D.Iowa 1960) ("Under the Iowa law where members contract in the name of an unincorporated association, they and all of their member......
  • Health Care Equalization v. Iowa Medical Soc., Civ. No. 79-381-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • November 5, 1980
    ...is an unincorporated association with the capacity to sue under Iowa law. In Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers of America, 181 F.Supp. 809, 815 (N.D.Iowa 1960), Judge Graven in ascertaining the status of the local union defendant under Iowa law cited the United States Supreme Cour......
  • Carter v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • March 23, 1978
    ...claim against Empire. Phillips & Benjamin Co. v. Ratner, 206 F.2d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1953). Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers, 181 F.Supp. 809, 819 (N.D.Iowa, 1960). Louis Schlesinger Co. v. Rice, 4 N.J. 169, 181, 72 A.2d 197 (1950). Prosser, The Law of Torts § 129, at 948 (4th ed.......
  • California Clippers, Inc. v. United States SF Ass'n, Civ. No. 51833.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 2, 1970
    ...7 See Cox v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 126 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1942); Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Wkrs. of America, 181 F.Supp. 809, 815-816 (N.D.Iowa 1960); 6 Am.Jur. Associations and Clubs §§ 46-48, and cases cited 8 There is no requirement that amenability to service of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT