AMAL. CLOTH. & TEXTILE WKRS. v. JP Stevens & Co.

• Decision Date: 03 August 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77 Civ. 5444-CSH.,77 Civ. 5444-CSH.
• Citation: 475 F. Supp. 482
• Parties: AMALGAMATED CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, Plaintiff, v. J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

475 F. Supp. 482

AMALGAMATED CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, Plaintiff, v. J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC., Defendant.

No. 77 Civ. 5444-CSH.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

August 3, 1979.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Arthur M. Goldberg, Gen. Counsel, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, New York City, Szold, Brandwen, Meyers & Altman, New York City, Alan G. Blumberg, Ezra N. Goodman, Richard G. Liskov, David N. Kaye, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, Jay Topkis, Gerald D. Stern, Howard S. Veisz, Jamie B. W. Stecher, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HAIGHT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ("ACTWU") brought this action in continuance and escalation of the prolonged struggle between defendant J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. ("Stevens") and plaintiff and its predecessor unions. Until now the battlefields have been the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), and circuit courts of appeal asked to enforce NLRB rulings against Stevens or punish Stevens for contempt.¹ ACTWU now invokes the antitrust laws and the civil rights laws and prays, in aid of its efforts to organize Stevens' employees, for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble, compensatory, and punitive damages. Stevens has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion is granted and the complaint dismissed.

I.

ACTWU's complaint states six causes of action. The first two are pleaded under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq., jurisdiction in this Court being founded upon 15 U.S.C. § 15 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action are said to arise under the civil rights laws, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (third cause), § 1985 (fourth cause), § 1986 (fifth cause), and all of them collectively (sixth cause); jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Reserving the civil rights causes of action for later discussion, we analyze under this heading the antitrust allegations.

For the first cause of action, ¶¶ 2-5 of the complaint describe ACTWU, its predecessor unions, and the union's present size and structure. Paragraph 2 alleges that ACTWU "is engaged in the trade or business of an international union"; the action is said to be brought on its own behalf and on behalf of its members.

Paragraphs 6-8 describe Stevens as a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal offices within this district, and engaged in the interstate commerce of manufacturing, processing and selling textile goods and products.

Paragraphs 9 and 10 describe the efforts of ACTWU and its predecessors, "for many years" and currently, to organize Stevens' non-supervisory employees and obtain collective bargaining agreements for them, as well as for employees of other textile companies.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 allege that Stevens, "other textile manufacturers and processors and others" have opposed and resisted these efforts, and that Stevens, in furtherance of such opposition and resistance, has engaged in unlawful combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade.

Paragraph 13 describes, without naming,² those persons or entities with whom Stevens is alleged to have combined and conspired. They are said to consist of other textile manufacturers; national and local trade and industry associations; employer-supported groups of employees; non-textile employers and businesses in areas where Stevens operates plants; chambers of commerce and similar organizations in such areas; state and local development authorities in such areas; local and state governmental officials and agencies in such areas; and "other persons and entities which are presently unknown to plaintiff."

Paragraph 14 describes the acts, generally and without specifies, allegedly committed by Stevens and its co-conspirators. The allegations, stripped of certain verbiage, describe the following kinds of behavior:

(a) Fixing or limiting wages and working conditions by means of agreements between competing textile companies.

(b) Discharging, harassing or discriminating against employees who support ACTWU's efforts.

(c) Committing violations "of the national labor laws" in order to obstruct ACTWU from its organizational and representational activities, and of preventing ACTWU members from their activities, such violations of the labor laws including improper interrogation, surveillance, harassment, and improper procedures in connection with elections to have ACTWU designated as the bargaining representative of the employees.

(d) Refusing to hire and "blacklisting" employees and others who support ACTWU.

(e) Causing or inducing other employers, both within and without the textile industry, to refuse to hire and to "blacklist" employees and persons who support ACTWU.

(f) Discharging or refusing to hire relatives, friends and family members of employees who support ACTWU.

(g) Causing or inducing other employers, both within and without the textile industry, to discharge or refuse to hire relatives, friends and family members of employees who support ACTWU.

(h) Causing or inducing banks, lending and credit organizations, landlords, employers' insurance carriers and their representatives, and business men to discriminate against or refuse to deal with ACTWU, or employees who support ACTWU, their relatives, friends and family members.

(i) Causing or inducing officials and agencies of local and state government to discriminate against such employees, their relatives, friends and family members, with respect to governmental relief and welfare benefits and programs.

(j) Working in concert with chambers of commerce, development authorities, trade and employer associations, and other organizations, to prevent the development of unionized industry in the areas where Stevens operates its textile plants.

(k) Causing or inducing the formation of the J. P. Stevens Employees Educational Committee, whose fundamental goal is to obstruct ACTWU's efforts.

(l) Obtaining financial and other support for the J. P. Stevens Employees Educational Committee from competing textile manufacturers and other anti-union employers and textile and industrial trade associations.

(m) Causing, inducing and encouraging the formation of other employer-supported groups of textile industry employees with goals similar to that of the J. P. Stevens Employees Educational Committee.

(n) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with ACTWU for collective bargaining agreements where ACTWU has been designated as bargaining representative.

(o) Closing or threatening to close textile plants where ACTWU has been designated as bargaining representative, or where it appears that ACTWU would be so designated if free elections were allowed to be held.

(p) Abusing the judicial and administrative process by prolonged, frivolous, and contemptuous resistance to requirements of law.

(q) Inciting and exploiting racial discord within textile plants and their communities, with the intent of intimidating and harassing black employees who support ACTWU's efforts, and inciting white employees to oppose those efforts.

(r) Exchanging information, discussing and agreeing upon tactics to be followed to oppose ACTWU's efforts.

(s) Developing a common scheme or plan pursuant to which these acts were committed, and are being committed.

(t) Committing other acts in furtherance of said combinations and conspiracies, presently unknown to ACTWU.

Paragraph 15 alleges that, by reason of these unlawful acts of Stevens and its co-conspirators, ACTWU and its members have been injured in their business and property. ACTWU alleges damages arising out of its unlawful prevention and restraint from its right to organize and represent employees in the textile industry. Various injuries are alleged on behalf of the ACTWU members, arising out of the wrongful acts previously alleged. Treble damages are requested on behalf of all such interests, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15.

The second cause of action realleges the allegations of ¶¶ 1 through 15, and further alleges that Stevens' unlawful acts, in violation of the antitrust laws, are continuing and will continue unless enjoined, in consequence of which ACTWU alleges that it is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26 (Complaint, ¶¶ 17-20).

II.

The ACTWU and Stevens have, until now, battled each other up and down the halls of the NLRB. That is where Stevens says they should remain. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ("NLRA"), and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq. ("LMRA"), established national policy favoring collective bargaining, forbade various employer practices and labor practices as unfair, and set up the NLRB as the enforcement agency. The NLRB has exclusive competence over any activity "arguably subject" to § 7 or § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), a concept restated in Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 292, 91 S.Ct. 1909, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 (1971) as pre-empting state and federal court jurisdiction "to remedy conduct that is arguably protected . . . or prohibited by . . . the Act." Stevens relies, in part, on this principle in moving for dismissal of the complaint.

ACTWU responds, correctly, that neither Garmon nor Lockridge involved antitrust claims, as the case at bar is said to do. The interaction of antitrust policy and labor policy, described by one commentator as "intrinsically incompatible,"³ has generated considerable litigation. Many cases arise when a company raises the sword of antitrust law against a union, and the union parries with the shield of labor law. This has been the greatest area...