MILK DRIVERS & DAIRY EMP. U. v. Dairymen's League Co-op. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 19 July 1962
• Docket Number: Docket 27656.,No. 399,399
• Parties: MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 338, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Appellant, v. DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

304 F.2d 913 (1962)

MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 338, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Appellant, v. DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 399, Docket 27656.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued July 17, 1962.

Decided July 19, 1962.

Herbert A. Levy, New York City (Cohen & Weiss, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Edward J. Flynn, New York City, for appellee.

Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

LEONARD P. MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 338 (the Union), appeals from a decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York denying its application for an injunction that would compel Dairymen's League Co-Operative Association, Inc. (the Employer) to maintain the status quo pending the determination by arbitration of a dispute between the parties concerning the Employer's right to have its milk hauling operation performed by an independent contractor. The district court decided that, since the same dispute was already pending in the New York State courts, the federal court action should be stayed and an injunction should not be issued. We affirm this decision.

The Employer is a cooperative corporation engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of milk and milk products in the northeastern part of the United States. The Union is the collective bargaining representative of several hundred employees of the Employer who work at various locations. The dispute in issue arises out of the Union's representation of employees at the Employer's Middletown garage and Poughkeepsie plant.

Separate collective bargaining agreements between the Employer and the Union governed the operations at the respective Middletown and Poughkeepsie locations. The drivers at the Middletown garage were covered by an agreement which became effective June 30, 1961 and which expired June 30, 1962 (the Middletown Agreement). The employees at the Poughkeepsie plant are covered by an agreement which was executed on November 30, 1961 and which continues in effect until November 30, 1962 (the Poughkeepsie Agreement). Paragraph 36C of the Poughkeepsie Agreement provides:

"Should any Employer, signatory to this contract, engage during the life of this contract in tank truck milk hauling, originating or terminating in the serving area covered by this contract, he shall do so with his own employees working under this contract, providing he has no conflicting contractual legal or statutory obligations, at the then prevailing rates for such work."

For the past thirty years the Employer has operated a fleet of tank trucks out of the Middletown garage. In January, 1962, a dispute arose between the Employer and the Union concerning (1) the discharge of thirty-four employees who were employed at the Middletown garage, and (2) the contracting-out of the work they had formerly performed to several independent haulers. The employees at the Poughkeepsie plant staged a brief work stoppage in protest but the Employer obtained an ex parte order restraining the stoppage from the New York Supreme Court, County of Oneida.¹ Prior to the institution of the injunction proceedings, the Union sought to arbitrate the dispute. It applied to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for the appointment of an arbitrator without specifying the agreement or provisions on which it relied. The Employer then moved, in the same court in which it had obtained the injunction, for an order (1) staying the arbitration or, in the alternative, (2) directing the arbitration to proceed but excluding paragraph 36C of the Poughkeepsie Agreement from the consideration of the arbitrator. The Union cross-moved to compel arbitration without restricting the arbitration in advance.² The court ordered that the arbitration should proceed and further ordered that the arbitration should be governed only by the Middletown Agreement, thereby excluding paragraph 36C from consideration. The Union's appeal from that decision is now...