AMERICAN BAKERY & CON. WKRS. INT. U. v. Liberty Baking Co.
Decision Date | 17 June 1965 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 65-599. |
Citation | 242 F. Supp. 238 |
Parties | AMERICAN BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL UNION NO. 12, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated labor organization, and Local 485 of Bakery Drivers, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY BAKING COMPANY, a corporation, and Noramco, Inc., a corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Wilner, Wilner & Kuhn, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Local Union No. 12.
Ben Paul Jubilerer, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Local 485 of Bakery Drivers.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
This is a most involved and intricate labor proceeding that points up the hardships and conflicts faced when the forces of automation, which have rendered the business operation of defendant, Liberty Baking Company, unprofitable in its present state, join with advantages offered by the tax laws to those acquiring sinking business operations to finally submerge a company with life still to be lived
This action was filed by the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, Local 12, against defendants to enjoin them (1) from removing and discontinuing their operations at the Liberty Baking Company plant at Pittsburgh; (2) from removing any equipment used in the production or distribution of baked goods at said plant in Pittsburgh; and (3) from further violating the contractual rights of plaintiff union and its members. Plaintiff alleges that defendants' proposed course of conduct will violate the Union Recognition, Union Security and Seniority Clauses of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Court granted Bakery Drivers Local 485 the right to intervene as a plaintiff. Intervening plaintiff requested the same relief as original plaintiff, and also requested the Court to order arbitration.
The Court enters the following Findings of Fact:
1. Plaintiff, American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, ("Local No. 12"), is an unincorporated labor organization, having its principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is the collective bargaining representative for the production and maintenance employees of the defendant, Liberty Baking Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2. Bakery Drivers, Local No. 485, ("Local No. 485"), which was permitted to intervene in this proceeding as a plaintiff, is an unincorporated labor organization, having its principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is the collective bargaining representative for the wholesale and retail driver-salesmen employed by Liberty Baking Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, Liberty Baking Company, ("Liberty"), is engaged in the wholesale and retail production and distribution of bread, rolls, and sweet goods — cakes, pies and cookies — under the trade name and brand "Buttercup". Liberty maintains its plant and offices at 6006-18 Houston Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185.
4. Defendant, Noramco, Inc., ("Noramco"), is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal office in Queens Village, Long Island, New York. On or about May 14, 1965, Noramco acquired 85% of the outstanding stock of Liberty.
5. Defendant, Noramco, also owns a controlling interest in Goddard Baking Company, which is located in Chester, West Virginia; in Dugan Brothers Bakery, which is located in Queens Village, Long Island, New York; in Fastnachts Company, which is located in Allentown, Pennsylvania; and in Duquesne Baking Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a defunct company which is now in liquidation.
6. On or about December 18, 1963, plaintiff Local No. 12, and defendant Liberty, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement covering Liberty's production and maintenance employees which will expire on August 13, 1965. This Collective Bargaining Agreement contains in Article 6 thereof a grievance arbitration procedure which provides as follows:
7. The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains, in Article 1 thereof, a Union Recognition Clause which provides as follows:
8. The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains, in Article 2 thereof, a Union Security Clause which provides as follows:
9. The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a Seniority Clause in Article 10 thereof, which provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dorn v. Stanhope Steel, Inc.
...by appellants as support for their "implied term" argument are distinguishable on their facts. American Bakery & Confectionery Workers v. Liberty Baking Co., 242 F.Supp. 238 (W.D.Pa.1965) and Fraser v. Magic Chef-Food Giant Markets, Inc., 324 F.2d 853 (6th Cir.1963) are inapplicable to this......
-
BAKERY & CONFECTIONARY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA v. Great A. & P. Tea Co.
...the closing down of a bakery plant during the term of a collective bargaining agreement. See American Bakery & Con. Wkrs. Int. U. v. Liberty Baking Co., 242 F.Supp. 238 (W.D.Pa.1965). "A collective bargaining agreement, in ordinary usage and terminology, does not create an employer-employee......
-
HOTEL & REST. EMP. A., LOC. NO. 237, ETC. v. Allegheny Hotel Co.
...S.Ct. 576, 88 L.Ed. 762 1944; Fraser v. Magic-Chef Food Giant Markets, Inc., 324 F.2d 853 6th Cir. 1963; American Bakery & Con. Wkrs. Int. Union v. Liberty Baking Co., 242 F.Supp. 238 W.D.Pa.1965; and Bakery & Confectionery Wkrs. et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc., 357 F.Supp. ......
-
UNIÓN de TRABAJADORES, ETC. v. HELIO, ETC.
...1259 (W.D.Pa., 1974); Bakery & Confectionery Wkrs. et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., supra; American Bakery & Con. Wkrs. Int. Union v. Liberty Baking Co., supra. Reading the collective bargaining agreement as a whole, as we must do to ascertain its scope, we learn that there......