PRINTING S. & PPU NO. 447 v. Pride P. Aaronson Bros. P. Corp.

• Citation: 445 F.2d 361
• Decision Date: 15 June 1971
• Docket Number: 35505.,744,Dockets 35504,No. 743,743
• Parties: PRINTING SPECIALTIES & PAPER PRODUCTS UNION NO. 447, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION OF N. A., AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRIDE PAPERS AARONSON BROS. PAPER CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

445 F.2d 361 (1971)

PRINTING SPECIALTIES & PAPER PRODUCTS UNION NO. 447, INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION OF N. A., AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRIDE PAPERS AARONSON BROS. PAPER CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 743, 744, Dockets 35504, 35505.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued April 26, 1971.

Decided June 15, 1971.

David Scribner, New York City (Frank Scheiner, Joel C. Glanstein, Scribner, Glanstein & Klein, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Noel Arnold Levin, New York City (Jerome M. Schwartz, Levin, Rosmarin & Schwartz, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge.^*

HAYS, Circuit Judge:

This action was instituted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 185 (1964)) for alleged breaches by the defendants of a collective bargaining agreement between appellant union and defendants Roitman Paper Co., Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Terminal Paper Converting, Inc. After trial without a jury, Judge Tyler dismissed the complaint and later denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. We affirm.

Roitman Paper Co., Inc. and Terminal Paper Converting, Inc. were members of The Paper Merchants Association of New York which executed a multi-employer collective bargaining agreement with plaintiff Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 447, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of N. A., AFL-CIO in 1961. This agreement was subsequently modified and extended to August 31, 1967.

On December 23, 1964, Roitman-Terminal entered into a consolidation agreement with defendant Aaronson Bros. Paper Corporation which was engaged in a similar line of work. The new firm was to operate at the Brooklyn plant of Aaronson under the name Pride Paper-Aaronson Bros. Paper Corporation, and Max Roitman, the sole owner of Roitman-Terminal, became the executive vice-president and secretary of the new corporation, with a 50% stock interest.

At the time of the consolidation, Aaronson Bros. had 26 employees who remained with the new company. These employees were represented by Local 210, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which had a collective bargaining agreement with Aaronson Bros. covering their work.

Negotiations with regard to the new firm's hiring the seven employees of the old Roitman firm failed and these employees were sent the following notice on December 24, 1964:

"This is to inform you that this company will cease its production operations effective December 24, 1964. Your services will no longer be needed after January 8, 1965.

This is to be deemed notice in accordance with collective bargaining agreement between this company and your union."

The consolidation was effectuated, and Roitman-Terminal closed down its Manhattan plant. All obligations owing to the former Roitman employees and to the plaintiff union for the various funds provided in the collective agreement were paid.

Plaintiff union filed suit for an alleged breach of the Local 447 Industry Association collective bargaining agreement. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the contract was still in effect at the new consolidated plant, damages on behalf of Local 447 and the affected employees, and injunctive relief to insure the continued enforcement of the agreement at the Pride-Paper Aaronson Bros. plant.

Plaintiff refers us to a provision in the consolidation agreement which states that "all obligations, present and future under a contract or contracts, between Roitman Terminal and the labor union representing the employees of Roitman and Terminal" were to be assumed by the consolidated operation. This provision cannot properly be interpreted to mean that the old Roitman-Terminal employees could not be terminated, or that if they were terminated, the new operation was required to continue paying their wages. It is extremely significant that the consolidation agreement contained no provision with respect to the employees of what was formerly Aaronson Bros. Paper Corp. The provision of the consolidation agreement clearly refers to those contractual obligations of Roitman-Terminal, such as payment to the various union funds, which would be due upon termination of the collective agreement. These obligations were met by Pride Papers.

The plaintiff union does not expressly claim that the seven former Roitman employees had to be re-employed by the consolidated company. Such a contention, based on the supposition that contractual obligations somehow survived termination of the contract, would be unavailing in the light of our opinion in Local 1251 Int. U. of U. A., A. & A. I. W. v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 405 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1968), overruling Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 288 F.2d 99 (2d Cir.), cert. denied on this issue, 368 U.S. 814, 82 S.Ct. 56, 7 L.Ed.2d 22 (1961).

Plaintiff union's...