Alcoa SS Co. v. McMahon, 201
| Decision Date | 31 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 201,Docket 21261.,201 |
| Citation | 173 F.2d 567 |
| Parties | ALCOA S. S. CO., Inc., et al. v. McMAHON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City, and A. V. Chebonnier, all
of New York City (Alan G. James, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioner.
Abraham M. Fisch, of New York City, for respondent.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs wish to enjoin rebellious members of a union, who refuse to obey the orders of their employers and of the high officers of the union itself. That the defendants are in default has been established by a declaratory judgment of the district court; they have been adjudged wrongdoers because, although they agreed to be employees, they refuse to carry out the contract of employment. The only question is as to the employers' remedies for this breach of contract. That they may recover judgment from the defendants for damages is undoubted; that they may recover a similar judgment against the union is conceivable; that they could have procured an injunction in some form before the Norris-La Guardia Act* we will assume, although, even before that act was passed, it would not have been possible to get all the relief here asked. But all this is beside the point. Their position is that, because Knox, J., decided the issues against the defendants, their refusal to obey that judgment did not raise a "labor dispute," as that term is defined in § 113(c) of the act. The defendants' position is that, in spite of the declaratory judgment, the refusal raised a "controversy concerning the terms and conditions of employment," which by definition is a "labor dispute." We agree with the defendants. If the plaintiffs were right, it would follow that, as soon as any controversy was decided by a court, it would cease to be a "controversy," and an injunction would be proper. It would therefore follow that the Norris-LaGuardia Act only applies to a "labor dispute" before it had been decided; in short, an employer could not get a temporary injunction, but he could always get a permanent injunction.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LOCAL 205, ETC. v. General Electric Company
...conduct of either party to a labor dispute. E. g., Alcoa S. S. Co., Inc., v. McMahon, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1948, 81 F.Supp. 541, affirmed 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 567; Associated Telephone Co. v. Communication Workers, D.C.S.D.Cal.1953, 114 F.Supp. 334. An order to compel arbitration of an existing d......
-
LOCAL 19, WAREHOUSE, ETC. v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., 12652.
...as in the court below. 2 Contra to our conclusion upon the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act see Alcoa S.S. Company, Inc., v. McMahon, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 567; United Steelworkers of America v. Galland-Henning Manufacturing Co., D.C., 139 F. Supp. 630. Contra to our conclusion that the......
-
Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs.
...Co. v. Seafarers' Internat'l Union, 2 Cir., 250 F.2d 326, cert. den. 355 U.S. 932, 78 S.Ct. 411, 2 L. Ed.2d 414; Alcoa S.S. Co. v. McMahon, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 567, cert. den. 338 U.S. 821, 70 S.Ct. 65, 94 L.Ed. 498; Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Union, Local 795, v. Yellow Transit Freight......
-
Sinclair Refining Company v. Atkinson, 434
...have taken the same position as that taken below. See W. L. Mead, Inc., v. Teamsters Local No. 25, 1 Cir., 217 F.2d 6; Alcoa S.S. Co. v. McMahon, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 567; In re Third Ave. Transit Corp. (Lehman v. Quill), 2 Cir., 192 F.2d 971; A. H. Bull Steamship Co. v. Seafarers' Internationa......