Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. JOINT BOARD DRESS & WAISTMAKERS U.
| Decision Date | 28 July 1959 |
| Parties | Application of ANZIO FROCKS, INC., Petitioner, for an order pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 185 and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2 v. JOINT BOARD DRESS AND WAISTMAKERS' UNION OF GREATER NEW YORK, and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Lauritano & Schlacter, New York City, for plaintiff.
Schlesinger & Bloom, New York City, for defendants.
On July 9, 1959 Anzio Frocks, Inc. (Anzio) secured an order, directed to the Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York (Board) and the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (Union). The order required the Board and the Union to show cause why an order should not be entered "restraining and enjoining them * * * from taking any actions, steps or proceedings against Anzio * * * pursuant to or founded upon certain alleged violations of a Collective Agreement between the parties * * *."
The proceeding sought to be enjoined is an arbitration being conducted before the Impartial Chairman designated in the Collective Agreement. The arbitration deals with the Board's charges that Anzio failed to make certain payments to the Board on behalf of certain Funds and that Anzio caused garments to be manufactured by non-union and non-designated contractors in violation of the Collective Agreement.
When the show cause order, which contained a stay, was presented to the ex parte Judge he requested Anzio's attorneys to advise the Board's and Union's attorneys and request their presence in his chambers. See Arvida Corp. v. Sugarman, 2 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 428. The order was never served upon the Board or upon the Union. It was served upon their attorneys. Such service was not effective, however, to vest jurisdiction over the persons of the Board and Union in this Court. See Doughney v. Fauset, 1958, 9 Misc.2d 759, 760, 170 N.Y.S.2d 419, 421. Without such jurisdiction, no injunction could issue. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 1917, 245 U.S. 229, 234, 38 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed. 260. I have consulted with the Judge who signed the order and he has advised me that the Board's and Union's attorneys did not enter a general appearance when they came to his chambers at his request nor did they state that they were authorized to accept service on behalf of the Board or the Union. See Doughney v. Fauset, supra, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenstein v. National Skirt & Sportswear Ass'n, Inc.
...three funds. It is for this reason that plaintiffs' counsel, among other matters, urges that Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers' Union, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1959, 176 F.Supp. 176, is 7 29 U.S.C.A. § 186(c) (5). 8 Cf. Arroyo v. United States, 1959, 359 U.S. 419, 425, 79 S.Ct. 86......
-
Minkoff v. Scranton Frocks, Inc.
...to confirm an award. In re Worcester Silk Mills Corporation, D.C. S.D.1927, 50 F.2d 966; Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers' Union, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959, 176 F. Supp. 176. See also Donnelly Garment Co. v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, D.C.W.D.Mo.1942, 47 F.S......
-
Greenstein v. NATIONAL SKIRT & SPORTSWEAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
...which is under appeal, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 178 F.Supp. 681; and see also Palmieri, J., in Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 176 F.Supp. 176. In September 1959 the Union made charges that plaintiffs had violated the agreement in certa......