Associated Flour Haulers & Warehousemen, Inc. v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 05 March 1940
• Citation: 26 N.E.2d 7,282 N.Y. 173
• Parties: ASSOCIATED FLOUR HAULERS & WAREHOUSEMEN, Inc., v. HOFFMAN et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

282 N.Y. 173

26 N.E.2d 7

ASSOCIATED FLOUR HAULERS & WAREHOUSEMEN, Inc.,

v.HOFFMAN et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 5, 1940.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Proceeding by the Associated Flour Haulers & Warehousemen, Inc., against Nat Hoffman, as President of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 138, a voluntary, unincorporated association of more than seven members, and others, to enjoin defendants from furnishing labor in the hauling of flour. From an order of the Appellate Division, First Department, entered June 16, 1939, 257 App.Div. 935, 13 N.Y.S.2d 112, in which appeal was granted in the Appellate Division, 257 App.Div. 959, 14 N.Y.S.2d 280, affirming by a divided court an order of the Supreme Court entered January 17, 1939, denying a motion by defendant Triborough Transportation Corporation to dismiss the complaint against it upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, defendant Triborough Transportation Corporation appeals by leave of the Appellate Division, First Department, upon a certified question.

Orders reversed and complaint against appellant dismissed, and certified question answered in the negative. J. Wm. Rosenbluth and George Natanson, both of New York City, for appellant.

Jacob M. Mandelbaum, of New York City, for respondent.

LEWIS, Judge.

The defendant-appellant has thus far failed in its challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint herein which comes to us for review by leave of the Appellate Division, upon the certified question: ‘Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant Triborough Transportation Corp?’

The plaintiff is a membership corporation composed of twenty-three corporations, firms and individuals engaged in hauling flour in the city of New York from storage depots, railroad terminals and steamships to customer-consignees. The hauling is done by motor trucks manned by chauffeurs and skilled helpers whose labor union affiliations relate themselves to the question to be determined.

Among the five defendants against which the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, are four labor union affiliates of the American Federation of Labor, a nation-wide organization composed of local labor groups each of which is known either as a ‘Local’ or an ‘International.’ A ‘Local’ such as the first three defendants named in the title to this action is an organization of local workmen whose union activities are restricted within limits defined by a charter issued by an ‘International’ such as the fourth defendant named hrein which is a subsidiary body of the American Federation of Labor with administrative functions including the granting of charters to ‘Locals.’

We are here concerned only with an appeal by the fifth defendant, Triborough Transportation Corp. which is engaged in the business of flour hauling in the city of New York but is not one of the twenty-three members which comprise the plaintiff corporation.

The complaint is an involved pleading dealing chiefly with plaintiff's grievance against the four labor unions named as defendants. To gain a clear understanding of the plaintiff's charge against the defendant Triborough Transportation Corp. requires us to outline the entire pleading.

By what appears to be a prologue to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that, because substantially all chauffeurs and helpers engaged in the hauling of flour in the city of New York are members of ‘Locals' affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ‘it is practically impossible for one to engage in (that) business * * * without first becoming unionized and agreeing to employ members of the local which has been chartered by the American Federation of Labor or its affiliate to supply labor for flour hauling purposes in Greater New York.’ Among the affiliates of the American Federation of Labor is the defendant ‘International’ of which Daniel J. Tobin is president and which, prior to October 3, 1938, had granted charters to the three defendants Local Union No. 138, Local Union No. 202 and Local Union No. 807. None of the three charters thus granted is set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff alleges, however, that ‘The charter so issued to Local 138 granted to the latter and its members, so far as the American Federation of Labor was concerned, the sole and exclusive right to haul flour in Greater New York’ and that charters issued by the International ‘to Locals 202 and 807 granted * * * the right to haul commodities other than flour in Greater New York.’

In that connection it is further alleged that by reason of the provisions of its charter and the accepted practice, Local No. 138 has supplied all labor required for hauling flour in Greater New York and that under their own charters Locals 202 and 807 are not permitted to supply labor for flour hauling purposes; that ‘by reason of the dominance and control by the American Federation of Labor of the workmen engaged in the hauling of flour in Greater New York’ and on October 3, 1938, the plaintiff and each of its members entered into an agreement with Local 138 covering the wages, hours and other conditions of employment of the members of that ‘Local,’ a copy of which agreement is annexed to the complaint.

Despite the alleged fact that the membership of Local No. 138 consists substantially of skilled chauffeurs and helpers engaged exclusively in hauling flour and who are sufficient in number to do all the flour hauling required in Greater New York, the defendants Locals 202 and 807 whose union charters disqualify their members from hauling flour are supplying labor for flour hauling purposes to employers who are primarily engaged in the hauling of commodities other than flour and who are under contractual relations with either Local 202 or 807 and not with Local 138. By reason of these practices by Locals 202 and 807, which are alleged to be in violation...