Barclay's Ice Cream Co., Ltd. v. Local No. 757 of Ice Cream Drivers and Emp. Union
| Decision Date | 10 February 1977 |
| Citation | 41 N.Y.2d 269,392 N.Y.S.2d 278,360 N.E.2d 956 |
| Parties | , 360 N.E.2d 956, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2647, 81 Lab.Cas. P 55,033 BARCLAY'S ICE CREAM CO., LTD., Respondent, v. LOCAL NO. 757 OF the ICE CREAM DRIVERS AND EMPLOYEES UNION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stanley M. Berman, New York City, for appellants.
Jay Goldberg, New York City, for respondent.
We reject the proposition that under the doctrine of pre-emption our State courts must defer in this case to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board and thus are powerless to protect against the unlawful coercive activity designed by this union to erect an embargo on the flow of out-of-State goods into New York.
The Appellate Division reversed the order of Special Term (which had denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction) on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and restrained defendants Pendente lite from picketing and distributing written material aimed at discouraging purchases of ice cream manufactured outside, and sold within, New York State by Barclay's. The case is before us on appeal from the nonfinal order of the Appellate Division by leave granted by that court on a certified question inquiring whether the order was properly made. In that posture it must be presumed that questions of fact--which defendants now contend exist--were resolved in plaintiff's favor (CPLR 5612, subd. (b)). Our only inquiry is whether on the facts deemed to have been established the Appellate Division had power to grant the injunctive relief that it did; if that power existed we do not inquire into the propriety of its exercise (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals (rev. ed.), p. 378).
Barclay's is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the wholesale distribution of ice cream manufactured in Pennsylvania and Ohio to customers in New York and New Jersey. Local 757 represents employees engaged in the manufacture of ice cream in the New York City area. The employees of Barclay's suppliers, as well as Barclay's own employees, are represented by local unions affiliated with the same parent union as is Local 757. After the latter local had been unsuccessful in calling on Barclay's to purchase all its ice cream from certain designated manufacturers within New York, the local made known its intention to conduct a consumer boycott by picketing retail stores where ice cream distributed by Barclay's was sold and by handing out literature urging consumers not to buy Barclay's products, which were described as having been manufactured outside New York 'under sub-standard labor conditions'--a description found by the Appellate Division to be without basis in the record. Labor conditions existing at the manufacturing plants which supplied the ice cream distributed by Barclay's were determined under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the locals representing the employees at those plants. The sole objective of the Local 757 action as described by its secretary-treasurer was 'to protect our members' jobs'--i.e., by compelling Barclay's to purchase locally produced ice cream rather than that manufactured in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
For present purposes, accepting the facts averred by Barclay's, as we must, it cannot be disputed that the union's contemplated activities would constitute an unlawful restraint on trade under our State law and public policy (Mayer Bros. Poultry Farms v. Meltzer, 274 App.Div. 169, 80 N.Y.S.2d 874). The remand to our State courts by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, following the union's removal of this case to the Federal court, forecloses the contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Local 1115 Joint Bd., Nursing Home and Hospital Emp. Division
...of a state court to issue an injunction Pendente lite despite a claim of preemption, see Barclay's Ice Cream Co. v. Local 757, 41 N.Y.2d 269, 270, 392 N.Y.S.2d 278, 279, 360 N.E.2d 956, 957 (1977), in which the Court of Appeals, in affirming an order granting an injunction Pendente lite, he......
-
Brody v. Leamy
...not' (Lacks v. Lacks, 41 N.Y.2d 71, 75, 390 N.Y.S.2d 875, 877--78, 359 N.E.2d 384, 387; see Barclay's Ice Cream Co., Ltd. v. Local No. 757, 41 N.Y.2d 269, 392 N.Y.S.2d 278, 360 N.E.2d 956, 1977; Nuernberger v. State of N.Y., 41 N.Y.2d 111, 390 N.Y.S.2d 904, 359 N.E.2d If the State is the re......
-
Delta-Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc. v. Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO
...Barclay's Ice Cream Co., Ltd. v. Local No. 757, 51 A.D.2d 516, 517, 378 N.Y.S.2d 395 (1st Dept.1976), aff'd, 41 N.Y.2d 269, 392 N.Y.S.2d 278, 360 N.E.2d 956 (1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 2818, 56 L.Ed.2d 767 (1978); David Harp Restaurant Management, Inc. v. Cromwell, 183 A.D.......
-
People v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity
...those terms, does not implicate a labor dispute. (See generally Barclay's Ice Cream Co., Ltd. v. Local No. 757 of the Ice Cream Drivers and Employees' Union, 41 N.Y.2d 269, 392 N.Y.S.2d 278, 360 N.E.2d 956 [1977], cert. denied, 436 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 2818, 56 L.Ed.2d 767 [1978] L.L. § 807(1......