Dynamic Mfrs. v. LOCAL 614 OF THE GEN. DRIVERS, ETC.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1952
• Docket Number: No. 11284.,11284.
• Parties: DYNAMIC MFRS., Inc. v. LOCAL 614 OF THE GEN. DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

103 F. Supp. 651

DYNAMIC MFRS., Inc. v. LOCAL 614 OF THE GEN. DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, et al.

No. 11284.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

February 8, 1952.

John F. Langs, Detroit, Mich., for the plaintiff.

Howard I. Bond and William F. Dohany, Pontiac, Mich., Rodney Baxter and Philip A. Gillis, Detroit, Mich., for the defendants.

THORNTON, District Judge.

The court has before it the plaintiff's petition to remand the instant case to the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, from which it was removed by the defendants.

In their petition for removal to this court, the defendants state that "this is an action of a civil nature of which the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, and arises under the laws of the United States; that, as appears from plaintiff's petition herein, a copy of which is hereto attached, the plaintiff bases its claim for relief against the defendants upon and by virtue of and under the Federal statutes and acts of Congress, particularly the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947." If this statement of the defendants is correct, then under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b) this action was properly removed.

The plaintiff, in its petition to remand, contends in substance that it seeks relief under a statute of the State of Michigan, not one of the United States, that the acts alleged do not constitute a labor dispute under either state or federal law, and that since there is no federal question the state court has exclusive jurisdiction.

It is the duty of this court in deciding this motion to determine its own jurisdiction and if "it appears that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction" to remand it. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c).

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, under which defendant claims this cause of action arises, in view of the allegations of the complaint, contains a section setting forth what constitutes unfair labor practices, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158. If the allegations in the complaint are such as to bring it within the categories set forth in Section 158, then the action is one arising under the laws of the United States. The fact that the plaintiff in his bill does not identify a Federal statute, does not prevent the court from recognizing the existence of a controversy clearly covered by a Federal statute. The court will take "judicial notice of any Federal laws necessarily brought into play by the allegations of the complaint; and it is immaterial that specific reference to such laws may be omitted in the pleading." Pocahontas Terminal Corporation v. Portland Building & Construction Trade Council, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 217, 219.

From the allegations of the complaint this court has concluded that there is apparent a controversy affecting interstate commerce and that if the allegations as to the activities of defendants are true, then the defendants have been guilty of unfair labor practices as defined by 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(b),(1),(2) and (4). In arriving at these conclusions the court has considered the following allegations of the complaint as determinative:

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, employing about 175 persons, is engaged in business as a manufacturer, and buys its material in intrastate and interstate commerce; further alleges that on or about January 10, 1952, officers and agents of the defendant union informed the plaintiff that unless it signed a contract forcing employees to join the defendant union, a picket line would be placed around plaintiff's property, regardless of whether the employees wanted such a union or not; that at about the same time the defendant union, through its officers, insisted that plaintiff arrange a meeting in plaintiff's plant for its employees, at which time the plaintiff informed the defendant union's officers that it was not in position to force any of its employees to join or not to join a union, and to attempt such action as requested by the defendant union would amount to an unfair labor practice contrary to the laws of the State of Michigan and the laws of the United States of America, whereupon the defendant union's officers informed the plaintiff that regardless of the fairness or unfairness of this position, they insisted upon plaintiff forcing its employees into the defendant union; that certain officers of the defendant union further informed the plaintiff that unless it capitulated, they would see to it that no company would accept trucks loaded with plaintiff's merchandise, and no trucks of any company would be permitted to enter the premises of plaintiff for the purpose of unloading; that although plaintiff informed the defendant union that it would bargain with the representatives of its employees chosen at a proper election, the defendants have flatly refused to permit such an election; that the defendants, although given an opportunity to meet with the employees of plaintiff on the plaintiff's property, on January 25, 1952, refused to permit an election, and were unable to obtain, by solicitation, the membership of any of plaintiff's employees in defendant's union, and although failing in this respect, the defendants still insist that the plaintiff force...