Gayal Realty Corp. v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 25

• Decision Date: 06 September 1963
• Citation: 243 N.Y.S.2d 208,40 Misc.2d 456
• Parties: GAYAL REALTY CORP., Joseph Dans d/b/a Joseph Dans Company, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 25, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 208

243 N.Y.S.2d 208

40 Misc.2d 456

GAYAL REALTY CORP., Joseph Dans d/b/a Joseph Dans Company, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 25, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County, Part II.

Sept. 6, 1963.

Henry Koenig, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Delson & Gordon, New York City, for defendant.

JACK STANISLAW, Justice.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendant from picketing a construction site. Plaintiff Dans is general contractor at this site, and plaintiff Gayal owns the property. W. T. Hickey Corp., not a party here, is the electrical subcontractor at this job. A collective bargaining agreement exists between Hickey and a union not affiliated with defendant.

On August 5, 1963 a picket appeared at this location carrying a sign which read 'The electricians on this job are not working under wages and conditions established by Local #25 I.B.E.W. (deft.).' Shortly thereafter, trucks, carpenters and other workers all refused to cross this picket line and work was almost completely halted. Hickey filed two charges of unfair labor practices with the N.L.R.B. on August 8th which are now being investigated. On the 9th an order was signed staying the picketing of plaintiff's job site until the further order of the Court.

Defendant moved to dismiss this complaint on the grounds that plaintiff's papers fail to properly designate the defendant, that plaintiffs have not complied with Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, and that federal law has preempted state judicial action in cases involving acts within the purview of the National Labor Relations Act.

Plaintiffs argue that neither of them in their business activities affect interstate commerce for purposes of N.L.R.A. jurisdiction. Hickey is in such commerce, and its filing of charges confirms this fact. However, plaintiffs allege their lack of privity to any disagreement between Hickey and defendant and therefore ask to be relived of its consequences here.

The Supreme Court of the United States in San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen's Union Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245, 79 S.Ct. 773, 780, 3 L.Ed.2d 775, resolved that activities 'arguably subject' to N.L.R.B. jurisdiction must be left to that agency's competence and not otherwise adjudicated by federal or state courts. The use of the vague 'arguably' approach manifests an intent to blanket the area of disputed labor activities within the authority of the N.L.R.B. The New York Court of Appeals followed this approach in Dooley v. Anton, 8...