Gottfried v. Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n, Local Union No. 80
Decision Date | 01 May 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-1220,90-1220 |
Citation | 927 F.2d 926 |
Parties | 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2767, 118 Lab.Cas. P 10,630 Bernard GOTTFRIED, Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION NO. 80, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Ellen A. Farrell (argued), Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Richard A. Siegel, N.L.R.B. Office of the Gen. Counsel, Judith I. Katz, N.L.R.B. Appellate Court Branch Washington, D.C., Mark D. Rubin, N.L.R.B., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
Donald W. Fisher, Donald W. Fisher Co., L.P.A., Toledo, Ohio, Samuel C. McKnight (argued), Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, Southfield, Mich., Robert D. Randolph, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants-appellees.
Before MARTIN and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case arises from a labor union's refusal to bargain with a construction industry employer because, allegedly, of a sister company's nonunion status. The case has been here before. See Gottfried v. Sheet Metal Workers' Intl. Assn., Local Union No. 80, 876 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir.1989). We held in the prior appeal that the district court did not lack authority to grant an injunction against the defendant unions pending the National Labor Relations Board's final adjudication of the employer's unfair labor practice charges. On remand, the district court decided not to grant such an injunction. Concluding that this decision represents an abuse of discretion, we shall direct that an appropriate injunction be issued.
In considering a request for injunctive relief under Sec. 10(l ), the district court must determine whether there is "reasonable cause" to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred, and, if so, whether injunctive relief is "just and proper." See Gottfried v. Frankel, 818 F.2d 485, 493 (6th Cir.1987), a case involving Sec. 10(j), and Levine v. C & W Mining, 610 F.2d 432, 435 (6th Cir.1979), stating that the same standards apply under Secs. 10(j) and 10(l ).
A district court's analysis of "reasonable cause"--the first requirement--consists of two parts. First, the court must determine whether the theory of liability advanced by the regional director is frivolous. This is essentially a question of law, the resolution of which is subject to de novo review on appeal. Fleischut v. Nixon Detroit Diesel, Inc., 859 F.2d 26, 29 (6th Cir.1988). Second, the court must determine whether the regional director has produced "some evidence" in support of his petition. Id. Contrary to usual practice, a district court should not attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence "if facts exist which could support the Board's theory of liability." Id.
In determining whether injunctive relief is "just and proper"--the second requirement that must be met before an injunction will issue pursuant to Sec. 10(l )--the district court must consider whether
Sheeran v. American Commercial Lines, Inc., 683 F.2d 970, 979 (6th Cir.1982) (citations omitted).
Because this evaluation is a matter "committed to judicial discretion," the district court's determination will be upheld on appeal unless it is shown that the court abused its discretion. Frankel, 818 F.2d at 494. Such an abuse occurs when the district court "relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard." Fleischut, 859 F.2d at 30.
In the case at bar, the district court indicated that it thought the controlling issue was whether the regional director had demonstrated "probable cause" for concluding that Local 80's termination of its relationship with Limbach Company was illegal. Relying heavily on the conclusion of an administrative law judge that no unfair labor practice had occurred, as well as on testimony by Limbach's president that no one from the defendant union talked to him about the nonunion sister company, the district court found that "probable cause" had not been shown. We do not believe that the district court properly followed the two-part analysis outlined above.
As to the question of reasonable cause, we have already held in this case that the regional director's theory of liability is not frivolous. 876 F.2d at 1247. Because the regional director did produce "some evidence" in support of his petition--for example, a note prepared by the international union for distribution by Local 80 stating that "our local union has terminated its bargaining relationship with Limbach ... [because] the company that owns Limbach also owns a non-union company"--we believe that the district court was required to find the existence of reasonable cause, as that term is used in the relevant caselaw.
As to the requirement that the injunction be "just and proper," the regional director makes a persuasive argument that the unions' refusal to bargain with Limbach has placed a continuing stranglehold on the company's business operations. Limbach is no longer able to compete for contracts specifying that the contractor must be a party to a collective-bargaining agreement. For Limbach to bid on contracts that could be performed with nonunion employees, moreover, would subject the company to potential withdrawal liability as far as the union pension fund is concerned. Under these circumstances, we think it manifest that an injunction is called for as "a just...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Limbach Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO
... ... Sheet Metal Workers International Association, ... Local Union No. 108, Appellants ... No. 90-3606 ... United ... 12 in Pittsburgh, Local No. 17 in Boston, Local No. 80 in Detroit, Local No. 98 in Columbus, and Local No. 108 in ... our result we do not write on a blank slate for Gottfried v. Sheet Metal Workers' Local No. 80, 876 F.2d 1245, 1250 ... ...
-
Limbach Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass'n
... ... Workers International Association Local Union No. 12, Sheet ... Metal Workers International ... 12 in Pittsburgh, Local No. 17 in Boston, Local No. 80 in Detroit, Local No. 98 in Columbus, and Local No. 108 in ... our result we do not write on a blank slate for Gottfried v. Sheet Metal Workers' Local No. 80, 876 F.2d 1245, 1250 ... ...
-
Dowd v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO
... ... we must decide whether an American labor union which induces a foreign union to pressure foreign ... 72, 80, 61 S.Ct. 83, 88, 85 L.Ed. 50 (1940) (citation ... of union responsibility are presented." Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. NLRB, 735 ... ILA directly to request that the Japanese workers forbear, without the aid of the Japanese Unions ... See Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local No. 2, 203 NLRB 954, ... , 939 F.2d 118, 123 (3rd Cir.1991); Gottfried v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local Union ... ...
-
Pye v. Teamsters Local Union No. 122
... ... of the quantum of proof, see, e.g., Gottfried v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Etc., 927 ... ...