Hull v. AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS'PROTECTIVE ASS'N, Civ. A. 34079.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. A. 34079.
• Citation: 159 F. Supp. 425
• Parties: John A. HULL, Jr., Regional Director of the Eighth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, and Ohio Division No. 2, American Wire Weavers' Protective Association, AFL-CIO, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

159 F. Supp. 425

John A. HULL, Jr., Regional Director of the Eighth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN WIRE WEAVERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, and Ohio Division No. 2, American Wire Weavers' Protective Association, AFL-CIO, Respondents.

Civ. A. 34079.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

December 30, 1957.

W. K. Griesbach and Walter M. Moldawer, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Jack G. Day, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

McNAMEE, District Judge.

In this proceeding, brought under favor of Section 160(l) of Title 29 U.S. C.A., petitioner prays for a temporary injunction restraining respondents from committing the alleged unfair practices described in the petition, pending final determination of the charges by the National Labor Relations Board.

This court has discretion to grant or withhold the relief requested, although it may not refuse such relief if the petitioner has shown reasonable cause to believe that the charges of unfair practices are true.

Simply stated, it is the petitioner's claim that respondents have engaged in a strike at the Cleveland plant of the Lindsay Wire Weaving Company and have been and are picketing both the Cleveland and Mentor, Ohio plants of the company with the object of forcing and requiring the company to assign "weavers' work" at its plant at Mentor, Ohio to weavers and apprentices, members of respondents' union rather than to unskilled loom operators, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D), Title 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(b) (4) (D).

The salient facts and events preceding and constituting the alleged unfair practices as disclosed at the hearing, are:

For many years the Lindsay Wire Weaving Company has been engaged in the manufacture of Fourdrinier wire cloth at its plant in Aspinwall Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio. Since 1920 all of its weaving has been done by members of the Ohio Division No. 2 of the American Wire Weavers' Protective Association pursuant to collective bargaining agreements periodically entered into by the company and the union.

In June, 1955 the company commenced the construction of a new plant at Mentor, Ohio, 25 miles east of its Aspinwall plant, for the purpose of manufacturing wire cloth. In November, 1955 the Executive Board of the national union, which is composed of representatives of the local unions throughout the country, including a representative from Division No. 2, received a proposal from the officers of the National Employers' Association suggesting consideration by the union of changes in future contracts relative to the classification of workers and rates of pay. In May, 1956 Lindsay informed local union representatives that the company intended to assign the operation of its looms at Mentor, Ohio to loom operators rather than to weavers and apprentices. In the summer of 1956 the union served notice on Lindsay of its intention to terminate the 1954 collective bargaining agreement upon its expiration on September 21, 1956. Thereafter, on September 14, 1956, and in order to avoid a strike, the company orally agreed to transfer weavers and apprentices from its Aspinwall plant to Mentor, when operations commenced at the latter plant and to continue in effect the provisions of the 1954 contract pending the execution of superseding agreements between the parties. At this time the general counsel for the national union promised the company that it would receive future concessions equivalent to concessions made by the union to the Appleton Company of Wisconsin and Montgomery, Alabama, with which company the union was then attempting to negotiate a contract. On December 13, 1956 the oral agreement of September 14, 1956 was reduced to writing. In this written statement Lindsay agreed to recognize the weavers' trade and to transfer union personnel from Aspinwall to Mentor pending the execution of new collective bargaining agreements. Accordingly, when operations commenced at Mentor, union members were transferred from Aspinwall to weave the wire cloth being manufactured at Mentor. In January, 1957 the union, being unable to conclude a satisfactory agreement with Appleton, called a strike at that company's plant. The union lost that strike. On July 22, 1957 the Lindsay Company sent a notice to the union advising that because of the latter's failure to grant concessions comparable to those enjoyed by Appleton, Lindsay proposed to adopt a new policy at Mentor on September 23, 1957, which would provide:

1. Different rates for new and larger looms which will be placed into production.

2. A new classification for men running looms.

3. The removal of all restrictions on experimental work.

4. Some departures from the present rules governing weavers' work.

5. The continuance of a temporary setup pending a full contract.

On September 9, 10 and 11, the parties met, together with representatives of other wire weaving companies and the National Executive Board of the union in an effort to arrive at collective bargaining agreements. On September 11, 1957 representatives of Lindsay restated to the general counsel of the union its purposes as expressed in its letter of July 22, 1957. The general counsel of the union thereupon stated that the union "would fight to its economic death" to prevent such a program from becoming effective. About a week later the Executive Board of the union notified all employers that further collective bargaining sessions would be held in New York on September 20, 1957. No representative of Lindsay appeared at this meeting. On September 21 the union called a strike. Immediately following the strike both the Cleveland and Mentor plants of the company were picketed and the picketing has continued to the present time. Lindsay's failure to send a representative to the meeting of September 20 was explained in a letter to the President of the union, which, however, was not received by him until after the strike was called. From the time of the oral agreement in September, 1956 until September 21, 1957 all of the weaving of wire cloth at the Mentor plant was done by members of the union who were temporarily transferred from Aspinwall. At the time of the strike, eight Aspinwall weavers were employed at Mentor, and according to the notice on the bulletin board of that plant, they were scheduled to continue working there during the week following the strike. It was not until after the strike was called that any one other than members of the respondents' union performed any weaving work at Mentor. It is clear that the parties were unable to consummate a new collective bargaining agreement because of the insistence of the union on one contract for both the Cleveland and Mentor operations which would provide for the same terms and conditions of employment at each plant, and the company's inflexible stand that separate and different agreements for each plant be consummated. The company consistently expressed its willingness to protect fully the rights of the union members employed at Aspinwall, and sought only to obtain concessions in respect of its operations at Mentor. The union viewed the company's proposal to classify its employees at Mentor as loom operators, etc., who would receive less wages for performing the same work as weavers, as a threat to its continued existence and as a portent of serious economic detriment to its members. According to F. L. Crossman, President of Lindsay, the work of weaving wire cloth involves eight separate operations, all of which are performed at Aspinwall by the same journeymen weavers and apprentices. These operations are: (1) winding-on the loom; (2) threading-in operation; (3) setting the looms; (4) starting the wire cloth; (5) timing and adjusting the loom; (6) weaving; (7) repairing weaving defects; and (8) the cutting-out operation. The first five operations are preparatory to the principal operation of weaving. Loom operators require two to four weeks training, and this work has been assigned at Mentor to unskilled workers at that plant. The winding-on and threading-in operations can be done properly only after 4-6 weeks training. This work has been assigned to "winding-on" men. The setting, starting, and timing operations require much greater skill, which can be acquired only...