J. Radley Metzger Co. v. Fay

• Decision Date: 17 September 1957
• Citation: 4 A.D.2d 436,166 N.Y.S.2d 87
• Parties: , 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 33 Lab.Cas. P 70,952 J. RADLEY METZGER CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles FAY, President of Local 485, of the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, an unincorporated association of more than seven (7) members, Wallace Eisenberg, individually and as business agent of said Local 485, Manuel Pagan, Eileen Catroni, Dorothy Merz, Anna Marie Manzon, Lidia Caballero, Carmen Figueroa and Antonio Diaz, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 87

166 N.Y.S.2d 87

4 A.D.2d 436, 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639,

33 Lab.Cas. P 70,952

J. RADLEY METZGER CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles FAY, President of Local 485, of the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, an unincorporated association of more than seven (7) members Wallace Eisenberg, individually and as business agent of said Local 485, Manuel Pagan, Eileen Catroni, Dorothy Merz Anna Marie Manzon, Lidia Caballero, Carmen Figueroa and Antonio Diaz, Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Sept. 17, 1957.

Irving Abramson, New York City, attorney (Everett E. Lewis, New York City, of counsel, Melvin Warshaw, on the brief), for defendants-appellants.

Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole, New York City, attorneys, Samuel Gottlieb, New York City, of counsel (Harry Giesow, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before PECK, P. J., and RABIN, FRANK, VALENTE, and McNALLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction restraining them from picketing plaintiff's premises, and denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency.

Plaintiff operates a plastic manufacturing company employing approximately 65 to 70 employees. In April, 1953, plaintiff entered into a collective agreement with Local 229 of the United Textile Workers of America (hereinafter called 'Local 229') as a representative of all of its employees. That agreement was extended on December 12, 1956 for a period ending October 1, 1958.

It appears that in August, 1957 press reports of testimony given before a United States Senate Committee conducting hearings on improper labor practices indicated that officers of Local 229 had been involved in the consummation of so-called 'sweetheart contracts' with employers. Immediately thereafter plaintiff's employees joined the defendant union, Local 485 of the International Union of Electric Radio and Machine Workers (hereinafter called 'Local 485'). On August 21, defendants began picketing plaintiff's place of business carrying signs reading: 'On strike for clean unionism.' The order appealed from has called a halt to such picketing pendente lite.

The Judge at Special Term concluded that the controversy herein presented 'a struggle between two rival unions for the privilege of representing plaintiff's employees.' If that be the case, then in view of an existing agreement with Local 229, the picketing would have an unlawful objective, and no 'labor dispute' would be involved preventing the issuance of an injunction. See Wood v. O'Grady, 307 N.Y. 532, 122 N.E.2d 386; Goodwins, Inc., v. Hagedorn, 303 N.Y. 300, 101 N.E.2d 697, 32 A.L.R.2d 1019.

But defendants disclaim that this is a conflict engendered by mere rivalry between unions. They aver that plaintiff, in collusion with Local 229 had entered into a 'sweetheart contract' which ignored the legitimate rights and interests of the employees and had for its sole purpose the subjugation and exploitation of the employees. Plaintiff vehemently denies any participation in a collusive 'sweetheart contract'.

There is a presumption of validity and legality which attaches to the contract between plaintiff and Local 229. Defendants contend that the averments of their affidavits have completely destroyed and foundation for continued recognition of that presumption in this case.

We believe that the controverted assertions in defendants' affidavits directed towards that end cannot be evaluated effectively at this stage of the action; and that the truth or falsity of the charges can only be determined after a full development of the facts upon a trial.

The charge is levelled against plaintiff of committing unfair labor practices, making the strike in plaintiff's plant one for a lawful objective. The courts are without jurisdiction to adjudicate unfair labor practices. Nor may we, on affidavits alone, deprive plaintiff of relief on any theory of coming into court without 'clean hands'. The case of Mastro Plastics Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 350 U.S. 270, 76 S.Ct. 349, 100 L.Ed. 309, relied on by defendants is of no material assistance, since there the decision was rendered after full hearings and the making of detailed findings on the charges.

The denial of Local 485 of any present intention to be recognized as the bargaining representative of the striking employees must be weighed with the admission that the employees have become members of that union. We must...