McLeod v. LOCAL 27, PAPER PRODUCTS & MISC. CHAUFFEURS, ETC.

Decision Date03 December 1962
Docket NumberNo. 62 C 1286.,62 C 1286.
Citation212 F. Supp. 57
PartiesIvan C. McLEOD, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 27, PAPER PRODUCTS & MISCELLANEOUS CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Jacques Schurre, New York City, for petitioner.

Cohen & Weiss, New York City, for respondent, by Samuel J. Cohen, New York City.

Alan Perl, New York City, for Local 381.

Poletti Freidin, Prashker & Harnett, New York City, for charging party, by Jesse Freidin, New York City (Murray Gartner, Richard H. Borow, New York City, on the brief).

ZAVATT, Chief Judge.

This is a petition by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.L.R.A."), 29 U.S. C. § 160(l), for a temporary injunction against the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Local 27"), restraining it from picketing the premises of Star Corrugated Box Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Star"), of Maspeth, Queens County, New York, and the premises of Pequot Manufacturing Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "Pequot"), of Glendale, Queens County, New York, pending a final disposition by the Regional Labor Board of a charge, now pending before said Board, that the Respondent is engaging in acts and conduct in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the N.L.R. A., 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (7) (A).

For the past fifteen to twenty years, employees of Star and Pequot have been represented by two labor unions as their respective bargaining agents. The inside employees have been represented by Local 381, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as "Local 381"). The outside employees, i. e., truck drivers and helpers have been represented by the Respondent, Local 27. Each of these Unions has negotiated contracts simultaneously not only with Star and Pequot but also with approximately twelve to fourteen other employers engaged in the same type of manufacturing within the New York Metropolitan Area. All contracts so negotiated by both Unions have always terminated on the same date. Contract negotiations by each Union have been conducted by and between the several employers, on the one hand, and the officers of each Union and a negotiating committee of the inside or outside employees of all of said employers, on the other hand. Such negotiations, therefore, have been joint. But separate contracts have been entered into between each such employer and each of said Unions.

The last contracts between all of said employers and each of said Unions expired August 31, 1962. Shortly before that date, each Union began negotiations with all of said employers looking toward new contracts. This petition relates only to the contract entered into between Local 381 and Star and Pequot. Numerous joint conferences were held with said employers by the President of Local 381, Mr. Cianciulli, its Vice President, Mr. Capese, and a twenty member employees' negotiating committee, five of whose members were Local 381 member employees of Star. Mr. Cianciulli had represented Local 381 in the negotiation of such contracts with said employers for over a period of approximately fifteen years. Star was represented by Henry F. Bayges, its Vice President, who similarly had so represented Star in negotiating such contracts with Local 381 over a period of many years.

Agreement was reached during the latter part of September 1962. The contract so negotiated resulted in increased and additional benefits to all of the inside employees of all of said employers. The conclusion of negotiations was marked by what witnesses have described as a little celebration on the part of all of those who had participated, including the members of the employee negotiating committee. One of these members, Anthony Legotti (now a leader of the dissident group of Star employees) joined in the festivities and admitted on the stand during the hearing on this petition that the contract so negotiated was a fair contract.

Nevertheless, at a meeting of Local 381 member employees held on Saturday, October 13, 1962, a vote was taken. It is not clear exactly on what question the vote was taken, i. e., whether to reject the contract and strike or merely to strike. In either event, the vote was 141 to 79, either against acceptance of the contract and in favor of a strike or merely in favor of a strike. Article XV of the Constitution of International Brotherhood (of which Local 381 is a member) provides, in part, as follows:

"Strikes and Lockouts
"SECTION 1. Any local having a grievance so serious that a strike appears to be necessary shall call a meeting, which has been well advertised, for the purpose of taking action on the same. It will require a two-thirds vote of all votes cast by secret ballot to carry a vote on striking.
This vote to become operative must receive the endorsement of the International Executive Board. To declare a strike off, after having been legally voted upon and endorsed by the Executive Board, a local must receive the approval of the International President-Secretary.
"SEC. 2. The Executive Board shall, in every case, exhaust every honorable means to settle trouble, even to submitting the same to a board of arbitration, should it be deemed advisable, before endorsing a strike.
"SEC. 3. The President-Secretary, with the approval of the International Executive Board, shall have the power to order any local or all locals out on strike, when, in the opinion of the International Executive Board, such a move is necessary. But the President-Secretary shall first exhaust every effort in his power to settle the trouble, or impending trouble, even to submitting the same to arbitration, should the International Executive Board deem it advisable."

Article I, Section 4, provides in part:

"In the International Brotherhood * * * alone is vested power to establish subordinate local unions, and members must obey its mandates at all times and under all circumstances."

On the afternoon of Saturday, October 13, 1962, the President of the International Brotherhood sent a telegram to Bernard Cianciulli, the President of Local 381, to the effect that "* * * the Executive Board of the International will not sanction a strike by the members of Local #381 employed by the Star Corrugated Company * * *."

On October 14, 1962, Local 381, by Bernard Cianciulli, executed several contracts with such employers, including Star and Pequot, all having identical terms theretofore agreed upon. On the following day several employees of Star began to picket the premises of Star. At some later date they also began to picket Pequot. The picketing of Pequot appears to have ceased the day before this Court signed an order to show cause with a temporary restraining order. The picketing of Star continued until that order was signed.

Local 27 appears to have come on the scene, in connection with this picketing, about two days after the picketing commenced. It made a demand upon Star for recognition of Local 27 as the bargaining agent of the inside employees, claiming that it had signed up about 100 of such Star employees. On October 15, 1962, approximately 97 inside employees of Star, acting through what they termed a "Star Box Decertification Committee," filed with the Regional Board a petition to decertify Local 381 as their bargaining representative. On November 20, 1962, the Board dismissed this petition:

"It does not appear that further proceedings are warranted inasmuch as the collective bargaining agreement currently in effect constitutes a bar to investigation of representatives at this time. * * *"

Local 27 began to picket Star on October 23 and Pequot on October 31 to compel those employers to recognize it as the bargaining representative of inside employees. Nothing in the record even suggests that an object of this picketing was related in any way to its negotiations in behalf of the outside employees.

On October 29, Local 27 filed a charge with the N.L.R.B. alleging that Star had violated Sections 8(a) (1, 2) of the N.L.R.A., 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1, 2).

"On and after October 6, 1962, the employer interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and contributed support to Local 381, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulfite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO in that the employer attempted to influence the employees to vote to accept contract proposals and subsequent to the vote attempted to force employees to change their votes from a vote in favor of a strike to a vote in favor of `no strike' and in that the employer signed a purported collective bargaining agreement with Local 381 after having been advised that the majority of employees of the employer had voted to reject such a contract."

On November 21, 1962, the Board refused to issue a complaint on these charges:

"As a result of the investigation, it appears that, further proceedings are not warranted at this time. The evidence adduced in support of the charge does not tend to establish that the above-named Company unlawfully attempted to influence its employees to vote to accept contract proposals, nor that it attempted to force employees to change their votes from a vote in favor of a strike to a vote in favor of `no strike', as charged. Further, it appears that on October 14, 1962, the company did, as alleged, sign a collective bargaining agreement with Local 381, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, and although it may have been informed that a majority of its employees had voted to reject such a contract, it nevertheless executed such an agreement at a
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • NLRB v. Acker Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 16, 1972
    ...10(j) injunctive hearing. Evans v. International Typographical Union, 76 F.Supp. 881 (S.D.Ind. 1948); McLeod v. Local 27, Paper Products & Misc. Chauffeurs, 212 F.Supp. 57 (E.D.N.Y.1962). While it is true that section 10(j) applications are frequently handled by affidavit, we find no signif......
  • Hernandez v. National Packing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • June 21, 1971
    ...Box, etc. Workers, 212 F.Supp. 639 (SDNY, 1962); Branch v. Vickers, Inc., 209 F.Supp. 518 (ED Mich., 1962); McLeod v. Local 27, Paper Products etc., 212 F.Supp. 57 (EDNY, 1962).3 1 In view of my ruling herein, it is not necessary to rule upon the additional grounds urged by defendants in th......
  • Penello v. Baltimore Litho. & Photoengravers Union
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 9, 1965
    ...Organization, etc., 7 Cir., 259 F.2d 312, 313-314 (1958); McLeod for and on behalf of N. L. R. B. v. Local 27, Paper Products & Misc. Chauffeurs, etc., E.D.N.Y., 212 F.Supp. 57, 62 (1962). 3 1. Petitioner is Regional Director of the Fifth Region of the Board, an agency of the United States,......
  • United States v. Ketchum
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 14, 1962
    ... ... charged with the misbranding of woolen products. The Government contended that each mislabeled ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT