McNally v. Reynolds, 1052-1054.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 1052-1054.,1052-1054. |
| Citation | 7 F. Supp. 112 |
| Parties | McNALLY v. REYNOLDS et al. PUNG v. HOPE et al. LAMB v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Bayley & Croson, of Seattle, Wash., for complainants.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., for defendants.
This matter has been presented to the court in three similar cases on an order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue, restraining the Seattle Regional Labor Board, until the matter can be heard on the merits, from arranging an election for the employees of certain mines in Idaho to elect their representatives for collective bargaining with their employers under section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (15 USCA § 707 (a). Plaintiff's counsel limits consideration to his request "for a restraining order, restraining the Board from holding the elections as ordered," pending a full hearing before the court on the merits.
In order to warrant this temporary relief plaintiff must show immediate irreparable injury actual or threatened. U. S. v. Los Angeles & S. L. R. R. Co., 273 U. S. 299, 47 S. Ct. 413, 71 L. Ed. 651; Lawrence v. St. Louis-S. F. R. R. Co., 274 U. S. 588, 47 S. Ct. 720, 71 L. Ed. 1219; Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U. S. 160, 47 S. Ct. 553, 71 L. Ed. 978.
Plaintiff's principal grievance as disclosed by the complaint is that if the union (a certain labor union named in the complaint) is elected as a representative, he will not be able to bargain with his employer except through the union of which he is not a member. He does not allege that the union as a representative would in fact refuse to represent his interests or is threatening to disregard his interests, nor does he allege that he has a definite contract of service with his employer for a stated period that would be broken as the result of election of the union, nor that the board refuses to place any nominees on the ballot except the union. On the contrary, plaintiff's witness, Hope, testified positively that there were other nominees besides the union on the ballot as ordered, and that plaintiff and the other employees of the mines would have a choice among nominees on the ballot. Plaintiff does not allege that he would actually lose his job or would be accorded treatment different from that of his fellow employees as a result of the nomination and election of the union.
Plaintiff further objects that the union, being an artificial and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDermott v. Bradford, 531.
...States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, Bowen, District Judge, in the recent cases of McNally v. Reynolds, 7 F. Supp. 112, and Thomas v. Dennis, 8 F. Supp. But, as previously noted, plaintiff in his complaint in this action does not allege that he ha......
-
Thomas v. Dennis, 1063.
...from taking steps to enforce such orders will not lie. That, also, was the ruling of this court in the recent case of McNally v. Reynolds et al., 7 F. Supp. 112, syllabus 4. In the case at bar, plaintiffs do not allege that they could not assert the same objections made here as defensive me......