MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION, ETC. v. ASSOCIATED M. DEALERS

• Decision Date: 22 December 1941
• Docket Number: No. 2335.,2335.
• Citation: 42 F. Supp. 584
• Parties: MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION OF CHICAGO, LOCAL 753, et al. v. ASSOCIATED MILK DEALERS, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

42 F. Supp. 584

MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION OF CHICAGO, LOCAL 753, et al. v. ASSOCIATED MILK DEALERS, Inc., et al.

No. 2335.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

December 22, 1941.

David A. Riskind, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Pines, Stein & Beber, of Chicago, Ill., for Wrightwood Dairy Co.

Crouse & Campbell, of Chicago, Ill., for Borden Dairy Co.

Gann, Secord, Stead & McIntosh, of Chicago, Ill., for Sidney Wanzer Dairy.

Edward H. Murnane and James A. Harrington, both of Chicago, Ill., for Westen-United Dairy Co.

Arthur R. Seelig, of Chicago, Ill., for C. J. Wieland & Co.

Isadore Fried, of Chicago, Ill., for Capitol Dairy Co.

Montgomery, Hart, Pritchard & Harriott, of Chicago, Ill., for Bowman Dairy.

Packard, Barnes, Schumacher & Gilmore, of Chicago, Ill., for Colonial Milk Products and others, known as Associated Milk Dealers, Inc.

HOLLY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753, and James G. Kennedy, its vice-president, have filed herein, after an order had been entered that the original complaint did not state a case entitling plaintiffs to relief, what they call an "Amended complaint in Chancery" in which they seek to recover, for the benefit of individual members of the union, sums of money alleged to be due each such member as wages under the terms of an arbitration agreement entered into between the union and the employing corporations, some twenty-five employing corporations being named as defendants. It is alleged in the amended complaint that the suit is brought on behalf of 3,500 drivers, and that there is due each driver the sum of $7.08 per week for a period of fifteen weeks. The defendants have moved to dismiss.

The question presented by the motion to dismiss is whether the union may maintain this action to recover for the benefit of the individual members of the union the amount, if any, due each under the terms of the award of the arbitrators.

I am of the opinion that the union cannot maintain this action. It is the theory of the plaintiff that the agreement between the union and the employers constitutes a contract between them for the benefit of the members and that the union, as promisee in the contract, may maintain the action for the benefit of the members.

There can be little doubt that a labor union, though unincorporated, is a legal entity, and that it may maintain an action to enforce the provisions of, or to restrain the violation of, a contract entered into by it with an employer when the employer has breached, or is threatening a breach of, some provision which by the courts is deemed of consequence to the union as an organization and where an action by an individual member of the union would not lie.

Thus it has been held that an action would lie by the union to prevent the breach of an agreement for a closed shop¹ to restrain a lockout of union members² to restrain discharge of members of the union in violation of the agreement.³

In these cases there was a valid agreement between the union and the employer for the...