Modern Transfer Co. v. Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730, Intern. Longshoremen's Ass'n

• Citation: 178 N.Y.S.2d 42,14 Misc.2d 687
• Parties: MODERN TRANSFER CO., Inc. and Ozone Trucking Co. Inc., Plaintiffs, v. INLAND TERMINAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1730, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Connie Noonan, individually and as President of Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730, International Longshoremen's Association, Olson Furey, individually and as Business Agent for Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730, International Longshoremen's Association and pickets in front of plaintiff's place of business, true names of said persons being unknown, Defendants.
• Decision Date: 07 July 1958
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New York)

Page 42

178 N.Y.S.2d 42

14 Misc.2d 687

MODERN TRANSFER CO., Inc. and Ozone Trucking Co. Inc., Plaintiffs, v. INLAND TERMINAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1730, INTERNATIONAL

LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Connie Noonan, individually and

as President of Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730,

International Longshoremen's Association, Olson Furey,

individually and as Business Agent for Inland Terminal

Workers Union, Local 1730, International Longshoremen's

Association and pickets in front of plaintiff's place of

business, true names of said persons being unknown, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Part I.

July 7, 1958.

Anthony N. Del Rosso, New York City, for plaintiff.

Thomas W. Gleason, New York City, for defendants.

THOMAS E. MORRISSEY, Jr., Justice.

In this action for a permanent injunction and for money damages, plaintiffs seek an injunction pendente lite restraining the defendants from picketing in front of the premises of plaintiffs and misrepresenting and creating the false impression that plaintiffs have 'locked out' members of its union and that its members are employees of plaintiffs and are on strike against plaintiffs. Defendants cross-move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 106, Rules of Civil Practice on the ground that it appears on the face thereof that the Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter. The complaint in substance alleges that plaintiffs are interstate carriers and have a contract with another union who represents all of their employees; that another corporation having its place of business in plaintiffs' terminal discharged its employees, members of defendant union, and defendants have picketed plaintiffs with the express purpose of forcing and coercing plaintiffs in recognizing defendant union and to commit an unlawful act in depriving their employees of the right to choose their own collective bargaining agents. Plaintiffs further allege that they have no relationship with the other corporation who had discharged its employees nor are any of their employees members of defendant union; that under such circumstances there is not and cannot be a labor dispute. There are no allegations that defendants have used any force or violence in their activities.

It is contended by defendants that since plaintiffs are concededly carriers of interstate commerce, the courts of this state are preempted of the right to entertain or try plaintiffs' action. While the Court is sympathetic with plaintiffs' plight and a different result might have been reached if plaintiffs were not engaged in interstate commerce (Goodwins, Inc., v. Hagedorn, 303 N.Y. 300, 101 N.E.2d 697, 32 A.L.R.2d 1019), the Court must under the circumstances presented herein sustain the contention advanced by the defendants.

Plaintiffs having charged defendants with unfair labor practices, the actions of defenda...