Old Dutch Farms, Inc. v. MILK DRIVERS & DAIRY EMP. U. LOCAL 584

• Decision Date: 03 October 1963
• Citation: 222 F. Supp. 125
• Parties: In the Matter of the Arbitration of Controversies between OLD DUTCH FARMS, INC. and Cedar Lane Farms, Inc., Petitioners, and MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

222 F. Supp. 125

In the Matter of the Arbitration of Controversies between OLD DUTCH FARMS, INC. and Cedar Lane Farms, Inc., Petitioners, and MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Respondent.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

October 3, 1963.

Marcus, Maltinsky & Marcus, Brooklyn, N. Y., Herbert L. Maltinsky, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel, for petitioners.

Cohen & Weiss, New York City, Samuel J. Cohen, Herbert A. Levy, New York City, of counsel, for respondent.

ZAVATT, Chief Judge.

The petitioners, the respondent and other employers in the milk industry in the Metropolitan area entered into a contract, Milk Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement, effective October 24, 1961 to October 24, 1963. Petitioner, Old Dutch Farms, Inc., is a distributor of milk and milk products which it purchases from Balsam, a processor, and distributes to the ultimate consumer over door-to-door routes. Said petitioner maintains its office and garage at the premises occupied by Balsam. After the labor contract was entered into, and on May 5, 1962, this petitioner established a small cash and carry retail establishment at 1881 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. It was originally designated as a "milk depot" but is now styled a "milk store." It is equipped with refrigeration cabinets in which are stored milk and other milk products. It has some open shelf and counter space. At this store said petitioner sells milk and milk products, beer, soda, some baked goods, cold cuts and meat, coffee and other food items. It does not carry a full line of grocery store or delicatessen store items. Its employees consist of eight salesmen-drivers (who cover the door-to-door routes) and one transporter whose primary work is to deliver milk in bulk from the processor to said petitioner's store. Par. 66A of the labor contract provides that "It shall be a violation of this agreement for any party to said agreement to * * * establish, service, or deliver to depots for the purpose of distributing or selling milk." It excludes therefrom, however, "existing milk stations as of February 18, 1957."

A dispute having arisen between petitioner Old Dutch Farms, Inc. and the respondent as to whether the delivery of milk to this store by Old Dutch Farms, Inc. constituted a violation of Par. 66A, the issue was submitted to arbitration, upon the initiative of the respondent, pursuant to Par. 16(a) of the labor contract which provides as follows:

"16. (a) Any and all disputes and controversies arising under or in connection with the terms or provisions of this agreement, or in connection with or relating to the application or interpretation of any of the terms or provisions hereof, or in respect to anything not herein expressly provided but germane to the subject matter of this agreement, which the representatives of the Union and the Employer have been unable to adjust, shall be submitted for arbitration to an arbitrator selected from a list of arbitrators to be furnished by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in each case. If no arbitrator on such list is mutually acceptable to the parties, the arbitrator shall be designated by the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or his duly authorized designee. In the event that a party to this Milk Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement invokes the arbitration provisions of this Agreement with regard to an issue that has previously been decided by arbitration after October 24, 1961, in a case involving the same local union, and unsuccessfully prosecutes said arbitration, the arbitrator's fee and such other costs as the arbitrator may determine shall be assessed by the arbitrator against such party, provided that a copy of the first arbitration award has been served upon the other party by the party invoking arbitration before proceeding to arbitration and provided that each local union has sent to the Greater New York and Northern New Jersey Milk Dealers Labor Committee a copy of every arbitration award rendered after October 24, 1961 in a case in which it was a party.

"The decision of the arbitrator so selected or designated shall be final and binding upon the parties. The fees and expenses of the arbitrator in such cases shall be borne equally by the parties."

Hearings before arbitrator Moskowitz were held on March 4, 13 and May 22, 1963, during which 170 pages of transcript were taken, and the proceeding was adjourned to June 4, 1963. Before the adjourned date the respondent went on strike and picketed the Balsam premises. Old Dutch Farms, Inc. filed a charge against respondent under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (4) (i), (ii) (B), claiming that the strike against Balsam was an illegal secondary boycott for the purpose of forcing Balsam to refuse to sell milk to Old Dutch Farms, Inc.

In a proceeding instituted in this court by the National Labor Relations Board against the respondent, 63-C-748, seeking an injunction, Judge Dooling conducted a hearing, concluded that the respondent's acts were primary strike action against both Balsam and Old Dutch Farms, Inc. and denied the petition for an injunction in an opinion filed August 6, 1963. The actual strike at the Balsam premises lasted for only a few hours when Balsam agreed with the respondent to discontinue selling milk to Old Dutch Farms, Inc. In view of the strike the hearing before the arbitrator set for June 4th was adjourned sine die. On August 6th the arbitrator set August 27th as the date for the next hearing. Old Dutch Farms, Inc. appeared but respondent failed to appear on that day. On August 28th the petitioners filed a petition in the Supreme Court, Queens County, New York, for an order directing respondent to proceed with the arbitration and, pending a determination therein, for a stay of any other arbitration proceedings before any other arbitrator on the same issue as between the respondent and any other signatory to the said labor agreement. Simultaneously, it obtained an order to show cause, dated August 28, 1963 returnable September 5, 1963 with a stay of "all proceedings on the part of the respondent to arbitrate the same or similar issues with any other signatory to the collective bargaining agreement before any other arbitrator be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this proceeding." It should be noted that, at some time subsequent to the initiation by the respondent of the Old Dutch Farms, Inc. arbitration proceeding, another arbitration proceeding before Theodore Kheel had been initiated, involving the same issue as to milk depots and Par. 66A of the contract, between two other signatories thereto (Hegeman Farms Corp. and Holland Farms, Inc.) and the respondent as well as two other locals of the same union, Local 602 and Local 607. Invitations were extended by the respondent (and possibly by the other two locals as well — although this is not clear from the papers before me) to approximately fifteen signatories to the agreement, including petitioner, to intervene in the Kheel arbitration.

Before the return day of the order to show cause, respondent removed the proceeding to this court claiming that it arose under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).¹ Simultaneously, respondent filed a motion in this court, returnable the day before the return day of the order to show cause in the state court, for an order vacating the temporary restraining order of the state court dated August 28, 1963. Petitioner questions the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter and therefore the propriety of the removal to this court. It claims that this is not a suit nor is it grounded in a breach of contract between an employer and a labor organization and, therefore, that this court does not have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a); that it is not a civil action of which this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); that this proceeding should be remanded to the state court; that, if this court does have jurisdiction, it should continue the stay granted by the state court.

This court has original jurisdiction if the matter (now here on removal) is a suit for violation of a labor contract in an industry affecting interstate commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The petition of respondent in the state court does not allege that either Old Dutch Farms, Inc. or Cedar Lane Farms, Inc. is an employer engaged in interstate commerce. However, the removal petition does so allege and that allegation is not denied. As a general rule this court looks only to the complaint to determine the presence of a federal question. Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936). In cases removed from a state court to a United States District Court upon the ground that it has original jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), a line of cases in this Circuit holds that it is permissible to look to the removal petition to determine if the industry is one "affecting commerce." Minkoff v. Scranton Frocks, Inc., 172 F.Supp. 870, 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Whether or not this is a suit for violation of a labor contract, within 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), is determined by reference to the plaintiff's claim. Minkoff v. Budget Dress Corp., 180 F.Supp. 818 (S.D.N.Y.1960). Who, then, is the plaintiff in the instant case? This question has been considered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Monte v. Southern Delaware County Authority, 212 F.Supp. 604 (E.D.Pa.1963); Victorias Milling Co. v. Hugo Neu Corp., 196 F.Supp. 64 (S.D.N. Y.1961); Hall v. Sperry Gyroscope Co. Div. of Sperry Rand Corp., 183 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Application of Rosenthal-Block China Corp., 183 F.Supp. 659 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Minkoff v. Budget Dress Corp., supra. In ...