Parade Publications, Inc. v. Philadelphia Mailers U. No. 14, 71-1107.
Decision Date | 01 May 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1107.,71-1107. |
Citation | 459 F.2d 369 |
Parties | PARADE PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. PHILADELPHIA MAILERS UNION NO. 14 et al., Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Bernard N. Katz, Meranze, Katz, Spear & Bielitsky, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
David H. Marion, Harold E. Kohn, P. A., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before ADAMS and JAMES ROSEN, Circuit Judges, and STAPLETON, District Judge.
The defendant unions ("the unions") appeal from a final judgment below which enjoined work stoppages by them at the premises of the plaintiff employer, Parade Publications, Inc. ("Parade"). Parade initially filed a verified complaint and affidavit in a state court; a temporary restraining order was entered. The unions removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and a hearing was held on Parade's application for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction was entered. On November 30, 1970 defendants stipulated to the entry of a final decree. The final paragraph of the stipulation provided:
Parade's complaint did not allege that there was a dispute between the parties which they were bound to arbitrate under the terms of an existing collective bargaining agreement. It alleged that "no labor dispute exists between plaintiff and defendants nor is there a labor dispute between plaintiff and its employees." The complaint asserted, however, that the strike was in violation of "no strike" clauses in existing collective bargaining agreements between the parties and should be enjoined. The unions, at the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction, represented to the court that there was a dispute which gave rise to the strike and characterized it as follows:
"It actually arises out of the fact that Parade Publications, which is the plaintiff in this case, has entered into some sort of arrangement via a dummy corporation known as Diversified Printing out in Chester in which it has kept the unions which are involved here totally, absolutely in the dark, refused to allow their members to apply for work out in the Diversified operation and which Parade ultimately views as being the overall printing effort of the Parade-Diversified structure, the net result being that employment at Parade will disappear and employment at other similar enterprises throughout the country will disappear into a plant that will be represented by an organization other than these two organizations and which will be manned by people other than members of these two organizations."
During the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction, the following exchange occurred between the court and counsel:
No testimony was taken at the hearing and no affidavits were submitted pertaining to the cause of the strike.
The unions assert that the underlying "issues relate to the representation, recognition and hiring problems at a physically separate corporate subsidiary" of Parade. They argue that there was no finding by the court below that these issues were subject to the arbitration procedures of the collective bargaining agreements and state that "it would seem that they were not so subject." In the absence of such a finding, the unions maintain that this case does not come within the doctrine announced in Boys Market, Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Union, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L. Ed.2d 199 (1970), and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprived the lower court of jurisdiction to act as it did.1
In connection with this contention, the unions emphasize the following admonition of the Supreme Court in the Boys Market case:
398 U.S. at 254, 90 S.Ct. at 1594.
Parade, on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America
...Inc. v. Automotive Chauffeurs Local 926, 3 Cir. 1974, 502 F.2d 321 (en banc). But see Parade Publications, Inc. v. Philadelphia Mailers Union Local 14, 3 Cir. 1972, 459 F.2d 369, 374; United States Steel Corp. v. UMWA, 3 Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 483, 487. We reject the reasoning of these cases b......
-
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. N.L.R.B., AFL-CIO-CL
...30, 200--01 (1970). In our prior decisions, we have sought to adhere to these principles. Parade Publications, Inc. v. Philadelphia Mailers Union No. 14, 459 F.2d 369, 374 (3d Cir. 1972), recognized the limitation to Boys Markets, namely 'that arbitration should be encouraged by permitting ......
-
Latrobe Steel Co. v. UNITED STEELWORKERS, ETC., Civ. A. No. 75-1120.
...requirement that an arbitrable dispute must cause the strike before injunctive relief is proper in Parade Publications, Inc. v. Philadelphia Mailers Union, 459 F.2d 369 (3d Cir. 1972), and in United States Steel Corp. v. Mine Workers, 456 F.2d 483 (3d Cir. In citing these cases, the union i......
-
NAPA Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Automotive Chauffeurs, Parts and Garage Emp., Local Union No. 926, 73-1798
...on the merits then arbitration would have had no effect on the work stoppage.13 As this Court stated in Parade Publications, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 459 F.2d 369 (3d Cir. 1972):'We read (Boys Markets) to indicate that arbitration should be encouraged by permitting judicial enforcement of a 'n......