RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASS'N v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., Civ. No. 8199.
Decision Date | 21 December 1959 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 8199. |
Citation | 179 F. Supp. 564 |
Parties | RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNIONS NO. 128 AND 633, Plaintiffs, v. LION DRY GOODS, INC. and LaSalle's, a Division of R. H. Macy & Co., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Joseph E. Finley, Rudd, Ober, Finley & Miller, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
Merritt W. Green, Green & Kreutz, Toledo, Ohio, for defendants.
Plaintiffs filed this action in this Court pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185(a).
The amended complaint filed June 19, 1959 outlines two causes of action against the defendants, and prays in the first cause of action for an order of the Court requiring the defendants to permit non-employee representatives of plaintiffs to have access to areas of the stores of defendants, to wit, employees' cafeterias, which are not open to customers. In connection with the second cause of action, plaintiffs seek an order of the Court requiring the defendant LaSalle's to place two employees who were returned to work after the strike had ended on December 24, 1958, in their position classifications, and at the precise stations in the Men's Furnishings Department that they had occupied prior to the strike.
Attached to the amended complaint is Exhibit A, a letter from defendant LaSalle's to the chairman of the Toledo Labor-Management-Citizens' Committee, a Committee that had been engaged in mediating the differences between the respective parties and matters involved in the strike, which letter was accompanied with a "Statement of Understanding", with exhibits, all being offered to the Labor-Management-Citizens' Committee by the defendant LaSalle's.
There is also attached to the amended complaint Exhibit C, which is a letter from plaintiffs addressed to the Labor-Management-Citizens' Committee, in which they agree to the conditions and guarantees of the "Statement of Understanding".
There are also attached to the amended complaint Exhibits D, E and F, which are documents pertaining to defendant Lion Dry Goods, Inc., and which are comparable to the LaSalle exhibits heretofore referred to.
Under date of June 29, 1959, defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint, in which they set up three defenses, first, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, second, that the amended complaint fails to state a claim against either defendant upon which relief can be granted, and, third, that there is not in existence a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants or either of them, as contemplated by or provided for in the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, and particularly Section 301(a) thereof.
On October 15, plaintiffs filed their brief and, on October 26, defendants filed an answer brief. On November 2, plaintiffs filed a reply brief.
On November 6, in connection with oral argument, the parties filed a stipulation, which reads in part as follows (pages 2 and 3):
It appears that, in November of 1957, plaintiffs, who at some prior time had been the recognized bargaining agents for the Retail Associates, Inc., comprised of four downtown department stores in Toledo, Ohio, and including the two defendants herein, called a strike against the four members of the Retail Associates, Inc. During the period of the strike, from November of 1957 to December 24, 1958, plaintiffs were not and do not claim to have been and are not now the recognized majority representatives of the employees of defendants. They do not claim to have such rights. They admit that they do not represent a majority of the employees of the defendants, but they say that they do represent some employees and that because of this representation they are entitled to petition for the enforcement of a contract under Section 301(a).
A few days prior to December 24, 1958, a plan was advanced by the chairman of the Toledo Labor-Management-Citizens' Committee whereby it was suggested that, if defendant LaSalle's would reemploy the strikers, plaintiffs would disclaim that they represented a majority of the employees of defendants. At that particular time LaSalle's was the only store where workers were out on strike.
Upon the presentation to the Labor-Management-Citizens' Committee of the exhibits heretofore referred to and that are attached to the amended complaint, picketing ceased and the strike was declared off. Employees of defendant LaSalle's were restored to work in due course in accordance with the Statement of Understanding.
It appears now that the defendants refuse to permit certain representatives of plaintiffs to enter the employees' cafeteria for the purpose of soliciting membership. This the plaintiffs complain of in their first cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNAT'L ASS'N v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc.
...of the District Judge is reported at Retail Clerks International Association, Local Unions No. 128 and 633 v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., and LaSalle's, D.C., 179 F.Supp. 564. On appeal to the Court of Appeals this Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. This ruling, in the form of an ......
-
LOCAL 33, INT. HOD CARRIERS, ETC. v. MASON TENDERS, ETC.
...basis for construing Section 301(a) as applicable only to collective bargaining agreements, compare Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., D.C.N.D.Ohio, 1959, 179 F. Supp. 564, affirmed 6 Cir., 1960, 286 F.2d 235, certiorari granted 1961, U.S., 81 S.Ct. 1094; Sun Shipbuilding & ......
-
Retail Clerks International Association, Local Unions Nos 128 and 633 v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc, 73
...answering in the negative each of these questions. The District Court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, 179 F.Supp. 564, was affirmed in a brief per curiam by the Court of Appeals, saying: "The contract here involved is not a collective bargaining agreement b......
-
Green Truck Sales, Inc. v. Hoegh Lines
... ... Civ. No. 1264-57 ... United States District Court S ... of the provisions of the Carriage of Goods" By Sea Act, sometimes designated \"Cogsa\".2 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Resolving the Dispute: the Ninth Circuit Brings Side Agreements Into Scope in the Conflicts Over Arbitration in Inlandboatmens Union v. Dutra Group
...104. Retail Clerks, 369 U.S. 17, 18, 27-28 (1962). 105. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, Local Unions Nos. 128 & 633 v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 564, 565, 568 (N.D. Ohio 1959), aff'd, 286 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. granted, 366 U.S. 917 (1961), rev'd, 369 U.S. 17 (1962). 106. Retai......
-
Resolving the Dispute: the Ninth Circuit Brings Side Agreements Into Scope in the Conflicts Over Arbitration in Inlandboatmens Union v. Dutra Group
...104. Retail Clerks, 369 U.S. 17, 18, 27-28 (1962). 105. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, Local Unions Nos. 128 & 633 v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 564, 565, 568 (N.D. Ohio 1959), aff'd, 286 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. granted, 366 U.S. 917 (1961), rev'd, 369 U.S. 17 (1962). 106. Retai......