Roumell v. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF J. AND A.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 16586.
• Citation: 151 F. Supp. 706
• Parties: Thomas ROUMELL, Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF The PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF The UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO; LOCAL NO. 636, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and Tim McCarthy and William B. Kelley, its Agents, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

151 F. Supp. 706

Thomas ROUMELL, Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF The PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF The UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO; LOCAL NO. 636, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and Tim McCarthy and William B. Kelley, its Agents, Respondents.

Civ. A. No. 16586.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

May 9, 1957.

Order Amending Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, May 13, 1957.

Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, Winthrop A. Johns, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., William T. Little, Chief Law Officer, Region 7, Emil Farkas, Detroit, Mich., James F. Foley, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

A. L. Zwerdling, Detroit, Mich., and Martin F. O'Donoghue, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Fischer, Sprague, Franklin & Ford, Detroit, Mich. (by Leo I. Franklin and Leon R. Jones, Detroit, Mich.), for Detroit Edison Co.

H. T. Herrick, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Westinghouse Electric Corp. Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Kennedy, Detroit, Mich. (by William M. Saxton, Detroit, Mich.), for United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

THORNTON, District Judge.

Petitioner here seeks a temporary injunction against respondents Local 636, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 636, Tim McCarthy and William B. Kelley, its agents, pursuant to 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l).

Petitioner sets forth that on or about April 5, 1957 The Detroit Edison Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation filed an amended charge with the National Labor Relations Board (a charge originally having been filed on or about March 14, 1957) alleging that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of § 8(b) (4) (A) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4) (A). This charge was referred to petitioner, Regional Director, for investigation. Petitioner sets forth that, after a preliminary investigation, he has reasonable cause to believe that said amended charge is true and that a complaint of the Board should issue. He asks this Court to grant a temporary injunction pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to the matter.

A hearing on the said petition has been in progress for the past two weeks, during which time testimony has been adduced in support of the petition.

Findings of Fact

1. The Detroit Edison Company is a public utility corporation manufacturing and distributing electric power to consumers in the Detroit area, a number of which consumers are engaged in interstate commerce.

2. Westinghouse Electric Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of steam and gas turbines and related equipment, among other electrical wares.

3. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and engaged in the building and construction industry.

4. Local 636 is a local union member of the United Association, the members of said Local being employed by United Engineers for the performance of services.

5. United Engineers and Detroit Edison are parties to a contract whereby United Engineers agrees to perform the services for Detroit Edison necessary for the installation of the new turbine generating unit at the River Rouge plant of Detroit Edison.

6. Detroit Edison and Westinghouse Electric Corporation are parties to a contract whereby Westinghouse agrees to manufacture the complete turbine generating unit as a package.

7. The United Engineers and Local 636 are included as parties to a contract setting forth terms and conditions of employment, including the right of Local 636 to do the fabrication work on pipe of certain size and to refuse to work on pipe fabricated at a non-member union shop.

8. Respondents herein have induced and encouraged the employees of United Engineers to engage in a strike and a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle and work on materials and to perform services, an object being to force and require Detroit Edison to cease doing business with Westinghouse Electric.

9. The individual defendants are officers of Local 636.

10. United Engineers on and after January 21, 1957 has ordered their employee members of Local 636 to complete the installation of the instant piping.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Court has jurisdiction of the matter before it and of the parties. The Court concludes as a matter of law that the transactions here involved affect interstate commerce and in some part are in interstate commerce, and the parties have so stipulated.

2. The United Association named above in the title of this action has been dismissed as a respondent for lack of jurisdiction, by order of this Court dated April 29, 1957.

3. There is reasonable cause to believe that the charge of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(b) (4) (A) is true.

4. Appropriate injunctive relief shall issue.

Discussion

The evidence clearly shows that the employees of United Engineers have refused to install certain prefabricated pipe because they have been ordered to so refuse by respondents. The pipe is part of the "package" turbine unit manufactured by Westinghouse in fulfillment of its contract with Detroit Edison. United Engineers is bound under its contract with Edison to install this pipe. The pipe in question is prefabricated at Westinghouse by a non-member union. Local 636 refused and continues to refuse to install this pipe on the ground that such work by them is in violation of their clear contract rights, their contract with United Engineers stating that they have a right to so refuse.

Respondents argue that the "object" of the refusal is "self-help", protection of contract rights and other such concepts sounding in principle. The argument sounds high-minded and has much appeal. What, however, is the resolution of a conflict between agreement rights and statutory mandate? There is no issue raised here of unconstitutionality of the statute. There is no issue for us to decide as to the validity of the contract rights. All that is before this Court for decision is whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the conduct of responde...