Schauffler v. LOCAL 1291, INTER. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASS'N

• Decision Date: 18 August 1960
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 28373.
• Citation: 188 F. Supp. 203
• Parties: Bennet F. SCHAUFFLER, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

188 F. Supp. 203

Bennet F. SCHAUFFLER, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. 28373.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

August 18, 1960.

Clifford M. Roth, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

EGAN, District Judge.

This cause came on to be heard upon the verified petition of Bennet F. Schauffler, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (herein called the Act), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l) pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein pending before the Board, and upon the issuance of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed in said petition. Respondent filed an answer to said petition. A hearing on the issues raised by the petition and answer was duly held on August 11 and 12, 1960. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issue, and to argue on the evidence and the law. The Court has fully considered the petition, answer, evidence, arguments, and briefs of counsel. Upon the entire record, the Court makes the following

Findings of Fact.

1. Petitioner is Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board, an agency of the United States, and filed the petition herein for and on behalf of the Board.

2. On or about July 26, 1960, Northern Metal Co. (herein called Northern), pursuant to the provisions of the Act, filed an amended charge to a charge originally filed with the Board on July 14, 1960, said amended charge alleging that Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association (herein called respondent), a labor organization, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii), subparagraph (D), of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4) (i, ii) (D).¹

3. The aforesaid charge and amended charge (Case No. 4-CD-51) were referred to petitioner as Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board.

4. There is, and petitioner has, reasonable cause to believe that:

(a) Respondent, an unincorporated association, is an organization in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.

(b) Respondent maintains its principal offices at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at all times material hereto respondent has been engaged within this judicial district in transacting business and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members.

(c) Northern is engaged at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the operation of a warehouse and terminal. In the course and conduct of its business Northern loads for shipment to foreign ports, and receives from foreign ports, motor vehicles, pursuant to contract with the United States Army. During the past year Northern received revenue in excess of $50,000 for services performed under the above mentioned contract.

(d) At all times material hereto, Local 14, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 14) has been certified by the Board as the collective bargaining representative of Northern's maintenance and production employees, and a collective bargaining agreement has been in effect between Northern and Local 14, covering the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of said employees.

(e) At all times material hereto, Northern has also had a collective bargaining agreement with respondent covering the employment by Northern of stevedoring gangs for the loading aboard and discharge from ships, of the aforesaid motor vehicles, as well as for the loading and discharge of general and other cargo.

(f) For the performance of its aforementioned contract with the United States Army, since about October, 1951, Northern has assigned to its employees who are members of, or represented by, Local 14, the work of moving the vehicles to and/or from the point where they are taken over or released from "the hook," and has assigned to employees who are members of, or represented by, respondent, the work of loading aboard or discharging from ships motor vehicles while they are being moved by "the hook."²

(g) Since on or about June 19, 1960, respondent has demanded that Northern assign the work of moving motor vehicles to and from the point where they are taken over or released from "the hook," to employees who are members of, or represented by respondent, which work Northern has assigned to employees who are members of, or represented by Local 14, as set forth in Findings of Fact 4(f) above.

(h) In furtherance of its demand referred to in Findings of Fact 4(g) above, since on or about June 19, 1960, respondent has refused to furnish stevedores to Northern both for the loading and unloading of motor vehicles, and for the loading and discharge of general cargo, and has ordered, instructed, directed and appealed to its members and persons represented by it not to work for Northern unless and until Northern assigned to employees who are members of, or represented by, respondent the work of moving vehicles to and from the point where such vehicles are taken over or released from "the hook."

(i) By the acts and conduct of respondent set forth in Findings of Fact 4 (h) above, and by other means, including orders, directions, instruction, requests and appeals, respondent has engaged in, and has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Northern, and by other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services, and has threatened, coerced and restrained Northern, and other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce.

(j) An object of the acts and conduct of respondent set forth in Findings of Fact 4(h) and (i) above, was and is to force and require Northern to assign the work of moving motor vehicles to or from the point where they are taken over by, or released from "the hook," to employees who are members of, or represented by, respondent, rather than to employees who are members of, or represented by, Local 14, or who are not members of, or represented by, respondent.

(k) The acts and conduct of respondent set forth in Findings of Fact 4(h), (i) and (j) above, occurring in connection with the operations of Northern, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to and do lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.

5. It may fairly be anticipated that, unless enjoined, respondent will continue and repeat the acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 4(h), (i) and (j) above, or similar or like acts and conduct.

Conclusions of Law.

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this proceeding, and under Section 10(l) of the Act is empowered to grant injunctive relief.

2. There is, and petitioner has, reasonable cause to believe that:

(a) Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5), 8(b) and 10(l) of the Act, 29 U.S. C.A. §§ 152(5), 158(b), 160(l).

(b) Northern is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

(c) Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii), subparagraph (D) of the Act, affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and a continuation of these practices will impair the policies of the Act as set forth in Section 1, 29 U.S. C.A. § 141, thereof.

3. To preserve the issues for orderly determination as provided in the Act, it is appropriate, just and proper that, pending the final disposition of the matters herein involved pending before the Board, respondent, its officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with it or them, be enjoined and restrained from the commission, continuation, or repetition, of the acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 4(h), (i) and (j) above, acts or conduct in furtherance or support thereof, or like or related acts or conduct the commission of which in the future is likely or may fairly be anticipated from respondent's acts and conduct in the past.

Discussion.

This proceeding is before the Court on a petition filed by the Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 149; 73 Stat. 544; 29 U.S. C.A. § 160(l)) (herein called the Act), for a temporary injunction pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein pending before the Board on an amended charge filed by Northern Metal Company (herein called Northern), alleging that respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4), subparagraph (D), of the Act, which section proscribes so-called jurisdictional disputes.

The petition is predicated on petitioner's conclusion that there is reasonable cause to believe respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practice charged and that a complaint of the Board based on the charge should issue. The prerequisite to the granting of relief under Section...