Slater v. DENVER BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUN.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1948
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2522.
• Citation: 81 F. Supp. 490
• Parties: SLATER v. DENVER BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

81 F. Supp. 490

SLATER v. DENVER BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, et al.

Civ. A. No. 2522.

United States District Court D. Colorado.

September 28, 1948.

Sanfjord B. Teu, of Washington, D. C., and James K. Sullivan, of Denver, Colo., of the National Labor Relations Board, for petitioner.

Philip Hornbein, Jr., of Hornbein & Hornbein, all of Denver, Colo., for respondents.

SYMES, District Judge.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, conspiring as an unincorporated trade council, and certain labor unions in the City and County of Denver named as defendants, are a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act — I suppose that means the Taft-Hartley Act, and they are engaged in the promotion and protection of the interests of the unions and their employees within this judicial district. 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(5).

It is then alleged that Grauman Company, a Colorado corporation, filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that respondents — that is, the unions, supra, — had been engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act; and the said charges were thereafter referred to petitioner, Cyrus A. Slater, Acting Regional Director of the Seventeenth Region, an officer of the National Labor Relations Board, who petitions this Court on behalf of the Board pursuant to the Act for appropriate injunctive relief pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to the matters pending before the Board on charges of alleging that respondents are engaged in the practice, conduct and violation of the Act.

It is then alleged the charges were investigated by the petitioner and that he has reasonable cause to believe, after his investigation, the charges are true and that a complaint should issue based thereon against respondents.

The petition then sets forth certain facts. The principal one with which we are concerned here is on page 3(a). This alleges that one Grauman, a Colorado corporation, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, filed charges with the Board alleging that the respondents are engaged in unfair labor practices.

Specifically it says:

"Grauman is engaged in Colorado in the business of manufacturing, selling and sometimes in the installation of soda fountains and fixtures for stores and restaurants, and in the operation of the business in the year 1947 Grauman purchased approximately $150,000 of raw materials, of which $100,000 or 66 per cent were purchased from sources outside the State of Colorado.

"During the same period the value of the finished products manufactured and sold by Grauman was approximately $300,050, of which in excess of $100,000 or 35 per cent represents sales outside of Colorado and in foreign countries."

There were other instances of violation in respect to other purchases of soda fountains and grills changed, and other work from the Grauman Company and that other people — subcontractors, I suppose you might call them — contracted with certain people in Denver to make plumbing installations for the soda fountains and grills, and still others to do electrical work for the installation of the soda fountains and grills.

Some of the subcontractors began to perform the said work along in the latter part, or the middle of 1948.

The petition says the respondents have engaged in and by instructions, threats of reprisals and promises, have induced and encouraged employees of the Acme and employees of other firms to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle work on any goods, works, articles, or to perform services for their employers, the object there being to force or require Quigley and other persons to cease doing business with Grauman.

Among other acts complained of is that Grauman is listed as unfair, and thereby has caused members of the union to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services for Grauman in order to require the employers to cease doing business with Grauman.

Other acts are set forth where members of the unions have been induced to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services for their employers on other jobs in order to require the subcontractors to cease doing business with Grauman. That unless these acts or conduct on the part of the labor unions are enjoined, there is likelihood that the respondents will repeat the acts, and that it is necessary for the purpose of effectuating the policies of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 thereof, that temporary injunction be issued, pending the final adjudication of the Board, enjoining and restraining respondents and each of them from the commission of the acts above alleged, or similar acts or repetition thereof.

Upon the filing of petition an order to show cause was issued and this hearing today is on this petition to show cause.

The matter has been argued and the Court is now ready to express its views thereon. This question of what is interstate commerce and what is not in a situation like this is a very close question and the Court has had this matter up in a previous case less than six months ago, entitled, Sperry, Regional Director of the Seventeenth Regional National Labor Relations Board, v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, decided March 30, 1948, by this Court, and reported in 77 F.Supp. at page 321.

That case is still the law....