SQUILLACOTE, ETC. v. LODGES 516 AND 2064, ETC.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-C-625.,78-C-625.
• Citation: 459 F. Supp. 371
• Parties: George SQUILLACOTE, Regional Director of the Thirtieth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LODGES 516 AND 2064, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and District 10, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

459 F. Supp. 371

George SQUILLACOTE, Regional Director of the Thirtieth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LODGES 516 AND 2064, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and District 10, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Respondents.

No. 78-C-625.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

October 31, 1978.

Stephen G. Katz, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner.

Goldberg, Previant & Uelmen, Matthew R. Robbins and Robert E. Gratz, Milwaukee, Wis. (Kenneth W. Black, Des Plaines, Ill., of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

The petitioner has moved for an injunction pursuant to 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), to enjoin the respondents' picketing and other conduct in support of an alleged unlawful secondary boycott pending final disposition of the labor controversy pending before the National Labor Relations Board (Board) between the respondent unions and Kelvinator Commercial Products, Inc. The motion will be granted.

The primary labor dispute is between the respondent unions and Kelvinator. The claimed secondary boycott is allegedly directed against Warehouse Terminal, Inc. (Warehouse), a public warehouse company where Kelvinator leases space, and also against other customers of Warehouse and common carriers transporting goods to and from Warehouse. On August 18, 1978, the unions' pickets appeared at the Warehouse entrance used by vehicles seeking access to the buildings in which Kelvinator products are stored. On August 29, 1978, Warehouse filed a charge with the Board claiming that the unions are engaging in a secondary boycott contrary to section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B), of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). The instant petition followed.

The petitioner contends that he has reasonable cause to believe that the defendants have engaged in a secondary boycott and that injunctive relief is proper. The respondent unions contend that Warehouse is a primary picket site for Kelvinator employees because "struck work" is being performed at Warehouse's facilities and because such facilities are inextricably tied to the normal operations of the struck Kelvinator plant.

The petitioner argues that even if Warehouse is a common situs at which picketing may take place, the unions' picketing fails to conform with the guidelines set forth in Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 N.L.R.B. 547, 549.

The district court's function in a section 10(1) petition case was set forth in Squillacote v. Graphic Arts International Union, 513 F.2d 1017, 1021 (7th Cir. 1975):

"On a section 10(l) petition, the district court is not called upon to decide the merits of an 8(b)(4) charge. The Board does this. The district court guided by equitable principles determines instead whether the Board has reasonable cause to believe the defendant has violated section 8(b)(4) of the Act. If the court finds reasonable cause, it must grant whatever injunctive relief `it deems just and proper.'"

With respect to factual matters, "the Regional Director faces a relatively insubstantial burden of proof" in a section 10(l) proceeding. Squillacote v. Graphic Arts International Union, 540 F.2d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 1976). The evidence need not establish a violation. Madden v. Int'l Hod Carriers' Building and Construction Trades Council, 277 F.2d 688, 692 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 863, 81 S.Ct. 105, 5 L.Ed.2d 86 (1960).

The major area of dispute is whether the primary employer, Kelvinator, has sufficient presence at Warehouse so that picketing at Warehouse is lawfully directed at the primary employer. The facts asserted in the parties' affidavits are not in dispute to a significant extent. The parties disagree, however, whether the facts establish a reasonable belief that a violation of section 8(b)(4) has occurred.

Kelvinator does not have significant storage facilities of its own. It rents space at Warehouse to store its raw materials and finished goods. Warehouse leases space to at least 6 other customers, but Kelvinator rents more space than any of the other customers and accounted for one-third of Warehouse's gross revenue in 1977.

Suppliers of raw materials for Kelvinator deliver directly to Warehouse. The raw materials are then loaded by Warehouse employees, at Kelvinator's expense, onto an independent transport company's trucks for delivery to Kelvinator. Periodically, a Kelvinator employee will pick up supplies at Warehouse. Each day, a Kelvinator official visits briefly at Warehouse with bills of lading for goods to be picked up for Kelvinator and for finished products to be delivered to purchasers. Kelvinator's finished products are transported to customers by independent common carriers.

When finished products come off the assembly line at Kelvinator's plant, defective goods are marked with red tags and transported along with the other goods to Warehouse because Kelvinator lacks space to store the defective goods. Each day, defective goods are returned to Kelvinator for repairs and then returned to Warehouse. At times, a crew of Kelvinator employees will be sent to Warehouse to do repairs or "rework" on units...