Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat and Allied Food Workers

Decision Date13 April 1976
Docket NumberAFL-CIO,75-1563 and 75-1379,R,AFL-CI,75-1378,Nos. 75-1377,s. 75-1377
Citation534 F.2d 735
Parties92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,408 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-Appellee, v. LOCAL 248, MEAT & ALLIED FOOD WORKERS, affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,espondent-Appellant. 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-Appellee, v. LOCAL 248, MEAT & ALLIED FOOD WORKERS, affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Irving M. King, Robert H. Nichols, Chicago, Ill., for respondents-appellants.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Joseph E. Mayer, Michael Josserand, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner-appellee.

Before RIVES, Senior Circuit Judge, * and SWYGERT and PELL, Circuit Judges.

PELL, Circuit Judge.

In issue in this appeal is the propriety of the district court's grant of injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). Also in issue is the propriety of the district court's findings of civil contempt for violations of its temporary restraining order and injunction.

The present proceedings arose out of a labor dispute between the defendant union 1 The petition alleged jurisdiction under section 160(j) and sought a temporary restraining order pending a hearing at a time set by the court for the Union to show cause why an injunction should not be entered. The petition alleged that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Union restrained and coerced employees of the Association in the exercise of their rights "by engaging in violence and threats of violence against nonstriking employees of the Association, supervisory personnel of the Association; blocking of ingress and egress at the premises of Association members; damaging the property of the Association, of nonstriking employees of the Association, and of supervisory personnel; following the vehicles of nonstriking employees and by other conduct . . . ." The petition then indicated when and where the various illegal acts took place but did not identify the participants by name. Sixty-four affidavits were filed to support the allegations in the petition. Finally, it was alleged that upon information and belief it might fairly be anticipated that the illegal acts would continue unless enjoined. The Board moved the court to consider the request for injunctive relief without oral argument or an evidentiary hearing after the Union had an opportunity to file an answer, affidavits, and memoranda.

and the Milwaukee Independent Meat Packers Association resulting in an economic strike by the Union. On January 28, 1975, the Association filed an amended unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Union was unlawfully restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in 29 U.S.C. § 157 by threatening and committing violent acts. The Association alleged that these acts violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). Following an investigation of the charge, the Board's Regional Director concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Union was engaging in unlawful activities. On February 7 he notified the Union by telephone of his intention to seek injunctive relief and on February 10 issued a complaint and filed a petition with the district court.

Immediately upon filing the petition, counsel for the Board appeared before Judge Warren and orally requested the entry of a temporary restraining order. Counsel for the Union was present; but since the Union had not been served, the matter was continued until February 11 at 4:15 p. m. The Union was served at approximately 11:50 a. m. on February 11, although counsel for the Union had been given a courtesy copy of the documents the previous day.

At the hearing on February 11, the Union moved for the scheduling of an evidentiary hearing on the grounds that it was required by statute. This motion was denied, and the Union then moved to postpone the hearing until February 13 on the grounds that the Union had not been given reasonable notice so that it could properly defend. This motion was denied and so was a motion to strike the affidavits and exhibits filed by the Board. After hearing arguments of counsel, the court found that it had jurisdiction to enter a temporary restraining order, that there was "rather clear evidence of gross violations of human rights, to say nothing of the unfair and improper labor practices," that there was widespread violence which had not been controlled, that the violence was apparently continuing, and that there was imminent danger that additional, substantial, and irreparable injury would result if the Union were permitted to continue its actions pending a hearing on the petition. The judge indicated that he would enter an order but invited discussion on how long it should last before a hearing was held on the temporary injunction.

Counsel indicated that the Board could submit a brief within three days, but counsel for the Union indicated that he wished the opportunity for discovery before the hearing. Counsel for the Union also raised the problem of the ten-day time limit in Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 for temporary restraining orders. The court indicated that it did not believe it was bound by the ten-day time limit in Rule 65 because the proceedings were not ex parte but that the order would Counsel for the Board renewed his motion that the injunction issue be determined on the basis of affidavits and memoranda rather than on an evidentiary hearing but indicated that the Board would be willing to stipulate to the admission of the transcript of the hearing to be held before an administrative law judge on the merits of the case. The court indicated that it would wait until after receiving the briefs to determine whether an evidentiary hearing would be held.

indicate that the Union's request for discovery was a good cause for the extension.

The court entered an order enjoining the Union, its officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with it from committing various specified acts and from "in any other manner restraining or coercing employees of the Association or other persons seeking to do business with the association in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed under Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157) of the Act." It also ordered the Union to provide specific instructions to its members and representatives to refrain from such acts. The order established a briefing schedule and was by its terms to run until February 28. The following day the order was reduced to writing by the court with minor changes in form. The mandatory portion of it is set forth in an appendix to this opinion. On February 24 the Union filed a notice of appeal regarding this order. This appeal is No. 75-1377.

A hearing was convened on February 28. Various documents had been filed including an answer to the petition, memoranda of law, and a renewed motion by the Union for an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing the Board moved to extend and broaden the temporary restraining order to limit the number of pickets. Counsel for each of the parties then stated their views at some length. The court denied the motion to expand the scope of the restraining order; scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction for March 7; determined that the hearing would be based on the transcript of the hearing before the administrative law judge, the briefs of the parties, and their arguments; and extended the original restraining order through March 14. On February 28 the Union filed a notice of appeal regarding this extension. This appeal is No. 75-1378.

On March 5 the Regional Director filed a petition for civil contempt against the Union; Edmund Bobrowicz, the Union's financial secretary-treasurer; Harding Bond, Union President; Larry Pultz, Mike Bobich, and Oscar Smith, picket captains; and all other persons acting in concert with the Union. The petition alleged that the persons involved had knowledge of the restraining order and that the order was in full force and effect. The petition charged the individuals with various acts restrained by the order and the Union with failing to give the members instructions as required by the order. The petition prayed for an order directing the parties to comply with the restraining order and for such other relief as the court deemed proper. At the beginning of the hearing on the restraining order, Board counsel suggested that the court order fines against the Union and the named individuals for each future violation. The Respondents sought a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692, but the Court denied this motion. An evidentiary hearing was held on the civil contempt issues which lasted four days. At the conclusion of the hearing on March 20 the court entered an order detailing findings of facts and conclusions of law. The court found that picket captains are picket line agents of the Union, that the named picket captains had received notice of the terms of the restraining order, and concluded that they were acting in contempt of the order. The court ordered them removed from the picket line for the remainder of the period the restraining order covered. The specific conduct the court found to violate the restraining order included: recording license plate numbers of nonstriking employees and job applicants; blocking the entrance and pounding with hands upon vehicles; threatening named persons by, e. g., telling them that a former job applicant no longer had any legs, and As indicated earlier, a hearing on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • American Can Co. v. Mansukhani
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • August 10, 1984
    ... ... See Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers, 534 ... ...
  • Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1979
    ... ... United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Moving Party and Appellant ... 2d 622, 626, [89 Cal.App.3d 666] 627; Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Wkrs. (7th Cir ... ...
  • Hendrix For and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 571
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 7, 1979
    ... ... 8 Squillacote v. Inter. Broth. of Teamsters, Local 344, 561 ... 1976); Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat and Allied Food Wkrs., 534 F.2d 735, 741-42 ... 1974), Quoting Kennedy v. Sheet Metal Workers Inter. Assn. Local 108, 289 F.Supp. 65, 91 ... ...
  • In re Richard Potasky Jeweler, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 93-31896
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • March 31, 1998
    ... ... consequent upon business misfortunes.'" Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 244, 54 S.Ct ... 1297, 1299 (6th Cir.1988) (quoting Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers, 534 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT