Steinberg v. Mendel Rosenzweig Fine Furs, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 September 1957
• Parties: Application of Herman STEINBERG, as Chairman of Furriers Joint Council of New York, Petitioner, for a warrant of Attachment v. MENDEL ROSENZWEIG FINE FURS, Inc., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 685

167 N.Y.S.2d 685

9 Misc.2d 611

Application of Herman STEINBERG, as Chairman of Furriers Joint Council of New York, Petitioner, for a warrant of Attachment v. MENDEL ROSENZWEIG FINE FURS, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

Sept. 17, 1957.

Harold I. Cammer, New York City (Ralph Shapiro, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

Butler, Bennett, Fitzpatrick & DeSio, New York City, for respondent.

JACOB MARKOWITZ, Justice.

Petitioner moves to punish respondent for its wilful disobedience to appear, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the arbitrator in proceedings pending before him between the parties, and for a direction that a warrant issue for apprehension of respondent and appearance before the arbitrator.

Respondent contends that it is engaged in interstate commerce and is therefore within the ambit of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and that by recent decisions in the United States Supreme Court, federal legislation has preempted the state courts' jurisdiction by placing exclusive jurisdiction over the collective contracts here invoked in the federal courts. Respondent cites the following cases as authority for its position (Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 923, 1 L.Ed.2d 972; Goodall-Sanford, Inc., v. United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L. Local 1802, 353 U.S. 550, 77 S.Ct. 920, 1 L.E.2d 1031; General Electric Co. v. Local 205, United Electrical, etc., 353 U.S. 547, 77 S.Ct. 921, 1 L.Ed.2d 1028). It has accordingly cross-moved here to dismiss this application and to dismiss the pending arbitration proceedings.

The pending arbitration proceeding is in effect by virtue of an order of this court entered in February of this year upon a decision (sub nom. In re Furriers Joint Council of N. Y., Greenberg, J., N.Y.L.J., Feb. 19, 1957, p. 6, col. 5), denying respondent's motion to stay the arbitration. There, respondent advanced, among other things, the same contentions urged herein, regarding the want of state jurisdiction under federal law. No appeal was taken from said order and the arbitration proceeded thereunder.

Study of the aforestated decisions convinces me that respondent's reliance thereon is untenable. All that the cited cases held was that the plaintiffs there entitled to specific performance of the agreement to arbitrate and that the federal courts had the power to apply federal substantive law in determining the issue. The United States Supreme Court did not have before it, and therefore did not decide, the question whether the federal courts alone had jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration provisions of collective bargaining agreements.

The Supreme Court decisions and associated cases decided only that where parties engaged in interstate commerce resort to the federal forum, section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 185) confers jurisdiction, and as a result of such choice of forum the federal substantive law governs. Nothing is indicated which leads to a conclusion that under such circumstances, federal jurisdiction is exclusive or that federal legislation has preempted the state courts of jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements when the matter is there presented. See Rock Drilling, etc., Union No. 17 v. Mason & Hanger Co., 2 Cir., 217 F.2d 687; Signal-Stat Corp. v. Local 475, etc., 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 298; Shirley-Herman Co. v. International Hod Carriers, etc., Union No. 210, 2 Cir., 182 F.2d 806.

Were we to accept respondent's argument here, the doctrine of supersession of state laws by federal laws would automatically apply whenever state and federal governments legislate in the same interstate field.

The circumstances under which such a doctrine would apply are outlined in Commonwealth...