Styles v. LOCAL 74, ETC., 1177.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 1177.,1177. |
| Citation | 74 F. Supp. 499 |
| Parties | STYLES v. LOCAL 74, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Robert N. Denham, David P. Findling, Winthrop A. Johns and Reeves R. Hilton, all of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.
Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for Local 74.
The petitioner seeks an injunction by virtue of the authority of Section 10(l) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Public Law 101, 80th Congress, Chapter 120, 1st Session, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l), herein called "the Act".
The respondents have a motion to dismiss the petition upon sundry grounds, among others challenging the constitutionality of the Act. All questions so raised are pretermitted except those hereunder discussed.
The motion admits the truth of the allegations in the petition. The petition discloses a controversy principally between the respondents, Local 74 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, and Ira A. Watson Company, a mercantile establishment doing business as Watson's Specialty Store, whereby Local 74 has sought to organize into their organization certain employees of the Ira A. Watson Company. The gravamen of the petition is that Local 74 and its agent maintained a secondary boycott against the Ira A. Watson Company in violation of the Act.
The Ira A. Watson Company has proceedings pending before the National Labor Relations Board upon a charge of unfair labor practices by the said Local 74 and its agent, the respondent Henderson.
In accord with the seeming mandate of said Section 10(l) of the Act, the petitioner, the Regional Director, has instituted this proceeding for an injunction.
The alleged factual basis upon which relief is sought is found in the petition as follows:
In February 1947, respondent Jack Henderson requested the charging party (Ira A. Watson Company) to execute a closed shop agreement, covering the charging party's installation employees, with Local 74, although Local 74 did not at that time, or any other time, have as members, or represent for the purpose of collective bargaining, any of the charging party's installation employees. When the charging party refused to execute the proposed closed shop agreement, respondents placed a picket in front of its place of business declaring the charging party was unfair to Local 74, and maintained said picket until August 30, 1947.
On or about August 7, 1947, George D. Stanley and B. F. Parker, general contractor, executed an agreement whereby Parker agreed to do certain work, consisting of remodeling and improvements, upon Stanley's residence in Lookout Valley, Chattanooga, Tennessee, including the furnishing of materials and employees. Stanley agreed to pay the costs of materials and the wages of the employees, plus a commission to Parker.
Thereafter, about August 15, Stanley entered into an agreement with the charging party wherein the charging party agreed to furnish and install certain floor and wall coverings at Stanley's residence for the approximate sum of $875. In accordance with said agreement, the employees of the charging party, about August 17, commenced the installation work. At the same time, members of Local 74 were performing work at Stanley's residence pursuant to the agreement between Stanley and Parker. About August 20, one of the members complained of working with the non-union employees of the charging party but Parker persuaded them to remain at work. The following day, the employees of the charging party, after working a short time were ordered off the job by Parker, acting under pressure by Local 74 and Henderson, because they were not members of Local 74, and Parker also notified Local 74 and Henderson of the action thus taken. The same day, members of Local 74, acting under orders from Jack Henderson as Business Agent, concertedly left their employment at Stanley's residence and refused to perform services therein. That afternoon, Henderson advised Stanley that he had ordered all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. LOCAL 74, ETC.
...the issuance of an injunction pending the action of the Board." Italics supplied. Styles v. Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, A. F. of L. et al., D.C., 74 F.Supp. 499, 501, 502. He properly recognized that his decision was not binding upon the Labor Board, whi......
-
Madden v. LOCAL 134, INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF ELEC. WKRS.
...v. United Steelworkers of America, etc., D.C., 141 F.Supp. 447; N. L. R. B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 356; Styles v. Local 74, etc., D.C., 74 F.Supp. 499. Accordingly, the petition for injunctive relief is now denied and the matter is continued generally to be reset by either......
-
Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters Joiners of America of v. National Labor Relations Board
...on the ground that the conduct complained of took place before August 22 and was at that time lawful. Styles v. Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 499. After hearings before an examiner, the Board, with one member dissenting, affirmed the rulings of its examiner, a......
-
International Longshoremen's & WU v. SUNSET L. & T. CO.
...and further assumed to write into the Act rights and remedies not provided for, solely on broad equitable grounds.7 In Styles v. Local 74, etc., D.C., 74 F. Supp. 499, 501, the court, in discussing the problem of jurisdiction, said in "This tribunal has no jurisdiction to settle the controv......