United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Lee Nat. Corp., AFL-CIO

• Citation: 513 F.2d 899
• Decision Date: 11 April 1975
• Docket Number: L,D,No. 622,AFL-CIO,AFL-CI,622
• Parties: 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2175, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,804 UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA,, an unincorporated association, and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, , Local 102, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEE NATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 74-1290.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Page 899

513 F.2d 899

89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2175, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,804

UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF

AMERICA, AFL-CIO, an unincorporated association, and United

Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 102, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEE NATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 622, Docket 74-1290.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued March 26, 1975.

Decided April 11, 1975.

William Auerbach, New York City (Auerbach & Labes, Stanley W. Taylor, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Peyton H. Moss, New York City (Poletti, Freidin, Prashker, Feldman & Gartner, Roger H. Briton, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before MULLIGAN and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, District Judge. ^*

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Hon. Whitman Knapp, D. J., on November 7, 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs' second cause of action at the close of their case upon defendant's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The named plaintiffs (Unions) instituted this action against Lee National Corporation (Company) on the theory that the Company had forced the Unions to strike on July 16, 1963, thus effectively closing its plant and breaking its contractual commitments to make payments to union members pursuant to an existing welfare agreement.

The issue on appeal is whether the findings of fact of the court below are "clearly erroneous" within Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We do not think that the findings are clearly erroneous and therefore affirm the judgment. As the Supreme Court observed in United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 495-96, 70 S.Ct. 711, 717, 94 L.Ed. 1007 (1950):

It is not enough that we might give the facts another construction, resolve the ambiguities differently, and find a more sinister cast to actions which the District Court apparently deemed innocent. See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342 (70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394-395 (68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746). We are not given those choices, because our mandate is not to set aside findings of fact "unless clearly erroneous."

The Unions' claim that the court below was unduly influenced by an opinion of Judge Mansfield (then sitting in the Southern District) granting the...