United Textile Workers v. Goodall-Sanford, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4-40.
• Citation: 129 F. Supp. 859
• Parties: UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L. Local 1802 and United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L., Plaintiffs, v. GOODALL-SANFORD, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

129 F. Supp. 859

UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L. Local 1802 and United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L., Plaintiffs, v. GOODALL-SANFORD, Inc., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 4-40.

United States District Court, D. Maine, S. D.

April 1, 1955.

Sidney W. Wernick, Portland, Maine, for plaintiff.

William B. Mahoney, Portland, Maine, for defendant.

CLIFFORD, District Judge.

This matter is presently before this Court upon a prayer by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction, pending a final determination of the issues raised by their complaint. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendant corporation from terminating the employment of any of its employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement now existing between them, and from removing the names of said employees from the payroll records of the defendant on the ground that the departments in which said employees previously worked have been completely shut down and will not reopen.

The plaintiffs have initiated this proceeding under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. Merely for the purpose of clarity, it may be noted that the complaint concerns two categories of employees. In the first group are those employees whose employment has already been terminated by the defendant corporation. There are approximately 1,400 employees in this category. With regard to these employees the plaintiffs seek specific performance of their collective bargaining agreement which provides for arbitration. The question which they desire to submit to arbitration relates to the right of the defendant corporation to terminate the employment of its employees for a reason other than those specified in their collective bargaining agreement. In the alternative, the plaintiffs pray that this Court award such damages in the premises as it deems meet and proper.

The second category of employees is comprised of some 1,800 persons who are presently on a lay-off status and are still on the payroll records of the defendant corporation. With regard to these employees the plaintiffs pray that the defendant corporation be enjoined, during the pendency of this action, and thereafter during the life of the collective bargaining agreement from terminating their employment and from removing their names from the payroll records for the reasons hereinbefore assigned by the defendant corporation. Therefore, it is with respect to the rights of these employees that this Court is principally concerned in determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue in this action.

The defendant asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this case.

Considering Milk and Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 98 v. Gillespie Milk Products Corp., 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 650; Textile Workers Union v. American Thread Co., D.C. Mass., 113 F.Supp. 137; Local 207, etc., v. Landers, Frary & Clark, D.C.Conn., 119 F.Supp. 877; Insurance Agents' International Union v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.Pa., 122 F.Supp. 869; Evening Star Newspaper Co. v. Columbia Typographical Union, D.C.D.C., 124 F.Supp. 322, this Court is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction to afford equitable relief under Section 301 of the so-called Taft-Hartley Act. See also: Industrial Trades Union v. Woonsocket Dyeing Co., D.C.R.I., 122 F.Supp. 872. Contra: International Longshoremen's, etc., v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, D.C.Haw., 114 F.Supp. 249. Accordingly and pursuant to a request from Local 1802, this Court on March 15, 1955, granted a ten-day temporary restraining order enjoining the defendant corporation from terminating the employment of those 1,800 employees who were then and still are on lay-off status.

On March 21, 1955, a conference was held in the chambers of this Court with regard to certain motions filed by each of the parties. At that time, this Court, upon motion by the plaintiffs, extended the temporary restraining order for an additional ten days, to expire on April 4, 1955, unless otherwise ordered. Two days later, on March 23, 1955, a hearing with respect to the issuance of a preliminary injunction was held.

Findings of Fact

The facts, as found by this Court from the evidence introduced at said hearing, are as follows:

The plaintiff, United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L., Local Union 1802, is an unincorporated association, and a labor organization and trade union engaged in representing employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. The plaintiff and its duly authorized officers, or agents, has been and now is representing or acting for employee members of the plaintiff in the State and District of Maine, and in particular, is the sole and exclusive statutory collective bargaining representative of, and agency for, all of the production and maintenance employees of the defendant corporation, including working foremen, employed at Sanford and Springvale, Maine.

The second party plaintiff in this action is the United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L.

The defendant, Goodall-Sanford, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maine, with its principal office and place of business at Sanford, Maine. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling textile products which move in interstate commerce, and its conduct of said business is such that it is in interstate commerce and affects interstate commerce within the meaning of federal laws and, in particular, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S.C.A. § 185.

Approximately 3,000 persons were employed by the defendant corporation as of January 1, 1954, and some 3,200 employees qualified for vacation pay in June, 1954. However, some time prior to December 29, 1954, the defendant corporation ceased production except for "running out" those products which were in process at that time. By December 29th Mills A and C and the print works had shut down completely; Mill B by March 15, 1955. All of the equipment in each of these departments has either been removed or sold to third parties.

With the exception of a very few production employees, the only persons presently employed are the maintenance and powerhouse men who are working on a "share the work" basis. As for the future, there have been recent discussions between the defendant corporation and the purchaser of its properties with regard to the defendant corporation obtaining a lease of Mills B and G for the next three to six months for the purpose of completing their liquidation.

The plaintiffs and the defendant corporation had entered into and executed a collective bargaining agreement on October 1, 1951. The said collective bargaining agreement was renewed by the parties thereto on July 29, 1953, to continue in full force and effect until July 15, 1955, unless either party were to give a notice to modify it sixty days prior to July 15, 1954. On May 12, 1954, the defendant corporation gave notice of modification to the plaintiffs, as a result of which a supplemental agreement was entered into and executed by the plaintiffs and defendant, effective June 21, 1954. Because of the execution of said supplemental agreement, the defendant corporation withdrew the aforesaid notice of May 12, 1954, such that the agreement dated October 1, 1951, as renewed July 29, 1953, and as supplemented by the supplemental agreement effective June 21, 1954, constitutes the entire collective bargaining agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation in full force and effect until July 15, 1955.

In said contract the following relevant provisions appear:

A. "Article VI.

"A * * * 3. Continuous Service: Employee's service in an occupation will be continuous except as broken under the provisions of Section E (Transfers) of this Article VI or by termination of his employment under the provisions of Article VII."

B. "Article VII.

"A. Reasons for Termination: An employee's continuous service and his employment with the Company shall be terminated by:

"1. Voluntary quit.

"2. Discharge for cause.

"3. Absence from work for a period of (18) months or more for any reason other than to fill a Union position to which the employee was elected or appointed or where an entire operation has been discontinued."

C. "Article VIII.

"B. Arbitration: If a satisfactory adjustment is not reached within (10) working days after initiation of conferences in Step 4, any dispute which relates solely to the meaning and application of this Agreement or any individual grievance may be referred to arbitration by written notice by either party to the other. If the written notice is not given within five (5) working days after the completion of Step 4, the grievance shall be considered as settled, and any right to arbitrate waived. Arbitration shall be in accordance with the following procedure:

"1. The arbitrator shall be a single arbitrator selected from a panel of three agreed to by the Union and the Company. If the Company and the Union are unable to agree on one of the three, the arbitrator who will first be available for a hearing shall be selected.

"2. The Arbitrator shall have no power to add to or subtract from the terms of this Agreement.

"3. The Arbitrator's decision shall be in writing and shall be final and binding on the Company and the Union.

"4. Awards or settlements of grievances shall be effective as of the date on which the written grievance was first presented, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, or by mutual consent."

D. "Purpose of Agreement. It is the intent and purpose of the parties hereto to promote and improve the industrial and economic relations between the Company, its employees, and the Union, and to establish and maintain a basic understanding in relation to rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions of employment toward full co-operation, good quality of production, and successful operation of the Company's plants.

E. "Article XVI — Waiver. The parties acknowledge

...