United Textile Workers v. Textile Workers Union, 12323.

Citation258 F.2d 743
Decision Date24 September 1958
Docket NumberNo. 12323.,12323.
PartiesUNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Irving M. Friedman, Chicago, Ill., Harold A. Katz, Jerome Schur, S. I. Hirsh, Chicago, Ill., Katz & Friedman, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellant.

Mozart G. Ratner, Chicago, Ill., Jacobs & Ratner, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before FINNEGAN, SCHNACKENBERG and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges.

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

Two labor unions, plaintiff and defendant, entered a private "No-Raiding Agreement"1 so-called and when the defendant labor organization refused to honor its side of this peace treaty, plaintiff asked the District Court for and obtained coercive measures, which were embodied in the following temporary order, here on review, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law, and: "directing defendant, its agents and representatives and any persons acting in concert with them, pending the final determination of this action or until further order of this Court to immediately request the withdrawal of the representation petition filed by defendant in the matter of Personal Products Corporation, NLRB Case No. 13-RC-5738 and perform all acts necessary on its part to perfect an effective withdrawal of said representation petition and dismissal of the said representation proceeding, and to conform in all respects to the arbitration award of David L. Cole dated March 25, 1958."

Various facts, which so far as concern present issues follow. Both parties are labor organizations within the meaning of § 2(5), National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 137, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152, and § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. The district judge found that the activities of these Unions affect commerce within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act.

In the spring of 1953, a committee composed of representatives of the two rival federations, AFL and CIO met for the purpose of attempting to eliminate various obstacles to unification, paving the way for merger. "The committee gave particular consideration to the problem of `raiding' between the federations — attempts by unions affiliated with one of the federations to organize and represent employees as to whom a union affiliated with the other federation was already recognized or certified as the collective bargaining representative. It was unanimously agreed that the elimination of raiding constituted a necessary first condition to the achievement of unity." The committee reported to the respective federations that: "The results of the study made by the subcommittee, as well as the experience and knowledge of the members of the full committee, compel the conclusion that `raids' between A. F. of L. and C. I. O. unions are destructive of the best interests of the unions immediately involved and also of the entire trade union movement. In addition to the antagonisms between unions created by such raids, the welfare of the workers and the public is damaged. The overwhelming majority of such attempted raids fail, creating unrest, dissatisfaction and disunity among the workers involved. Even in the small proportion of cases where such attempts are successful they involve a drain of time and money far disproportionate to the number of employees involved. They create industrial strain and conflict and they do nothing to add to the strength and capabilities of the trade union movement as a whole.

"There are still millions of working men and women who do not have the benefit of organizations or collective bargaining. The members of all unions affiliated with both federations would be benefited if the energies devoted to raiding were devoted to the organization of those yet unorganized." The committee concluded that "elimination of raiding * * * would contribute to the strength of the unions affiliated with both federations, would materially benefit the entire nation by eliminating a source of industrial unrest and conflict and would remove a serious barrier to ultimate organic unity between the two federations." The committee therefore recommended that both federations should adopt "as a fundamental policy" the principle that "no unions affiliated with either federation shall attempt to organize or represent employees as to whom an established bargaining relationship exists between their employer and a union in the other federation"; that this fundamental policy should be incorporated into an agreement, and that "Each federation should urge that its affiliated unions subscribe and becoming sic parties to this `No-Raiding Agreement'".

Emphasizing that the proposed No-Raiding Agreement "would be binding upon national and international unions only upon signing this Agreement, and will then become applicable to all local affiliates of such national and international unions"; that the Agreement is "the first and indispensable step toward achievement of organic unity" and that "its adoption would be in the public interest and to the benefit of our entire country," the Resolutions Committee recommended, and the 1953 Convention of the AFL approved the Agreement.

Following formal signing of the Agreement by 65 unions affiliated with the AFL, including plaintiff-appellee, and 29 affiliated with the CIO, including defendant-appellant the joint AFL-CIO Unity Committee, on June 9, 1954, issued a public statement declaring that "the signatory unions will gain substantial benefits from the cessation of hostilities" and that the committee anticipates that "virtually every union involved in jurisdictional strife will come in within a reasonable time." The statement concluded (ibid): "We have a solemn duty to organize the unorganized, instead of raiding each other's members. The signing of the No-Raiding Agreement today will permit us to concentrate our energy and our effort on the basic trade union goal."

Under the No-Raiding Agreement, each signatory agrees in substance, that it will not "organize or attempt to organize," "seek to represent, or obtain the right to represent" employees as to whom "an established bargaining relationship exists" between a signatory union affiliated with the other federation or any of its local affiliates and the employer of such employees. Each signatory further agrees not to "disrupt" any such "established bargaining relationship." "Established bargaining relationship" is defined as a situation in which "a union or a local" either "has been recognized by the employer * * * as the collective bargaining representative for the employees involved for a period of one year or more, or is certified by the National Labor Relations Board, or other Federal or State Agency having jurisdiction, as the collective bargaining representative for the employees."

The Agreement provides that each of the parties agrees to settle all disputes which may arise in connection with this Agreement in accordance with arbitration procedure.

Plaintiff and defendant are international unions, each primarily engaged in representing employees in collective bargaining in the textile industry. Each is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. On July 29, 1957, President Meany of the AFL-CIO requested the Ethical Practices Committee of the AFL-CIO to investigate the affairs of the plaintiff. On September 16, 1957, the Ethical Practices Committee issued its report setting forth certain findings concerning practices engaged in by the plaintiff, and concluding that the plaintiff "does not meet the standards for ethical union practices set forth in the AFL-CIO Constitution." On September 24, 1957, the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO after consideration of the report of the Ethical Practices Committee, issued its report adopting the report of the Ethical Practices Committee and concluded that the plaintiff "is dominated, controlled or substantially influenced in the conduct of its affairs by corrupt influences in violation of the Constitution of the AFL-CIO;" and directed certain action to be taken by the plaintiff to remedy the situation.

On October 2, 1957, the defendant filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board requesting a certification election among the employees of the Personal Products Corporation. This petition recited that it was supported by 30% or more of the employees in the bargaining unit. Prior to that date, Local 444, a local affiliated with plaintiff, had been recognized by the Company and had a collective bargaining agreement with it. On October 25, 1957, the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO issued its resolution declaring in substance that the Executive Council found that the plaintiff had not taken the remedial steps required of it and directed suspension of plaintiff from the AFL-CIO as of November 15, 1957, unless prior to that date plaintiff took the specified remedial action. On December 4, 1957, the AFL-CIO suspended the plaintiff. A week later the plaintiff was restored to good standing following certain action and agreements by the plaintiff, including its agreement to permit continued auditing of its accounts under the supervision of the AFL-CIO and its agreement to make certain periodic reports. Prior to the suspension of the plaintiff, it had been the subject of the investigation and had appeared in hearings before the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the labor or management field, United States Senate, commonly referred to as the McClellan Committee. The report of the McClellan Committee, and reports of the Ethical Practices Committee and the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO were before the Court below.

On October 25, 1957, after defendant had filed the petition with the Board, Local 444, United Textile Workers of America, entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with Personal Products Corporation covering all of that Company's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 30, 1962
    ...cases cited in n. 24. 6 See also Local 33, Int. Hod Carriers v. Mason Tenders, 2 Cir., 291 F.2d 496; United Textile Workers v. Textile Workers Union, 7 Cir., 258 F.2d 743; Copra v. Suro, 1 Cir., 236 F.2d 107, 113; Snoots v. Vejlupek, N.D.Ohio, 87 F.Supp. 503. See also discussions of this po......
  • Abrams v. Carrier Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 4, 1970
    ...and enforceability, upon which there has been no clearcut decision. In United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Textile Workers Union of America, 258 F.2d 743 (7th Cir. 1958), the Seventh Circuit held that an arbitration award pursuant to a no-raiding agreement was enforceable, while t......
  • Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Wkrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 23, 1963
    ...a labor organization." 369 U.S. at 26-27, 82 S.Ct. at 547. So saying, the Court cited with favor United Textile Workers of America v. Textile Workers Union, 258 F.2d 743 (7th Cir., 1958), a case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed enforcement, under section 301 (a), of an AFL-CIO sponsor......
  • Baker v. Newspaper and Graphic Communications Union, Local 6
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 28, 1980
    ...has been found to exist where the controversy has a clear impact on labor-management relations. E. g., United Textile Workers v. Textile Workers Union, 258 F.2d 743 (7th Cir. 1958) (no-raiding agreement between unions violated by conduct designed to disrupt bargaining relationship). Cf. Ret......
  • 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