The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER
The action purports to be one for damages under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185(a) the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
'(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.'
Section 301(b) of said Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185(b) furthermore provides, in part, as follows:
'* * * Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. * * *'
The Complaint sets forth, inter alia, that on or about May 1, 1952, Air Conditioning, Heating and Plumbing Employers Association, of which defendant is a member, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with Local Union No. 420, Pipefitters, which agreement was accepted by defendant and is binding on it.
That Article VI, Section 3, of the said collective bargaining agreement provides as follows:
'It is further understood and agreed that the piping contractor shall be responsible for all piping and equipment which is part of the work of the United Association and shall be handled and set by Local Union No. 420 Journeymen.
'The Employer reserves the right to sublet work to a rigging contractor with the provisions that members of Local 420 will do the work. In addition, the Rigging Contractor may supply one (1) man as an overseer.'
The Complaint further states states that in or about the month of January 1954, defendant contracted to install certain compressors and other refrigerating equipment in the Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Building, Philadelphia; and that in violation of the provisions of said collective bargaining agreement, particularly Article VI, Section 3 thereof, supra, defendant assigned the handling and setting of these compressors and other refrigerating equipment to Frank Hake, knowing that Hake would assign the handling and setting of the equipment to members of another labor organization rather than members of plaintiff organization.
The Complaint finally avers:
'9. Because of this breach of its collective bargaining Agreement, the plaintiffs have suffered a loss of wages for all the hours necessary to perform the work of handling and setting of the compressors and refrigerating equipment.
'10. The defendant has proceeded with this violation of its collective bargaining Agreement to the damage of the plaintiffs and despite demand by the plaintiffs that the defendant comply with its collective bargaining Agreement.
'Wherefore, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant in the sum of Ten Thousand ($ 10,000.00) Dollars with interest from the date of filing this Complaint, ...