The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUSEN
This action was brought under 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 187) by the owner of ore unloading facilities located at, and in the immediate vicinity of, Pier 122 South, Philadelphia, Pa., against the five defendant unions, claiming damages directly resulting from defendants' violation of § 8(b)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4)). The Motion to Dismiss now before the court was filed only by defendant Seafarers International Union of North America and alleges both that this court has no jurisdiction over the action and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff owns certain facilities
located at and near Pier 122 South. These facilities have been operated by Pennsylvania Tidewater Dock Company (hereinafter called 'Tidewater') since 1954, when an agreement was entered into between Tidewater and plaintiff. Tidewater unloads ore from vessels engaged in commerce, the ore being either transported directly from the vessels to railroad cars for trans-shipment by railroad or stockpiled at the pier for eventual trans-shipment by plaintiff to other points in the United States (par. 11 of Document No. 1). Plaintiff receives from Tidewater 20 cents per ton for the ore and other bulk commodities unloaded from vessels and loaded into railroad cars for shipment to destination. Also, it receives freight revenues under its published tariffs for all ore shipped from Pier 122 to other destinations.
29 U.S.C.A. § 187 provides:
'(a) It shall be unlawful, for the purpose of this section only, in an industry or activity affecting commerce, for any labor organization to engage in any activity or conduct defined as an unfair labor practice in section 158(b)(4) of this title.
'(b) Whoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of subsection (a) of this section may sue therefor in any district court of the United States * * *, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the cost of the suit.'
It is defendant's position that plaintiff has no standing to sue because it is claiming damages because of illegal activities directed against Tidewater, not against it. It relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Osborne Mining Company, 279 F.2d 716, 727-730 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. den. 364 U.S. 881, 81 S. Ct. 169, 5 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1960). In that case, a sales agency (Love & Amos) with a verbal contract with Osborne (a coal mining and processing company) claimed damages for alleged harm to it (loss of commissions) caused by the destruction of Osborne's business by defendant's illegal activities. The Circuit Court reversed a judgment entered in favor of the sales agency, holding that the damage to the agency was too remote for recovery under federal law.
However, the facts in this case are different than those in Osborne. Here, the plaintiff is the actual owner of the ore unloading facilities against which the activities were directed; the purpose of the defendants' activities was to prevent the unloading of certain ships at Pier 22 South and the injury claimed by plaintiff is direct interference with its 'business and property' with ensuing losses.
The same court which decided Osborne decided in a later case, Gilchrist v. United Mine Workers of America, 290 F.2d 36, 39 (6th Cir. 1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 875, 82 S. Ct. 120, 7 L. Ed. 2d 76 (1961), that an action could be maintained by a partnership directly injured in its business and property which supplied its property for operation by another (G & R) for a price, since the damage sustained was direct and not remote, indirect or incidental. The Osborne case was distinguished on its facts, the court stating at page 39 of 290 F.2d:
'In the present case, the relationship between the partnership and G & R was much different than that existing between Love and Amos and Osborne Mining Co. The partnership here was a principal and not an agent. It had an established coal business and sold its own coal. It owned the leases, coal, mining machinery, equipment and facilities. In fact, the partnership had an integrated coal business in which only the actual mining was delegated to an instrumentality (G & R) controlled by its members. Activities of UMW were directed at the partnership.'
In the case at bar, the relationship between Tidewater and plaintiff may be established as being similar to the relationship between the plaintiffs in Gilchrist. Plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to develop factually such relationship.
The relationship is closer than that found in the Osborne case, supra, and the facts of record demonstrate that, because of plaintiff's ownership of the unloading facilities, the damage is undoubtedly more direct in this case than that sustained by the sales agency in the Osborne case.
Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to develop more fully the facts surrounding the operations at the pier.
For the reasons stated above, defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied.