The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUSEN
These are two companion actions brought by tugboat operators against various labor organization defendants and certain of their officers and representatives.
The first cause of action in each Complaint is based on § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 187, and alleges that the defendants induced individuals employed by plaintiffs, Pennsylvania Tidewater Dock Company, and employees of others to engage in strikes and other activities in violation of § 8(b)(4) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4). The second cause of action is the one to which the instant Motion of Seafarers' International Union of North America (hereinafter called 'SIU') and its representative, Cardullo, is directed.
The second cause of action is brought under § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. This cause of action incorporates paragraphs 2-13 of the first cause of action by reference and then states that the plaintiff in each case had a contract with Locals 1800 and 1700 of the Inland Boatman's Union of SIU and with Local 101, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, under which it was agreed that employees of plaintiffs represented by the Locals would perform their duties without engaging in strikes. None of these three Locals is named as a party defendant in either of these suits. The Complaints allege that the defendants induced plaintiffs' employees who were represented by the said Locals not to perform their contracts and to engage in work stoppages. Also, it alleges that (a) each of the plaintiffs had reasonable expectation of business relationships with others, (b) the defendants induced the others not to enter into a business relationship with plaintiffs, and (c) the plaintiffs were prevented from performing tugboat services by the actions of the defendants.
The Answers of SIU and Cardullo
deny that SIU has affiliated with it any local unions or that it controls the activities of its members, admit that Cardullo is the port agent of SIU in Philadelphia but deny that he resides here, and state that, under the agreement the plaintiffs have with the local unions, their employees are not required to cross a picket line or perform work for members of any other union in an industrial dispute. The Motions To Dismiss The Second Cause of Action filed on behalf of SIU and Cardullo
are based on their position that this court does not have jurisdiction of the cause of action because there is no allegation that the plaintiffs are parties to a contract with defendant labor organization or that defendants have violated a contract with plaintiffs. It is also alleged that there is no jurisdiction under § 301 for an action sounding in tort and that the agreements referred to in the Complaints were not violated because they specifically permit plaintiffs' employees to refuse to perform when a picket line exists in front of a vessel.
Section 301 enables unions to sue and be sued for violation of contract.
The present plaintiffs have no contract with any of the defendants. The second cause of action is based on the allegation that the defendants induced plaintiffs' employees represented by the named local unions not to perform their contracts and to engage in work stoppage and that they induced other companies not to enter into a business relationship with plaintiffs, thus preventing plaintiffs from performing tugboating services.
These allegations do not assert violation of a contract to which defendants are a party, but rather sound in tort for recovery for inducing breach of contract or interfering with business relationships. Although the question is not free from doubt,
the undersigned concludes that the second cause of action is not the type contemplated by the legislators who enacted § 301 and cannot be sustained under that section. See Burlesque Artists Ass'n v. I. Hirst Enterprises, 134 F.Supp. 203, 204 (E.D.Pa.1955); Aacon Contracting Co. v. Ass'n of Catholic Trade Union, 178 F.Supp. 129 (E.D.N.Y.1959), aff'd. 276 F.2d 958 (2nd Cir. 1960); Square D. Co. v. United Electrical Radio & Mach. Workers, 123 F.Supp. 776 (E. D. Mich. 1954); Haspel v. Bonnaz, Singer & Hand Embroiderers, etc., 112 F.Supp. 944, 945 (S.D.N.Y.1953), aff'd. 216 F.2d 192 (2nd Cir. 1953); S. Report 105, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 30, 93 Cong.Record 3955 & 4410.
Since the second cause of action alleges 'a second ground of recovery from the same facts'
stated in the first cause of action, the plaintiffs are entitled to present this second ground, being the principle of Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216 (1853), and Phila. Ball Club, Ltd. v. Lajoie, 202 Pa. 210, 51 A. 973, 58 L.R.A. 227 (1902), even though there may be no diversity of citizenship between the parties.
See Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 245-247, 53 S. Ct. 586, 77 L. Ed. 1148 (1933). The Complaints allege the violation of a single right, namely, plaintiffs' right to protection of carrying on ...