Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MILLER v. RADIO & TV DIV. OF TRIANGLE PUBLS.

April 25, 1966

Jon Miller, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
Radio and Television Division of Triangle Publications, Inc., WFIL, WFIL-TV and WFIL-FM, et al., Defendants


Wood, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WOOD

WOOD, District Judge.

 1. Plaintiffs are individual employees of defendant Radio and Television Division of Triangle Publications, Inc., operating stations WFIL, WFIL-FM and WFIL-TV.

 2. Defendant Radio and Television Broadcasting Studio Employees, IATSE, Local 804, is the collective bargaining representative of certain employees of defendant Radio and Television Division of Triangle Publications, Inc., and is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the said defendant Employer.

 3. A dispute arose between defendant Local 804 and the defendant Employer concerning the defendant Employer's failure to comply with the defendant Union's request to discharge plaintiffs because of their failure to observe the union security provisions of the aforesaid collective bargaining agreement.

 4. The said dispute was submitted to arbitration in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the two defendants and pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and was heard before S. Stanley Alderfer, an arbitrator selected in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

 5. On February 25, 1966, the aforesaid arbitrator issued his Award and Opinion, finding that plaintiffs failed to comply with the agency shop requirements of the collective bargaining agreement, and directing that defendant Employer discharge said employees and make certain payments to the defendant Union.

 6. Defendant Radio and Television Division of Triangle Publications, Inc., the defendant Employer, has not complied with the provisions of the arbitrator's Award.

 7. The defendant Union has instituted an action in this Court against the defendant Employer seeking an Order of this Court requiring defendant Employer to comply with the aforesaid arbitration Award and, inter alia, to award to the defendant Union damages resulting from defendant Employer's violation of the collective bargaining agreement by its failure to comply with the Award of Arbitrator Alderfer. The said action is docketed in this Court as Civil Action No. 39964.

 8. Under date of September 1, 1965, Joseph M. More, Esquire, attorney for plaintiffs, filed with the National Labor Relations Board unfair labor practice charges against defendant Union and against defendant Employer, alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by the defendant Employer, and of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act by the defendant Union. The said unfair labor practice charges against the defendant Employer are captioned as Case No. 4-CA-3762, and against the defendant Union as Case No. 4-CB-1185. Said unfair labor practice charges were filed by Joseph M. More, Esquire, only on behalf of plaintiffs William C. Dunning and Jon Miller.

 9. Shortly after the issuance of the arbitration Award, the National Labor Relations Board authorized the Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board to issue a formal charge against the defendant Union.

 10. The Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board has taken no action on these unfair labor practice charges which are presently pending before him.

 Conclusions of Law

 1. To justify the grant of a preliminary injunction there must be a showing of irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988, 79 S. Ct. 948 (1959); Warner ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.