from such conduct and to submit the matter to the grievance-arbitration procedures. Plaintiffs alleged that they were willing to submit to the aforementioned procedures. Further, plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered and would continue to suffer irreparable harm, that they would suffer more from the denial of an injunction than would defendants from its issuance, and that plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law.
Requests in each of the Complaints for preliminary injunctive relief were consolidated for hearing and, after the same, the Court entered an order preliminarily enjoining defendants from engaging in the alleged work stoppages. In an order of June 30, 1970, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed this Court's order on procedural grounds and remanded the cases for a hearing de novo upon plaintiffs' applications for preliminary injunctions. The de novo hearing commenced on July 9, 1970 but was continued indefinitely upon certain representations and stipulations of counsel for the respective parties.
Certain of the defendants now move to dismiss the Complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, summary judgments are sought. In determining whether the Complaints can withstand the Motions to Dismiss, the applicable test is whether the well pleaded facts, accepted as true and considered in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, are sufficient to constitute a valid claim. Sherwin v. Oil City National Bank, 18 F.R.D. 188 (W.D. Pa. 1955), aff'd 229 F.2d 835 (3d Cir. 1956); Clement Martin, Inc. v. Dick Corp., 97 F. Supp. 961 (W.D. Pa. 1951); Bowles v. Sachnoff, 65 F. Supp. 538 (W.D. Pa. 1946). It is "the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957).
Movants assert that the claims for injunctive relief admittedly arise out of a "labor dispute" and that plaintiffs therefore must establish the prerequisite for an injunction under Section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 107. Were this the case, the Complaints would fail for want of allegations of such acts of violence on the part of defendants as would constitute "unlawful acts" within the intendment of Section 107(a). Wilson & Co. v. Birl, 105 F.2d 948, 952 (3d Cir. 1939). However, in a recent decision in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 1583, 26 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1970), the Supreme Court of the United States has delineated the narrow circumstances in which a claim for injunctive relief, although arising out of a "labor dispute", need not meet the prerequisites of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
In the Boys Markets case, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not preclude a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike obligation under a collective bargaining agreement. In so deciding, the Supreme Court states, 398 U.S. at 253-54:
"Our holding in the present case is a narrow one. We do not undermine the vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. We deal only with the situation in which a collective bargaining contract contains a mandatory grievance adjustment or arbitration procedure. Nor does it follow from what we have said that injunctive relief is appropriate as a matter of course in every case of a strike over an arbitrable grievance. The dissenting opinion in Sinclair suggested the following principles for the guidance of the district courts in determining whether to grant injunctive relief -- principles which we now adopt: