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.

PULLMAN, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BHD. OF BOILERMAKER

July 17, 1972

Pullman, Incorporated, Plaintiff
v.
International Brotherhood Of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers And Helpers, AFL-CIO et al., Defendants


Green, D.J.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: GREEN

GREEN, D.J.

 In this labor dispute, plaintiff-employer, Pullman, Inc. ("Pullman") sought a temporary restraining order against defendant-unions and various union officers compelling union members to return to work. Defendants, in turn, sought to dissolve a state court injunction, issued prior to removal of this case to this Court, which required the workers to return to work. We assumed jurisdiction of the matter under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185. In an order dated June 22, 1972, we denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendants'. Our reasons are now set forth below.

 The threshold question was whether the collective bargaining agreement ("Agreement") entered into between Pullman and the local union ("Union") on May 19, 1969, was still in effect on May 27, 1972, when the Union employees went on strike. If the Agreement had terminated prior to the strike, an anti-strike injunction would have been prohibited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 104. On the other hand, if the Agreement which contained arbitration and no-strike clauses, continued in effect through May 27, the propriety of an injunction could then be considered under the Boys Markets doctrine. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Local No. 770, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 1583, 26 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1970). After a hearing on this issue, we concluded that the local union complied with Article XXVI of the Agreement which required written notice of intent to terminate not less than sixty days prior to the Agreement's expiration date, May 18, 1972, *fn1" and that the Agreement did not renew itself.

 The evidence indicating an effective termination of the Agreement is substantial and may be highlighted as follows:

 (1) In two letters from the Union to Plaintiff's industrial relations manager, dated January 31, 1972, the Union said:

 
(a) "This letter is the official notification under Article XXVI 'Term of Agreement' between . . . Pullman, Inc. and the Union that the Union desires to make certain changes and revisions in its new Agreement with Pullman."
 
(b) "In order that Local 347 may properly bargain for its members in negotiating the new Agreement with [Pullman], I must receive the following data from you . . ."

 (2) On March 3, 1972, Pullman responded as follows:

 
"We have received your notice regarding your request to seek revisions in the collective bargaining agreement covering our West Point, Pennsylvania, plant, which is due to expire on May 19, 1972.
 
"Please be advised that representatives of Pullman will meet to begin collective bargaining at a time mutually convenient to the parties."

 (3) On May 8, 1972, a representative of Pullman again wrote to the Union:

 
"On January 31st you sent me a letter requesting certain information which you wanted in order to ...

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.