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.

SAMOFF EX REL. NLRB v. BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL OF

October 3, 1972

Bernard Samoff, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Plaintiff
v.
Building Trades Council Of Philadelphia & Vicinity et al., Defendants


Higginbotham, D.J.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: HIGGINBOTHAM

HIGGINBOTHAM, D.J.:

 I.

 This case is before me on a petition filed by Bernard Samoff, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as "NLRB"), pursuant to § 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (hereafter referred to as "Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), which provides in relevant part:

 
"Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of . . . section 158(b) (7) of this title, the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith. . . . If, after such investigation, the officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to believe such charge is true and that a complaint should issue, he shall, on behalf of the Board, petition any United States district court within any district where the unfair labor practice in question has occurred, is alleged to have occurred, or wherein such person resides or transacts business for appropriate injunctive relief pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to such matter. Upon the filing of any such petition the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant such injunctive relief . . . as it deems just and proper, . . . Upon filing of any such petition the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon any person involved in the charge and such person, including the charging party, shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony: Provided further, That for the purposes of this subsection district courts shall be deemed to have jurisdiction of a labor organization (1) in the district in which such organization maintains its principal office, or (2) in any district in which its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in promoting or protecting the interests of employee members. The service of legal process upon such officer or agent shall constitute service upon the labor organization and make such organization a party to the suit. In situations where such relief is appropriate the procedure specified herein shall apply to charges with respect to section 158(b) (4) (D) of this title."

 The Regional Director is here seeking injunctive relief against the Building Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity (hereinafter referred to as "Council"), and the United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers, Local No. 30, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as "Local 30"), pending final disposition by the NLRB of alleged violations of §§ 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (D) and 8(b) (7) (29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b) (4) (i) (ii) (D) and 158(b) (7)) by the Council and Local 30.

 § 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (D) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents

 
". . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is --
 
* * *
 
"(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class, rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work. . . ."

 Similarly, § 8(b) (7) (A) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents

 
". . . to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees:
 
"(A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in accordance with this subchapter any other labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under section 159(c) of this title, . . ."

 For the reasons appearing hereinafter, I find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has been committed and that an injunction should issue pending final determination of the matter by the NLRB.

 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law *fn1"

 This case came to be heard upon the verified petition of Bernard Samoff, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, pending the final disposition of the matters involved pending before the NLRB, and upon the issuance of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed in said petition. Hearings on the issues raised by the petition were duly held on September 14, 1972, and September 19, 1972. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issues, and to argue on the evidence and the law. The Court has fully considered the petition, answer, evidence, arguments, and briefs of counsel. Upon the entire record, the Court makes the following:

 Findings of Fact

 1. Petitioner is Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the NLRB, an agency of the United States, and filed this petition for and on behalf of the NLRB.

 2. On or about July 31, 1972, I.G. Wheeler & Sons, Inc., pursuant to provisions of the Act, filed charges with the NLRB alleging that the Council and Local No. 30 (herein called Respondent Council and Respondent Local respectively and herein collectively also called Respondents), labor organizations, have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (i) (ii), subparagraph (D), and 8(b) (7), subparagraph (A) of the Act.

 3. The aforesaid charges were referred to Petitioner as Regional Director of the NLRB.

 4. There is, and Petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that,

 (a) Respondents and International Union District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 14210, (hereinafter referred to as District 50) are organizations in which employees participate and which exist for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning ...


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.