However, the Union has never contended during negotiations that the incentive coverage it seeks for iron ore miners is due them under the terms of all or any of the BLAs, and that the respective employers have therefore breached their agreements. Had they done so, they would have been met by arbitration awards holding that grievances seeking incentive coverage were "not arbitrable" or were beyond the arbitrator's "authority". Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Sparrows Point), Vol. 14, Steel Arbitration 10,689 (Porter, 1967); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (Pittsburgh Works), Vol. 10, Steel Arbitration 6841 (Alexander, 1961); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (Aliquippa), Vol. 3, Steel Arbitration 2041 (Cahn, 1953). On the contrary, what the Union has said is that they are prepared to strike for incentive coverage to be included in their new contracts as a matter of fundamental fairness and equity. The BLAs' grievance-arbitration procedures were simply not intended to become interest arbitration arenas, and these strikes in support of negotiation demands are thus not "precipitated" over issues which the Union is bound to arbitrate under the BLAs.
We must note that the Companies do not contend that the binding interest arbitration provision in ENA-77 provides the mandatory arbitration procedure which would give this Court jurisdiction to enjoin the strikes.
They rely solely on the BLAs' provisions. We therefore conclude that, as in Buffalo Forge, the strikes here will not be over arbitrable disputes and for that reason are not within the Boys Markets exception to Section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
This conclusion is compelled despite our finding that the imminent strikes will violate the no-strike provision of the ENA-77, Section A, and that the equities in the case would otherwise compel injunctive relief. All of the strike ballots here challenged contained issues that were not "local collective bargaining issues" as defined in the ENA-77, Section D-5-a. The 21 Iron Ore Locals are attempting to strike over at least one issue -- incentive coverage -- which was bargained for at the national level and if implemented would be inconsistent with, add to, and modify the Settlement-77 provisions for bonus pay given in lieu of incentive coverage. The issue is therefore not local as defined in Section D-5-a, and strikes in support thereof would violate the no-strike clause of the ENA-77. The three steel subsidiaries likewise considered issues in the strike vote which would not meet Section D-5-a. If one or more issues considered in the strike vote were improper, the whole vote is tainted and in violation of the ENA-77 procedure. Cf. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 71 S. Ct. 943, 95 L. Ed. 1284 (1951); Refrigeration Contractors, Inc. v. Local Union 211 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, 501 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1974); Wilson v. Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local 471, 491 F.2d 200 (8th Cir. 1974); Brown Transport v. National Labor Relations Board, 334 F.2d 30 (5th Cir. 1964); National Labor Relations Board v. Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 314 F.2d 53 (2nd Cir. 1963); National Labor Relations Board v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, 178 F.2d 584 (2nd Cir. 1949); Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 367 F. Supp. 1065 (E.D.N.Y. 1973); and McLeod v. Hempstead Local No. 1921, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, 183 F. Supp. 494 (E.D.N.Y. 1960).
Furthermore, the testimony clearly revealed that the strikes were imminent and the anticipated damage considerable and irreparable. The Union stipulated that the strikes were voted for at the plant level and authorized by the International President, and in its testimony admitted that there is little doubt that most of the 24 Locals will walk out on August 1, 1977. Such an imminent irreparable injury would be enjoinable. United States Steel Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America, 534 F.2d 1063, 1077 (3rd Cir. 1976); Cf. Boys Markets, supra. When every preliminary step to strike has been taken and everyone expects the strike to occur, it would make little sense to compel the Plaintiffs to actually incur the threatened harm.
The strikes would also cause extensive financial losses, compel cut-backs throughout the steel industry if extended in duration, and cause steel customers some loss of faith in the ability of the Companies to avoid strikes under ENA-80.
Nevertheless, the Court must abide by the limitations of Section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and its interpretation in Buffalo Forge, supra. Perhaps the critical defect of ENA-77, which we again commend as having served its purpose well in the majority of the locations, is its failure to provide a procedure for mandatory arbitration of the definition of "local collective bargaining issue". We must, however, point out that such a procedure would still not make strikes over non-local issues enjoinable because the underlying issues would remain not arbitrable under the BLAs as written.
But, the existence of such a provision might have eliminated the need for either party here to seek injunctive relief.
In summary, then, the Court finds:
1. The collective bargaining agreement contains an express or implied no-strike clause.
2. The breach of that clause is imminent and will be committed. It is clear that the Steelworkers intend to carry out the strike against the Plaintiff Companies.
3. The collective bargaining agreement does not contain mandatory grievance adjustment or arbitration procedures in the BLAs applicable to this situation.
4. The Plaintiff Companies were prepared to proceed with arbitration at the time the Injunction was sought.
5. The breach of the no-strike clause has caused and will cause irreparable harm to the Companies and the employer would suffer more from the denial of an injunction than the Union would suffer from its issuance; tremendous damage will be incurred by the Plaintiffs if an injunction is not issued, while the harm resulting to the Steelworkers would be only that which they bargained for.
We can only conclude that the criteria of Boys Markets has not been satisfied and thus that the Court is not authorized to grant the injunctive relief as requested by the Plaintiffs. We cannot, as the Plaintiffs contend we should, limit Buffalo Forge to its facts, i.e., limit it to sympathy strikes where the only arbitrator issue is the legality of the strike itself. See : National Labor Relations Board v. Keller-Crescent Co., 538 F.2d 1291 (7th Cir. 1976). We have been pointed to a national policy favoring arbitration, but our Supreme Court has also strongly pointed out the policy that there shall be no specific enforcement of a no-strike clause unless the contract contains an arbitration clause which covers the underlying issues in dispute. Buffalo Forge, supra.
On the basis of the facts and discussion set forth above, the Court declines to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' request and directing arbitration of the other than "local" disputes, as defined in ENA-77, or enjoining the Steelworkers from engaging in a work stoppage in support of its bargaining demands, or directing the Steelworkers to withdraw its authorization permitting such strikes.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
DANIEL J. SNYDER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPENDIX A (Exhibit D]
List of Locations and Dates Where Strikes Have Been Authorized
by President of Defendant USW
Date of Authorization
Company Plant For Strike
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Canisteo Mine April 1, 1978
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Cliffs Electric Service August 1, 1977
Cleveland Cliffs Iron District Maintenance August 1, 1977
Cleveland Cliffs Iron General Shops -- Diamond August 1, 1977
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Empire Mine August 1, 1977
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Mather Mine August 1, 1977
Company Ore Improvement Plant
Pioneer Pellet Plant
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Republic and Humboldt August 1, 1977
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Tilden Mine August 1, 1977
Hanna Mining Company Butler Taconite August 1, 1977
Hanna Mining Company Groveland Mine August 1, 1977
Hanna Mining Company National Steel Pellet August 1, 1977
Hanna Mining Company Whitney Mine August 1, 1977
Inland Steel Company Carnegie Plant of August 1, 1977
Joseph T. Ryerson Div.
Inland Steel Company Cleveland Plant of August 1, 1977
Joseph T. Ryerson Div.
Inland Steel Company Inland Lime and Stone August 1, 1977
Inland Steel Company Minorca Mine Plant August 1, 1977
Jones & Laughlin Steel Minnesota Ore Operations April 1, 1978
National Steel Corporation Donner-Hanna Coke August 1, 1977
Oglebay-Norton Taconite Eveleth, Minnesota August 1, 1977
Pickands Mather and Company Erie Mining Company August 1, 1977
Pickands Mather and Company Hibbing Taconite August 1, 1977
Republic Steel in Hamilton, Union Drawn Plant August 1, 1977
Reserve Mining Company Silver Bay and Babbitt, August 1, 1977
U.S. Steel Corporation Atlantic City Ore September 15, 1977
U.S. Steel Corporation Electric Cable Plant August 1, 1977
U.S. Steel Corporation Minnesota Ore Operations August 1, 1977
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.