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.

CHARLES JACQUIN ET CIE v. DANIEL PENNICK (08/12/82)

decided: August 12, 1982.

CHARLES JACQUIN ET CIE, INC., PETITIONER
v.
DANIEL PENNICK, CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; AND MARIO MELE, COMMISSIONER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; AND RALPH BARNETT, COMMISSIONER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; AND PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, RESPONDENTS



Original jurisdiction in the case of Charles Jacquin et Cie., Inc. v. Daniel Pennick, Chairman, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and Mario Mele, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and Ralph Barnett, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.

COUNSEL

Bernard J. Smolens, with him Stephen J. Greenberg, Barry Simon, and Katherine E. Knox, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, for petitioner.

Patrick M. McHugh, Assistant Counsel, for respondents.

Gerald Gornish, with him Denise D. Colliers, of counsel: Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for Holt Hauling & Warehousing Systems, Inc. and Holt Cargo Systems, Inc.

Judge Rogers. Memorandum Opinion and Order by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 328]

On August 2, 1982, on motion of the petitioner Charles Jacquin et Cie., Inc. (Jacquin), we granted a rule upon the respondents Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and the members of the Liquor Control Board (LCB) and on non-parties, Holt Cargo Systems Inc. and Holt Hauling & Warehousing Systems Inc. (Holt), to show cause why they should not be held to be in civil contempt by reason of the asserted failure of the LCB to secure Holt's compliance with, and the asserted failure of Holt to comply with, a consent order of this court made July 16, 1982 on agreement of Jacquin and LCB. The consent order provided:

3. Respondents shall refrain from interfering with or refusing to accept delivery of Petitioner's products made or to be made to the PLCB in the normal course of the business of the parties and shall cooperate with Petitioner in the making and receipt of such deliveries;

4. Respondents shall refrain from otherwise depriving Petitioner of any of its rights under any contract or purchase order between the parties;

[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 329]

We conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 5, 1982 at which Jacquin, LCB and Holt appeared and adduced evidence. We now dispose of the rule.

Jacquin is a producer of alcoholic beverages. It has manufacturing establishments in Philadelphia and Florida and has been a vendor to LCB for 45 years. Forty-five per cent of Jacquin's business has been with LCB and the sale of Jacquin's products constitutes eight per cent of LCB's total sales. Jacquin and the union representing its employees, Teamster's Local 500, have been attempting to agree on a new collective bargaining agreement since before February, 1982 when an existing agreement expired. In April, 1982, Jacquin's employees struck and established a picket line at the Philadelphia plant and from about that time Jacquin has shipped its products to LCB's several warehouses in Pennsylvania from its Florida plant.

On May 28, 1982 Jacquin filed its petition for review in the nature of complaint in equity, alleging that Local 500 had commenced picketing LCB's Pittsburgh warehouse; that a respondent member of the Liquor Control Board and another LCB official each told Jacquin's officers that LCB would not permit any more deliveries of products ordered from Jacquin because of Jacquin's labor troubles; and that LCB had thereupon refused to accept deliveries of ordered products at any of its warehouses. Jacquin requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On May 28, 1982, we entered a Temporary Restraining Order and on June 4 and 12, 1982 (a week of argument sessions of the Commonwealth Court having intervened) conducted hearings on the subject of the continuance of the ...


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.