At&t Broadband, LLC v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Its Local 21
317 F.3d 758
7th Cir.
2003
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 credibility and ve Doe’s regarding issues BROADBAND, LLC, et to come to the

racity by requiring Doe al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, un sign her statement police station judge. issuing v. in front of oath der Therefore, for Root to it was reasonable INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD by issued neutral a warrant rely on WORKERS and OF ELECTRICAL Leon, court. See officer of the detached 21, Defendants-Appellees. its Local 923, 104 3405. at No. 02-1950. po- that because the also contends

Peck Appeals, States Court United Doe’s cursory inquires into only made lice Seventh Circuit. motives, appeared before fact that Doe Sept. Argued enough to remove issuing judge is not Jan. Decided from the warrant. taint of her bias Rehearing Rehearing En Banc However, a bias most CIs have 3, 2003.* Denied March giv- gain from something defendant See, Lloyd, e.g., statement. ing their (Cl defendant were at 1259 gang). The factions of the same

opposing statement police Doe’s

fact used they knew was biased was

even when she fact, relationship In her

not unreasonable. story more may have her

with Peck made because, someone close to

credible

Peck, likely to know that she was more house other than some- were

drugs Though police close to Peck.

one not steps require that we

did not take the cause, probable the measures

demonstrate receiving they take when did sufficient to from the Cl were

formation faith on the war- good their reliance

show

rant.

III. CONCLUSION reasons, foregoing we

For the Affirm court. judgment district * ation of this case. Judge part took no in the consider- Rovner *2 Corp. Tree Financial

Given Green v. Ran- 79, 84-89, dolph, 531 U.S. (2000), appellate jurisdic-

148 L.Ed.2d 373 permitting tion to review an order arbitra- proceed, ending tion to litigation, is secure.

Electrical Workers Local con tends that AT&T Broadband failed to has negotiate good agree in faith to reach covering particular bargaining ments three units. It demanded arbitration under a agreement Corp. master between AT&T (AT&T parent) and the Broadband’s Inter national Brotherhood Electrical Work (as ers. AT&T we label all of the related corporate plaintiffs simplify exposition) position agree took the that the master ment calls for mediation rather than arbi dispute tration when the arises before a (argued), Allegra R. Charles C. Jackson bargaining agreement place collective Rich, Shaw, IL, Chicago, for Seyfarth particular bargaining for a unit. AT&T Plaintiffs-Appellants. . and the union earlier a had created stand ing body, arbitral which the union called Cornfield, A. Cornfield & Feld-

Gilbert presiding on. The neutral asked for the IL, man, Chicago, Jonathan D. Newman parties’ particular views on whether this Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & (argued), within comes the ref DC, for Yellig, Washington, Defendants- does; replied union erence. The Appellees. participate AT&T refused to and instead EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, Before § filed this suit under 301 of the Labor- KANNE, Judges. Circuit Act, Management Relations 29 U.S.C. seeking an The Union EASTERBROOK, Judge. Circuit interposed 1 of the Norris-LaGuardia appeal presents This Act, provides: 29 U.S.C. Act, whether the Norris-LaGuardia ... No court of the United shall States 101-15, §§ court forbids district jurisdiction any restraining have to issue of a arbitration labor temporary permanent or in- order or appeals Four courts of have ad- other junction involving growing in a case or subject. this All four have held dressed in a strict except out of labor relief is unavailable. See conformity provisions with the of this Coamo, Inc. v. International Tejidos de chapter; any restraining nor shall such Union, 22 Ladies’ Garment Workers’ temporary permanent order or or (1st Cir.1994); Lukens Steel Co. v. Unit- public junction contrary be issued to the (3d Steelworkers, ed 989 F.2d 675-79 chapter. policy declared Cir.1993); Camping Construction Co. v. (9th Workers, apply To the Norris-LaGuardia we Iron 1340-50 Cir.1990); only to know whether arbitration of a Engineers In re Marine Benefi- (D.C.Cir.1983). Ass’n, “involving a matter cial 723 F.2d 70 labor employer proximate relation of It does dispute”. labor growing out of-a employee. understand deep insight require the statute “yes.” Thus that the answer that neither subsection AT&T observes may not issue courts applies, and district arbitration, from which it con- mentions *3 injunctions. arbitrability dispute about is cludes that a straightfor- dispute” is so thus is outside if the resolution not a “labor and

Yet pocket ward, digging dispute- into its a why grant § is AT&T that arbitration is We mechanism, this lawyers, why independent has pay not resolution appellate Still, to four other presented statutory question been labor §§ 4 and 13 of answer is that courts? One and union are en- employer is whether 113) (29 104, may §§ blur the Act “concerning or dispute in a terms gaged 13(a) (and § defines clarity on); of 1. Section so if employment” conditions of way: dispute” “labor this injunc- may a court not issue an yes, then involving growing held to involve or to or out of’ A case shall be tion in “a case underlying dispute.” a labor when the grow out of “labor engaged engaged are in persons case involves who the Electrical Workers are trade, craft, § or industry, dispute” in 13 defines that the same a “labor Terminals, or indirect occupation; or have direct Bulk term. See Jacksonville therein; 702, 712, employees Longshoremen, or who are interests Inc. v. U.S. (1982); 2672, are mem- employer; of the same or who 73 L.Ed.2d 327 Ass’n, organi- or an affiliated Inc. v. bers of the same River Packers Columbia Hinton, 520, employees; employers zation of or (1) (1942). one whether such is between L.Ed. 750 That the arbitration is of employers dispute” more or associations a does not make or “labor itself employers employees and one or more out of’ a labor “growing this suit less one (2) employees; of be- dispute. might or associations Otherwise one as well ob- employers or associa- dispute” tween one or more that a strike is not a “labor serve list) (it employers § more em- tions of one or in 13’s and contend that it employers; of or ployers proper stop- or associations therefore work (3) lockout, employees or more or pages. between one Yet a strike or like arbi- employees tration, of and one or a associations arise from labor employees or associations of em- brings more and this connection both within the ployees; any § the case involves or when of 1. in conflicting competing or interests a a part, Section for its contains list of (as in this sec- dispute” “labor defined things that courts are not to particular

tion) or inter- “persons participating of 4(a) strikes, enjoin. specifies Section (as in ested” therein defined this sec- 4(b) unions, joining covers labor so tion). again arbitration is not on the on. Once 13(c) again unimpor- Section adds: the omission is list. Once say tant. 4 does not Section dispute” any includes The term “labor prohibition §of 1 is limited to the sorts of controversy concerning terms or condi- designed, §in 4. It is activities mentioned concerning the employment, tions of or rather, it!” for really to shout mean ‘We representation persons or of association operations. activities at the core of union negotiating, fixing, maintaining, Norris-LaGuardia Act is re- The whole changing, seeking arrange terms judicial of regardless sponse to evasion employment, or conditions of had disputants Clayton 29 U.S.C. of whether or not the stand injunction. linchpin Act. The AT&T’s designed to end the labor been Hutcheson, 312 U.S. employer States v. if the has a See United substantive (1941); see (here, 85 L.Ed. 788 right S.Ct. to a decision about also, Northern R.R. v. e.g., Burlington arbitrability) remedy then there must be a Way Employees, 481 U.S. Maintenance by way only It would be 429, 437-40, 107 95 L.Ed.2d 381 step plug small other substantive (1987). 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Section rights. Suppose employer has a sub- would Act the new statute ensured right secondary boy- stantive to be free of It would be not suffer the same fate. syllogism appropriate, cotts. If AT&T’s § 4 to make if the enactment of ironic authority must then courts to enforce keep their noses doubly judges sure that right by injunctions. issuing Bye, *4 disputes to evade out of labor were used bye, Act, Norris-LaGuardia for this was § 1. Marine the broader See very way the in which courts 20 evaded Co., Steamship 362 U.S. v. Panama Cooks Clayton of the Act! Yet in Burlington 365, 2, 779, 4 L.Ed.2d 797 366 n. 80 S.Ct. Supreme unanimously Northern the Court (§ (1960) 4 limit Norris- is not the of the held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act for- scope); Engi LaGuardia Act’s Marine injunctive secondary bids relief neers, at boycott, despite boycott the fact that the argument second line of starts AT&T’s employer’s rights. the violated substantive Technologies, holding from the of AT&T Congress through established What Workers, 475 Inc. v. Communications Act is that a Norris-LaGuardia substan- (1986), 643, 1415, L.Ed.2d 648 106 S.Ct. 89 injunctive right imply tive does not an otherwise, that, parties agree unless the remedy. Employers to settle for arbitrability judge is a for a to review, damages post or other forms of ex Technologies decide. AT&T reads AT&T they if turn out to at even be less effective pre- must establishing that this decision vindicating underlying right. So it is arbitration; if it has a sub- cede the and surprise Forge no that Co. v. Steel- Buffalo then right stantive to a decision workers, 428 U.S. 96 S.Ct. read to the Norris-LaGuardia Act must be (1976), limited Markets Boys L.Ed.2d right, accommodate that (the agreement trade of to one kind of time wraps up. This would not be the first promise) for a no-strike and arbitration per- interpreted that the Act has been pointedly “driving force added agreement; of a labor mit enforcement Boys implement Markets was to behind Markets, Union, Inc. v. Retail Boys Clerks congressional preference for strong 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 398 U.S. 90 S.Ct. mechanisms private dispute settlement (1970), judges may holds that at agreed upon by parties.” 428 U.S. bargaining strikes that violate collective Forge Buffalo through which unions have agreements that there Burlington Northern establish than strike agreed to arbitrate rather exception to generic labor-agreement is no injunc- if disagreements when arise. And Act. the Norris-LaGuardia may contracts tions be used enforce Markets, why there Boys under not when AT&T, the court to issue an which wants right pre-arbitration is a to a decision injunction, position in no anti-arbitration arbitrability? about Boys from the Markets to seek shelter approach. an of that principle or extension it response to this theme is One Mills, would, Textile Workers v. Lincoln accepted, if See also proves too much and L.Ed.2d core of the Norris-LaGuardia wipe out the eroded, (1957) an ar- are be lost that enforcement of These benefits (holding - losses, if it not offend the turned into net does or even agreement bitration Act). any necessary litigate arbitrability, If there were about Norris-LaGuardia doubt, underlying Norris-LaGuardia 8 of the then arbitrate by stating it finally resolves court to decide whether return to injunctive relief otherwise People limited even the the award should be enforced. permissible par- unless the through standing may prefer available arbitration arbitral remedies. exhausted pre- ties have panels order to save the costs principal footing the- Section 8 was Having agreed wrangling. arbitration order sustained in Lincoln pro-arbitration with the Electrical Workers on such injunction, by anti-arbitration Mills. An AT&T cannot turn around arrangement, contrast, purchase the Norris- has no pre-enforcement review. Its demand Act. LaGuardia injunction is request for an anti-arbitration than more a breach of faith with the union more, premise What injury.” “irreparable it is an effort to avoid if Norris-La position AT&T’s —that to, by, agreed and must abide picture Act were out of the Guardia system postpones until after the arbi- relief would be entitled *5 any judicial tral decision review an arbitration —is incorrect. question particular dispute was whether irreparable injury? If AT&T Where’s the arbitrable. arbitration, the union loses in the will seek victory; Technologies its AT&T can defend is to the Nothing to enforce theory agreed had not contrary. sought it to on No one anti-arbitra- dispute. Delay this kind of injunction began arbitrate tion in that case. It injury, irreparable would not cause so invoked the court’s stead when the union justification injunction. for an there is no oblige assistance to a reluctant AT&T to delay All lose from the is the AT&T could arbitrate a Because the relief presenting arguments to the cost of sought was an the other compelling order arbitrator, long and it has been established arbitrate, party to course the district of expense adjudication of arbitration; preceded judge’s decision See, injury. irreparable e.g., FTC v. Stan that’s what the structure of the suit en- Co., 232, 244, dard 449 U.S. 101 S.Ct. Oil Sons, Wiley Living- tailed. John & Inc. v. (1980); Renegotiation 66 L.Ed.2d ston, 909, 11 376 U.S. 84 S.Ct. Co., Clothing Board v. (1964), in an L.Ed.2d 898 was identical Bannercraft 1, 24, 1028, 39 L.Ed.2d 123 posture. opinions That of both (1974); Exploration, Petroleum Inc. v. say cases that a these decision about arbi- Commission, Public Service trability precedes the arbitration does (1938). 834, 82 L.Ed. 1294 So imply only proper this is se- principle fundamental is this that we have quence; just right sequence was for sanctionably held it frivolous to seek an the kind of that arose in those two anti-arbitration See Paine- proceed cases. arbitration can with When Farnam, (7th Inc. v. 843 F.2d 1050 Webber contrast, only cooperation, by one side’s Cir.1988); Graphic Communications Un fore, timing issue comes to the Co., Chicago ion v. Tribune pre-arbitra- it the with whether (7th Cir.1986). judicial to avoid tion review is essential no, irreparable injury. for parties’ clauses The answer Arbitration reflect the preference non-judicial dispute gave for the reasons we in PaineWebber and resolu- tion, Tribune, that AT&T cheaper. Chicago be faster and which means for an extension has no cobrable America, of UNITED STATES principle to cover Boys Markets Plaintiff-Appellee, injunctions, opposed

anti-arbitration facilitate resolu- injunctions that v. through tion arbitration. CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant. Carmen up nicely Teji- Judge Boudin summed No. 02-2728. Coamo, 22 at 15: dos de Appeals, United States Court equitable [curtailment relief] If this Seventh Circuit. limitation on a useful seems an eccentric Argued Dec. customarily to liti- remedy now available the short answer is the Nor- gants, Decided Jan. a unique ris-LaGuardia Act reflects his- experience. Frankfurter & torical See (1930).

Greene, Injunction The Labor gave

Perceived abuses rise on federal court au-

severe restrictions restrictions,

thority; being stat- and the though climate

utory, persist even

that led to abuses has altered. Courts authority a lot of in recent

have assumed authority repeal stat-

years, but the belongs Congress.

utes still *6 perspective and therefore

We share

join circuits that have un- the four other pre- Act to

derstood the Norris-LaGuardia

clude relief the arbitra-

tion of a labor

AFFIRMED

RIPPLE, Judge, dissenting. Circuit by Judge

For the reasons stated Cowen dissenting opinion in Lukens Steel his America,

Co. v. United Steelworkers (3d Cir.1993) (Cowen, J.,

dissenting), judgment I would reverse the

of the district court.