*1 Iska W. filed award Commissioners’ Lori- representing others Carmack Under are stricken. mier heirs thereby adversely any party affected ruling appeal, hence right of his
should have owner- judgment finality condemned. land
ship
RIFKIND, dissenting. Judge, District WORK- AND WAREHOUSE WHOLESALE UNION, al. LOCAL et ERS
DOUDS. ASS’N, COMMUNICATIONS
AMERICAN DOUDS. C. I. O. et al. v. Court, S. York. D. New 1948.
Neuburger, Shapiro, Rabinowitz & Bou- din, Rabinowitz, City (Victor of New York Seligman, Leonard B. Boudin Belle City, counsel), plain- York New tiffs. Denham, Counsel, N.
Robert Gen. David Counsel, Findling, P. Associate Gen. Somers, Counsel, Norman Asst. Gen. Come, Mozart G. Ratner Norton J. Attorneys the National Labor Relations Washington, C.,D. all of de- fendant. Judge,
Before and COXE Judges. *2 564 In 2 case No. the facts are Judge. similar: by the American Association disclosed Communications In No. 1 facts the (for brevity A.C.A.) affi- called is a national supporting complaint the amended and organization, the CIO. affiliated with davits are as follows: 1947, 13, in- August On or about it entered with affiliated 65 a local Local union Inc., Wireless, agreement with Press Depart- and Retail Wholesale the United employment concerning conditions of the America, CIO. Employees of ment Stores employees agreement of the latter. The 13,000 in about and It has over provided it in un- should effect remain York, consisting work- City of the of New 7, August 1948, til thereafter and wholesale, warehouses, employed ers year year to be writing unless notice establishments. distributing and processing, by a given party either of desire to termin- 1,000 con- approximately collective It has agreement, the be ate which notice must throughout employers tracts with various given sixty prior not days less than the to city. the year. end of one notice was No such 8, 1947, 65 en- Local July about On or given by either the parties. of Wool- W. agreement with F. tered into an 1948, Teleg- In the of Commercial June employment Company, concerning worth Union, raphers American affiliated the with company’s warehouse conditions Labor, petition Federation of filed a with expires on agreement employees. That the be National Labor Relations to 1948, May 20, 804 8, Local July 1948. On repre- certified as Team- of Brotherhood the International of sentative for the Press Wire- of with Chauffeurs, L. filed A.F. of sters and 1, less. Like in be- agreement an Board, peti- a National Labor the tween employer the rival union representative of as the tion to certified be election, made for the a holding of consent Local of employees Woolworth. the approved by which was the defendant. the approval of Woolworth, the with it hearing a nor is Plaintiff has neither had agree- into defendant, entered thereupon place a have the ballot. The defend- on to consent election. holding of a ment for the or plaintiff hearing ant’s a refusal to grant 9(f) and complied with §§ 65 has Local place solely on the the ballot is based Act, but has not Taft-Hartley (g) of the plaintiff complied ground that has not comply nor can it 9(h); complied with § requirements 9(h) Act. ais officers its because July election is be held between has Communist'Party. The defendant by 23, July brought 1948. The action hearing for a plaintiff’s demand refused A.C.A., officers, two of its and member place plaintiff a allow has refused to standing have moved good held, be the election for the ballot upon for an The de- has failed plaintiff ground solely on fendant has made a cross-motion 9(h) of file affidavits place on tois take The election the Act. Because interval of the short between 30, 1948. June set hearing and the time Osman, its Arthur president, case No. holding the election in Livingston, its secre- vice-president, David opinion impossible has prepare been Paley and Theodore tary-treasurer, Jack adequately the various which discuss could good Markowski, standing a member in But legal presented issues to re- action .this at identical with issues considered individually and as strain the defendant length in National Maritime Union of Re- regional director D.C., F.Supp. 146, America election, conducting the Board from lations States District Court United .the interlocutory in- for an and have moved Columbia, Supreme which moved dis- The defendant junction. has 21, 1948, 68 affirmed on Court state for failure to
miss the however, without, passing on the va action. cause
5G5 expedi Judge (dissenting). the sake 9(h)1. For lidity of § refer content ourselves tion we shall Insofar Tafl- Section opin Union ring National Maritime io the Hartley Act excludes from facilities of supports our *3 reasoning which ion for the Board union, is a whose officers Party of the or affili- Communist first, court, that holdWe as did therewith, ated incompatible it is no stand that the individual ‘First abridges Amendment. It the freedom deny 65’s motion for ing to sue. We speech right assembly with- interlocutory injunction. Two out present danger. clear showing court, Judge disagreeing, of the Rifkind Indeed, argument the defendant dis- injury irreparable doubt entertain whether presence present avowed of clear and will excluding result to 65 from danger. deny I would motion defendant’s name from Its members ballot. dismiss election; they entitled if to vote at the majority of the constitute a unit, they claim, that can the elec would seem defeat
tion of Local 804 and in that the situ event exactly
ation will remain what it is legally
now. if But even of Local 65 exclusion adequate showing the ballot is an irreparable injury, agree that com we CARRIER CORPO- UZELMEIER v. peting equities justify greater weight re RATION. fusal of It is Civ. No. 8408. well right established when the Court, Pennsylvania. E. D. injunction is granting doubtful and Aug. 12, 1948. a temporary injunction pending decision irreparable injury would work con
gressionally public policy, declared a court deny equity Dryfoos such will relief. v. S.D.N.Y., 596, 603;
Edwards, 284 F. Ya States,
kus v. United 321 U.S. L.Ed. 834.
Finally, we sustain the constitution ality reasons set forth at
length in majority opinion in National supra.
Maritime Union Ac
(cid:127)cordingly, defendant’s motion granted. time
At the can be no order made 2. That case speedily with the other so opportunity give
that there was no to the
Attorney General the notice Code. 380a Counsel for Judicial plaintiffs proposed attempt pro-
cure a of such waiver notice the Attor-
ney In the General. event such filed,
waiver is hereafter will be
disposed conformity fore- in case
going No. 1. decision only brief submitted to ns on be- tional Labor Relations Board in the Na-
half of the defendant the brief of tional Na- Maritime Union case.