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.

MCLEOD EX REL. NLRB v. CHEFS. LOCAL 89

February 9, 1960

Ivan C. McLEOD, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner,
v.
CHEFS, COOKS, PASTRY COOKS AND ASSISTANTS, LOCAL 89, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION, AFL-CIO and Waiters and Waitresses, Dining Room Employees, Local 1, Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Respondents



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAWSON

This proceeding comes before the Court upon the petition filed by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to § 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereinafter called the 'Act'), § 160(l) of Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents, pending final disposition of the matter before the National Labor Relations Board, from picketing the Stork Restaurant, Inc., a restaurant in New York City commonly known as and hereinafter referred to as 'the Stork Club.'

The charge alleges that respondents engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, which prohibits certain types of picketing under certain circumstances. The particular section of the Act is part of the Landrum-Griffin Act which became effective on November 13, 1959. The petition is predicated upon the conclusion of the Board that it has reasonable cause to believe that respondents engaged in unfair labor practices and that a complaint of the Board, based upon the charge, should issue. An order to show cause was issued by this Court, a hearing held and testimony taken.

 The Court makes the following findings of fact:

 (1) The Stork Club is a restaurant in New York City. For several years past the volume of its business has exceeded $ 1,000,000 a year, and also for several years past the volume of its supplies purchased outside the State of New York was approximately $ 300,000 a year. The Stork Club, as a result, is found as a fact to be engaged in interstate commerce.

 (2) Respondents are labor organizations engaged in this district in transacting business and promoting the interests of their members.

 (3) Since on or about January 9, 1957, respondents have demanded that the Stork Club recognize them and bargain with them as the representatives of certain employees of the Stork Club. On January 7, 1957 a substantial number of the employees of the Stork Club went on strike, and the respondents began picketing the premises. It is admitted by the attorneys for the respondents that among the objectives of such picketing was 'to obtain recognition by Stork as the legally designated collective bargaining representatives of Stork's employees.' The attorneys for the respondents admit that picketing for this objective continued at least until January 13, 1960. Whether it continued for this objective thereafter is one of the issues before this Court.

 (4) Respondents have not been certified as the representatives of employees working at the Stork Club and, although the picketing has continued for several years, no petition for an election to determine the representatives of the employees for bargaining purposes has been filed under the provisions of the Act.

 (5) The Landrum-Griffin Act, which added § 8(b)(7)(C) to the Act, became effective on November 13, 1959.

 (6) On or about January 6, 1960 the Stork Club executed and filed with the National Labor Relations Board a charge that the respondents were engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of said § 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.

 (7) Shortly thereafter, and on or about January 13, 1960, the officials of the unions, and their attorneys, knowing that the aforesaid charge had been filed, met and discussed the situation with reference to the Stork Club. The officials of the respondent unions were advised by their attorneys that under the Act, as amended, they were no longer entitled to picket the Stork Club to seek to obtain recognition as the bargaining representatives of the employees of the Stork Club. They determined, nevertheless, to continue picketing but also sent a letter to the National Labor Relations Board, and to the Stork Club, stating that they had decided 'to cease picketing the Stork Restaurant, Inc. for the purpose of obtaining recognition and to withdraw their demand therefore' and that they had decided to continue picketing the Stork Restaurant, Inc. for the following purposes:

 '1. To advise the public (including consumers) that Stork Restaurant, Inc. does not employ members of, or have a contract with, the two Unions.

 '2. To advise the public (including the consumers) that the Stork Restaurant, Inc. dictatorially discharged certain employees for their membership in the Unions and interfered with the right of its employees freely to select collective bargaining representatives.

 '3. To advise the public (including the consumers) that the standard union wages, hours and working conditions do not prevail in the Stork Restaurant, Inc.'

 (8) The picketing continued. At the sole entrance to the Stork Club on East 53rd Street, New York City, two to four pickets are present and have been present at substantially all hours of the day and night during which the Club is open, including the hours during which deliveries of supplies would customarily be made. The pickets carried, and still carry, sandwich type signs which read substantially as follows:

 'To The Public:

 The Stork Club

 Discharged Employees

 Because They Joined ...


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.