by the statute upon which the Supreme Court decision is based. Section 142 of the Labor Management Relations Act defines the term "strike" as "any concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations by employees." 29 U.S.C. § 142 (1988) (emphasis added).
In any event, this Court need not go so far in its analysis for, contrary to defendants' assertions, this case does involve more than mere picketing. As testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing clearly established, picketing by Local 30 at the Roosevelt Field store precipitated a day-long work stoppage by approximately fifty construction contractors hired to prepare the store for its grand opening. (Tr. at 45-46).
Courts have not hesitated to enjoin a broad range of activity, including picketing, where that activity is accompanied by a work stoppage or other tangible interruption of business operations in violation of an agreement not to strike. See, e.g., Dannon Co. v. Whelan, 555 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (in response to strike over transfer of operations, court enjoined strikes, slowdowns, and other interruptions of plaintiff's operations, including picketing for the purpose of instigating a work stoppage); New York News, Inc. v. New York Typographical Union, Local 6, 374 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (issuing broad injunction prohibiting typographers' union from engaging in any strike, work stoppage, or any other interference with normal employment or production). Courts have also granted Boys Markets relief to forestall a threatened strike, even though no work slowdown or stoppage has taken place. See, e.g., Greater N.Y. Health Care Facilities Ass'n, Inc. v. Ottley, 493 F. Supp. 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (enjoining threatened strike by nursing home workers).
Catalytic, Inc. v. Monmouth & Ocean County Bldg. Trades Council, 829 F.2d 430 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1020, 99 L. Ed. 2d 888, 108 S. Ct. 1573 (1988), provides ample support for this Court's decision to enjoin picketing by Local 30. Catalytic involved a jurisdictional dispute over crane operations at a New Jersey nuclear plant. Local 825 objected to the plant owner's use of its own employees to man the mobile cranes and began picketing at the plant site. As a result, a number of other craft unions at the plant engaged in a work stoppage. One month later, Local 825 began handing out leaflets at the plant's entrances.
On application of the general contractor Catalytic, the district court granted a permanent injunction directing the parties to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement with the plant owner, Jersey Central. Local 825 was prohibited from picketing, handbilling, and otherwise interfering with the ingress and egress of workers at the plant site.
On appeal, Local 825 contended that Boys Markets did not govern its activity because none of its members had engaged in a strike or work stoppage. The Third Circuit rejected the union's argument, noting
. . . the union reads that case too narrowly. In amplifying the desirability of arbitration, the [Supreme] Court observed such procedures would discourage "strikes, lock outs, or other self-help measures" for which there must be an "immediate, effective remedy."
In the case at hand, the handbilling at the plant gate constituted self-help, triggering a work stoppage just as effectively as the picketing some weeks earlier. The measure was designed to bring pressure on Catalytic in Precisely the same manner as a strike and, consequently, came within the Boys Markets rationale.
Id. at 434 (citations omitted).
Like the union in Catalytic, Local 30 intended that its picketing exert pressure on A&S to employ its members at the Roosevelt Field store. Although its conduct did not rise to the level of a strike, its ability to incite the construction workers' sympathy strike had precisely the same effect as a strike by its own members. In fact, Local 30 went even further than its counterparts in Catalytic, threatening to strike over the staffing issue itself. To deprive A&S of an effective remedy under such circumstances would unfairly allow Local 30 to shirk its obligation to arbitrate pursuant to agreement it bargained for at arms-length and in good faith. See id. at 433; see also Campbell "66" Express, Inc. v. Rundel, 597 F.2d 125, 129 n.7 (8th Cir. 1979) (notwithstanding collective bargaining agreement's failure to specifically bar picketing in its no-strike clause, picketing enjoined because "appellants attempted to circumvent the binding grievance procedure by picketing the company").
As the foregoing discussion makes clear, the requirements for relief under Boys Markets have been satisfied. There is a collective bargaining agreement in effect between A&S and Local 30 and Local 30's picketing and threats to strike violate the agreement's no-strike provision. Moreover, the union's activity arises out of a dispute over staffing in a new A&S store--an issue the parties' are contractually bound to arbitrate. Finally, injunctive relief is warranted in this case because A&S has and will continue to suffer irreparable injury to its business and goodwill. Local 30, on the other hand, will not suffer injury because the application for injunctive relief will merely enforce the bargain into which the union freely entered.
Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby granted and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration to resolve the issue of staffing of engineers and mechanics at A&S' Roosevelt Field store.
Thomas C. Platt
Chief Judge, U.S.D.C.
Uniondale, New York
November 6, 1992