Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Decision and Order Denying Injunction 7-18-13

Decision and Order Denying Injunction 7-18-13

Ratings: (0)|Views: 187|Likes:
Published by Latisha Walker
Decision and Order Denying Injunction 7-18-13
Decision and Order Denying Injunction 7-18-13

More info:

Published by: Latisha Walker on Jul 20, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF
NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------)(
MANUFACTURING WOODWORKERSASSOCIA TION OF GREATER NEW YORK,INC.,Plaintiff,-against-NEW YORK DISTRICT COUNCIL OF :CARPENTERS a!k/a THE DISTRICT COUNCIL:OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITYUNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERSAND JOINERS OF AMERICA,Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------)(
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENTELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
____________
__
DATE FILED:
n1
\
«\
\>
13
Civ. 4473 (RMB)
DECISION AND ORDER
Having reviewed the record herein, including:
(i)
the Complaint, dated June 27,2013,filed by the Manufacturing Woodworkers Association
of
Greater New York, Inc. ("MW A" or"Plaintiff') against the District Council
of
New York City and Vicinity
of
the UnitedBrotherhood
of
Carpenters and Joiners
of
America ("District Council" or "Union" or"Defendant"), applying "for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanentinjunctive relief in aid
of
arbitration requiring the Defendant, its attorneys, agents andrepresentatives to cease and desist from engaging in any
job
action or any other activity thatinterferes in the business activities
of
the Plaintiff' (see Comp!., dated June
27,2013
("Compl."),
~
1.); (ii) Plaintiffs Memorandum
of
Law in Support
of
the
Plaintiffs
Motion for a PreliminaryInjunction, dated June 27, 2013 ("PI. Mem.");
(iii)
Defendant's Memorandum
of
Law OpposingMotion for an Injunction, dated July
5,2013
("Def. Opp'n"), contending, among other things,that "[t]he federal courts do not have jurisdiction to intervene in economic strikes over a union'sefforts to procure a successor collective bargaining agreement" (Def.
Opp'n
at
1);
(iv) Plaintiffs
Case 1:13-cv-04473-RMB Document 34 Filed 07/18/13 Page 1 of 10
 
Reply Memorandum
of
Law in Further Support
of
the Plaintiff s Motion for a PreliminaryInjunction, dated July
8,
2013 ("Reply Mem."); (v) the hearing held by the Court on July 8,2013, during which, among other things, Plaintiff and Defendant had an opportunity to presentwitnesses and be heard on the issue
of
whether a preliminary injunction should issue;
I
andapplicable legal authorities,
the Court hereby denies PJaintifrs application
as follows:I) Plaintiff and Defendant were parties to a five-year collective bargaining agreement (the"CBA") effective from July
1,2007
to June 30, 2012 and subsequently extended for anadditional year by the parties to June 30, 2013.
(Hr'g
Tr., dated July
8,
2013, at 4:5-8.) "Since
in
or
about February 2013 the MWA and the Union have been actively involved in negotiationsfor a successor CBA." (Compl.
~
12.) Negotiations between the parties broke down in June
of
2013 "over the terms
of
a successor bargaining agreement." (Def. Opp'n at 4.) On June 25,2013, Defendant (verbally) advised Plaintiff "that the Union members had authorized a strikepost June
30,2013,"
Le., following termination
of
the CBA. (Compl.
~
16.)2) On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff submitted to arbitration before the American ArbitrationAssociation the issue "[w]hether Article XXVII
of
the CBA prevents the Union while parties areengaged in negotiations for a successor agreement from engaging in any
job
action,
or
anyactions, which change the status quo." (CompL, Ex. C, Notice ofIntention to Arbitrate; see
PI.
Mem. at 2.)On July 1,2013, Plaintiff also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NationalLabor Relations Board ("NLRB")
in
Manhattan "requesting that the NLRB seek an injunction
I
At the July
8,
2013 hearing, Plaintiff called three witnesses, Anthony Rizzo, President
of
Rimi Woodcraft Corp., George Greco, Principal
of
Midhattan Woodworking Corp., and PeterArena, CEO
of
Tatco Installations. (See
Hr'g
Tr., dated July
8,
2013.) The parties stipulated tothe testimony
of
a fourth witness, Helge Halvorsen. (Id. at 33:22-34:3.) The defense called nowitnesses and also waived their right to cross examine Plaintiff s witnesses. (Id.)
2
Case 1:13-cv-04473-RMB Document 34 Filed 07/18/13 Page 2 of 10
 
from this very Court stopping the strike." (Def.
Opp'n
at
1;
see also Decl.
of
James
M.
Murphy,dated July
5,
2013, at
Ex.
C.) The docket does not reflect any submission from the NLRB.3) On June 27, 2013, United States District Court Judge Sidney
H.
Stein, sitting as the Part 1Judge, held a hearing to "determin[e] whether the TRO should be granted." (See
Hr'g
Tr., datedJune 27,2013, at 4:19-20.) On June 28,2013, Judge Stein denied Plaintiffs request for atemporary restraining order. (See Order to Show Cause, dated June 28, 2013.) Judge Stein alsoscheduled a hearing for July
8,
2013, and directed the parties to show cause at said hearing "whyan order should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65
of
the Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure(,FRCP'), restraining the Defendant, its attorneys, agents, servants, employees, representativesand all persons acting in concert or participating with them or those provided with notice
of
thisOrder from engaging in a work stoppage, strike slowdown, picketing, or other
job
action or anyactivity that interferes with Plaintiffs employer member's business pending an arbitrationhearing and determination
of
the issues herein." (ld. at
II
In
fact, "the District Council commenced a strike on July
1,
2013 after expiration
of
theparties' collective bargaining agreement." (Def. Opp'n at
1.)
2
This case was originally assigned to United States District Court Judge Alison J. Nathan.Defense counsel, by letter dated June 28, 2013, requested that the case be reassigned to thisCourt as related to United States
v.
District Council, et aI., No. 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB). (SeePlaintiffs Letter to the Court, dated June 28, 2013.) Judge Nathan agreed to the transfer in "theinterests
of
ustice and efficiency," Local Rule for the Division
of
Business Among DistrictJudges
13Ca),
and the case was reassigned to this Court on July 3, 2013. (See Notice
of
CaseReassignment, dated July 3, 2013).
It
should be noted that Plaintiff, by letter dated July 3, 2013, objected to the casereassignment, asserting "further delay which will result
if
the case is reassigned." (SeeDefendant's Letter to the Court, dated July
3,2013,
at 2.) The hearing originally scheduled byJudge Stein for July
8,
2013, at 2:00 p.m., was not delayed or
ost~oneddu~
t~
the
c~e.
.reassignment, (see
Hr'g
Tr., dated July
8,
2013), and the Court beheves
Plamtlffs
objectIon
IS
moot.
3
Case 1:13-cv-04473-RMB Document 34 Filed 07/18/13 Page 3 of 10

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->