Opinion

Belsinger Signs, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

  • 231 F. Supp. 741
  • 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2803
  • 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7679
Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jul 15, 1964
Status
Published
Author
Walsh
On the bench
Walsh
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 89.2%

The opinion

LEONARD P. WALSH, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction.

The plaintiff, Belsinger Signs, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture, sale and repair of neon signs. The plaintiff is a member of the Greater Washington Sign Association (GWSA), an employers’ association which has handled negotiations with the defendant Union. In March of 1964, the Union executed collective bargaining agreements with all members of GWSA except the plaintiff.

The plaintiff states that the reason the Union did not sign the contract is that Belsinger ceased the manufacture of signs in Washington, although it continued to sell and service the signs.

The Defendant Union contends that two-thirds of the work force was fired and, as a result, Local 26 no longer represented a majority of the employees.

The plaintiff has filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, and a hearing is scheduled for August 17, 1964.

The plaintiff now comes before this court and asks for a temporary restraining order requiring the defendants to cease and desist from refusing to comply with the decision of the Council, which had directed the parties to enter into negotiations, and for a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the defendants to enter into the collective bargaining agreement.

It appears to this Court that the allegations of the plaintiff are founded on a claim of unfair labor practices. This Court does not have jurisdiction over these matters since Congress has expressly preempted these actions for the National Labor Relations Board. See United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America v. General Electric Co., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 306 , 231 F.2d 259 (1956).

In addition, this complaint is now pending before the National Labor Relations Board and a hearing is scheduled for August 17, 1964. It would be a clear subversion of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160 , for this Court to assume jurisdiction of this complaint.

Therefore, it is this 15th day of July, 1964,

Ordered, that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be, and the same hereby is, denied; and

It is further ordered that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction be, and the same hereby is, denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.