Source: https://casetext.com/case/local-336-am-fed-of-musicians-v-bonatz
Timestamp: 2019-03-18 14:20:10
Document Index: 695186398

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 301', '§ 158', '§ 101', '§ 1', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 185', '§ 185', '§ 152', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301']

Local 336, Am. Fed. of Musicians v. Bonatz, 475 F.2d 433 | Casetext
Local 336, Am. Fed. of Musicians v. Bonatz
475 F.2d 433 (3d Cir. 1973)
Local 336, Am. Fed. of Musiciansv.Bonatz
United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMar 9, 1973
Argued February 9, 1973.
Bernard N. Katz, Warren J. Borish, Meranze, Katz, Spear Bielitsky, Philadelphia, Pa., Philip G. Steel, Steel Steel, Camden, N. J., for appellants.
Jack W. Tapper, Dimon, Haines Bunting, Mt. Holly, N. J., for appellee.
On appeal the employer claims this defense traversed federal jurisdiction. Obviously it did not, since a dismissal on this ground would be on the merits. Obviously, also, it was not so intended, since the jurisdictional allegations were admitting in the same pleading.
The federal district courts have jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 not only to compel contract arbitration of labor contracts but also to enforce arbitration awards made pursuant to such contracts. 9 U.S.C. § 9; General Drivers Local 89 v. Riss Co., 372 U.S. 517, 83 S.Ct. 789, 9 L.Ed.2d 918 (1963) (per curiam); Philadelphia Marine Trade Association v. Longshoremen's Local 1291, 365 F.2d 295 (3rd Cir. 1966). Thus, dismissal sua sponte pursuant to rule 12(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., may be sustained here only if no facts which the local union and the leader might prove would bring Exhibit A within the coverage of § 301 as an agreement between a labor organization and an employer.
(1) The greatest number of musical engagements are in the club date field, and that orchestra leaders, sub-leaders and sideman perform in that field and elsewhere interchangeably wherever work is available.
(3) There is no arrangement in the club date field, which includes thousands of occasional employers of musicians, for prehire contracts ( Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 158(f), applicable to the construction industry), but a separate contract is entered into for each engagement.
The nature of the music industry and the operation of the Form B contract are set forth in considerable detail in American Federation of Musicians v. Carroll, 391 U.S. 99, 88 S.Ct. 1562, 20 L.Ed.2d 460 (1968). That case holds that the Federation's enforcement of the requirement that its member-leaders use the Form B contract for club dates fell within the protection of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-15, and outside the reach of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7. Since the exemption in the Norris-LaGuardia Act for allowable union activity probably is broader than the district court jurisdiction conferred in § 301, Carroll is not dispositive of the ultimate issue whether a Form B agreement is covered by that section. But Carroll clearly belies the assumption of the district court that Form B (Exhibit A) is a mere employment contract in which the local union has no interest. If the local union establishes the facts which it has represented (which, the briefs suggest, probably will not be seriously disputed) a § 301 jurisdictional finding seems highly likely.
For example, the local union proposes to establish that its leader-member had actual and apparent authority to bind it when she executed a Form B contract with the employer. Her authority to so act is determined, under the Labor-Management Relations Act, by ordinary agency principles. 29 U.S.C. § 185(b), (e). See e. g., Barefoot v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 424 F.2d 1001, 1004 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 950, 91 S.Ct. 239, 27 L.Ed.2d 257 (1970); Teamsters Local 524 v. Billington, 402 F.2d 510, 513 (9th Cir. 1968). The local union, then, would be a labor organization suing for violation of its contract with the employer. See 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).
[12] "CONTRACT BLANK AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA (HEREIN CALLED `FEDERATION') BURLINGTON MUSICAL SOCIETY LOCAL NO. 336, A. F. of M. BURLINGTON, NEW JERSEY"
The employer makes several direct undertakings with the union. The contract is signed by the leader, but with the local number of the local union inserted immediately following her name.
"Representatives of the Federation local in whose jurisdiction the musicians shall perform hereunder shall have access to the place of performance (except to private residences) for the purpose of conferring with the musicians.
The Employer represents that there does not exist against him, in favor of any member of the Federation, any claim of any kind arising out of musical services rendered for such Employer. No musician will be required to perform any provisions of this contract or to render any services for said Employer as long as any such claim is unsatisfied or unpaid, in whole or in part . ..
"The term `labor organization' means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan . . . which exists for the purpose . . . of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work." 29 U.S.C. § 152(5) (emphasis added.)
The jurisdictional issue having been raised at this juncture we cannot say that as a matter of law Exhibit A is a § 301 contract. We hold only that it was error for the district court to decide that issue with this record on a sua sponte rule 12(b)(1) motion. We recognize that the district courts have more latitude as to modes of proof in the disposition of issues of jurisdictional fact. E. g., Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 457 F.2d 1320 (3d Cir. 1972); Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1971). But we have never departed from the rule that even on such an issue the record must clearly establish that after jurisdiction was challenged the plaintiff had an opportunity to present facts by affidavit or by deposition, or in an evidentiary hearing, in support of his jurisdictional contention. E. g., Groh v. Brooks, 421 F.2d 589, 594 (3d Cir. 1970); Shahmoon Industries, Inc. v. Imperato, 338 F.2d 449 (3d Cir. 1964). The existence of an agreement between a labor organization and an employer is, for § 301 purposes, a jurisdictional fact. For the determination of that fact, no doubt, those more liberal modes of proof apply which the Supreme Court has approved for jurisdictional determinations. Whether the court proceeds by considering affidavits or depositions, or by an evidentiary hearing, however, something must appear of record to contradict the pleaded and uncontroverted jurisdictional allegation that there was a § 301 contract and to support the district court's determination.
See Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947); Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 71-72, 59 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed. 1111 (1939); KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183 (1936); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 184-190, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U.S. 115, 120, 18 S.Ct. 293, 42 L.Ed. 682 (1898).