Opinion ID: 269315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: is the temporary injunction too broad?

Text: 17 Appellants contend that paragraph c of the temporary injunction of June 24, 1965, even as altered by the nunc pro tunc order of June 25, is excessively broad in that it enjoins arbitration of parts of the collective bargaining agreement beyond those alleged to violate Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although paragraph c was framed by the Regional Director, he contends that he should not be estopped from asserting its invalidity because he was instructed to insert it by the district court, pursuant to the request of the charging parties. An examination of the temporary injunction establishes to our satisfaction that this attack on the scope of paragraph c is without merit. 18 First, the January 8, 1965, petition by the Regional Director prayed for an injunction against (a) Maintaining, giving effect to, demanding arbitration of, submitting to arbitration, or enforcing Article I, Sections A, B and F(1) and (2), of that certain Retail Food, Bakery, Candy, and General Merchandise Agreement entered into on or about April 1, 1964,    insofar as those provisions required persons doing business with the employers to become members of the Clerks Union or to bind themselves under the April 1 agreement. Paragraph c of the June 24 injunction, as altered by the order nunc pro tunc, enjoins (c) Engaging in or carrying on arbitration proceedings, now scheduled on or about July 5, 1965, or at any other time submitting to arbitration or arbitrating any issue or dispute arising out of the provisions of Article I of an Agreement dated March 14, 1964, between the Clerks and Employers and others, which are in dispute in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board.    A comparison of paragraph a of the Regional Director's prayer and paragraph c of the injunction as granted reveals that the contract provisions referred to in both are the same. The petition of the Regional Director alleged that arbitration or attempts to arbitrate the very sections of the collective bargaining agreement referred to in paragraph c constituted further Section 8(e) violations. The record contains ample evidence and citation of authority to substantiate the claim of the Regional Director, and supports the finding by the district court that the Regional Director had reasonable cause to believe, as required by Section 10( l ), that arbitration of the challenged portions of Article I of the collective bargaining agreement referred to in both paragraphs a and c constituted further Section 8(e) violations. 19 Second, the petition of the Regional Director included as part of Exhibit H a letter of November 10, 1964, from Joseph T. DeSilva, Secretary-Treasurer of Clerks Union Local 770, to Robert K. Fox, President of the Food Employers Council, setting forth the grounds of dispute between the parties arising from the challenged portions of Article I of the collective bargaining agreement. The Regional Director used this letter as part of his proof that the grounds of dispute to be arbitrated were such that their arbitration or any attempt to arbitrate them constituted further Section 8(e) violations. Paragraph c of the temporary injunction specifically enjoins the arbitration of the seven points designated to be in dispute in a letter dated March 19, 1965, from the Retail Clerks Union 770 to the President of Food Employers' Counsel (sic). During the hearing on the motion for temporary injunction on June 14, 1965, the charging parties invited Judge Hall to compare the grounds of dispute set forth in the letters from Local 770 of November 10, 1964, and March 19, 1965. A comparison of the two letters supports the implied finding of the district court, embodied in paragraph c of its injunction, that the issues which the Clerks Union and the employers planned to arbitrate on July 5, 1965, were substantially the same as those issues which the parties had earlier sought to arbitrate, and the arbitration of which the Regional Director had alleged in his petition would constitute further Section 8 (e) violations. 20 Third, the nunc pro tunc order which is attacked by some of the appellants had the effect of increasing the scope of permissible arbitration of the remaining portions of the agreement and not of limiting them. The order made more specific which matters could be arbitrated by enjoining arbitration of only those provisions of Article I of the contract which were in dispute in proceedings before the NLRB, and permitting arbitration of the remainder of Article I. The effect of the order nunc pro tunc was thus to leave a wider scope of nonoffending issues open for arbitration. 21 Since both the contract provisions and the grounds of dispute in regard to which arbitration was enjoined in paragraph c were substantially the same as those which the petition of the Regional Director sought to have enjoined, and since we have already concluded that there was sufficient cause to support the grant of a temporary injunction in this case, we conclude that the injunction as granted was not unduly broad in its proscriptions. 22 The action of the court in granting the injunction is affirmed.