Opinion ID: 383544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appeal of the International

Text: 15 The International, a party to the collective bargaining agreement, does not object to being named as a party in a section 301 suit seeking an order directing that the parties pursue a contractual arbitration remedy. It enthusiastically supports the Employer's insistence that the work assignment and discharge grievances should be arbitrated. It objects strenuously, however, to the issuance of any injunctive relief directed to it with respect to what it concedes to be an illegal strike. The record establishes, the International urges, that it did not instigate, support, ratify, or encourage this wildcat strike by the Local, but, rather that it actively opposed the strike and urged the Local members to return to work and arbitrate their grievances. Thus, the International urges, there was no basis in the record for ordering any affirmative injunctive relief against it with respect to the strike. The Employer contends that Mr. Welsh supported, ratified, and encouraged the strike. The only indication of support, ratification, and encouragement to which the Employer points is the evidence that at the meeting on the afternoon of August 17, Welsh advised the Employer that the members of the Local had made it clear that they would not arbitrate the work assignment and discharge issues. This is not evidence of Welsh's support, ratification, or encouragement and there is ample evidence that at all times Welsh, on behalf of the International, opposed the strike. The district court made no finding of support, ratification, or encouragement. The Employer argues that despite the absence of a finding, the evidence in the record establishes ratification. We find no such evidence. 16 It is clear, therefore, that the district court did not direct injunctive relief against the International because of any instigation, support, ratification, or encouragement on its part. Rather, the court believed that as a matter of law the International, despite its opposition to the strike, could be ordered to take steps to end it. The International contends that this was legal error. 17 This is not a case in which the plaintiff seeks to impose upon the International liability for money damages for the acts of members of the Local in violation of the contract. Thus it does not present the issues discussed by this court in Republic Steel Corp. v. UMW, 570 F.2d 467 (3d Cir. 1978), and by the Supreme Court in Carbon Fuel Co. v. UMW, 444 U.S. 212, 100 S.Ct. 410, 62 L.Ed.2d 394 (1979). In Republic Steel we suggested that an International Union could be liable for damages resulting from the illegal activities of its members on the theory that there was an obligation, implied from the contract terms or as a matter of law, to take reasonable affirmative efforts to halt the illegal activities. Republic Steel Corp. v. UMW, 570 F.2d at 470; see Eazor Express, Inc. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 520 F.2d 951, 959-60 (3d Cir. 1975) (International's liability for damages), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 1149, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). In Carbon Fuel the Supreme Court overruled Republic Steel, holding that neither the National Bituminous Coal contract nor the Labor Management Relations Act provided authority for imposing on an International liability in damages for the illegal actions of its members which it did not instigate, support, ratify, or encourage. Carbon Fuel Co. v. UMW, 444 U.S. at 214 & n.4, 218, 100 S.Ct. at 412 & n.4, 414. 18 There was no occasion in Republic Steel or Carbon Fuel, however, for either court to consider the narrower question presented here. That question is whether, when an International is a party to a collective bargaining agreement containing a no strike clause which a Local Union has breached by striking, but which the International has not breached, the district court nevertheless may direct the International to take affirmative steps to end the strike. The clear negative inference from Carbon Fuel is that if an International Union instigates, supports, ratifies, or encourages such an illegal strike it can be held liable for damages. Injunctive relief is an a fortiori case. But where, as here, the International Union not only does not ratify the strike, but actively opposes it, a damage remedy against the International is foreclosed. In this situation, however, Carbon Fuel does not answer definitively the injunctive relief question. 19 We start with the premise that the underlying disputes are arbitrable, and thus that a Boys Markets injunction is permissible, despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235, 249-53, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1591-1593, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970). A Boys Markets injunction, like a section 301 damage remedy, is a remedy for breach of contract; it is a form of specific performance. Symmetry might suggest that if the International has not committed a breach of contract, and thus cannot be held liable in damages, it also may not be sued for specific performance. But the law of prospective contract remedies is not so sterile as to require that result. When a court has a case before it justifying an injunction to prevent a breach of contract by a party to that contract, there must be authority to issue injunctive relief even against third parties where such relief is necessary, or perhaps merely helpful, in effectuating the relief against the contracting party in default. Commercial Security Bank v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 456 F.2d 1352, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1972); see, e. g., United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174, 98 S.Ct. 364, 373, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) (power conferred by § 1651 extends to non-parties in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order); Bullock v. United States, 265 F.2d 683, 690-91 (6th Cir. 1959) (court has power under § 1651 to enjoin non-parties to prevent interference with valid court order); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1976) (court may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their . . . jurisdiction). Thus, for example, the district court, as an initial proposition, has the authority to enjoin the International in order to bring into play internal disciplinary mechanisms if such procedures will be helpful in bringing about an end to the defaulting behavior. The basis for such relief against a third party is not culpability, but practical necessity. Nothing in Carbon Fuel suggests that the Court intended to prevent district courts from making such specific orders against non-culpable third parties as may be necessary or helpful in making a Boys Markets injunction effective. But while we assume that the International's lack of culpability is not a bar to injunctive relief against it in all cases, we cannot in this case affirm the grant of such relief, for on the present record there is no evidence, and the trial court made no findings, suggesting that an order directing the International to take steps to end the strike was either necessary or helpful. 20 We note, first, that prior to August 1979 the Employer and the Local had enjoyed ten years of peaceful resolution of grievances under the contract mechanisms. There is no suggestion that the Local had a history of defiance of the terms of contracts negotiated on its behalf by the International, and thus no apparent need for the district court to insist upon the assistance of the International's imposition of internal union disciplinary procedures. There is, moreover, no evidence from which one might conclude that a preliminary injunction directed only against the Local and its officers and members would be disobeyed. It is true that a temporary restraining order was not instantly effective, but even that defiance ended in two days. The International at all times counseled and demanded obedience to that order. There is no evidence suggesting that different or firmer steps by the International would have been any more effective. 21 The International points out, moreover, that routinely subjecting it to an injunction in Boys Markets cases may actually be counterproductive. It points out that no defendant, not even a non-culpable third party defendant, is likely to subject itself willingly to an injunction and the potential risk of civil and criminal contempt for its future action or inaction. Thus in most instances any attempt to obtain an injunction against an International Union will be resisted, even when the International Union strongly opposes the local's strike action. This, in the eyes of the striking members may tend to align the International Union with them, and thereby weaken its ability to persuade them to discontinue their strike. 22 Moreover, the only form of injunctive order directed to a parent union that is likely to add to the sanctioning authority of the district court order is one requiring resort to internal union disciplinary proceedings, either against the local or against individual striking members. Inevitably such an order will be an intrusion of the court into the internal affairs of the union, which will result in the substitution of the court's judgment as to when such disciplinary proceedings are appropriate for that of the International Union's elected officials. Such an intrusion should not be precluded, but certainly should only be permitted to happen infrequently rather than routinely. 23 We deal here with a non-culpable parent union, one which has neither instigated, supported, ratified, or encouraged a strike by its member local which is in breach of a collective bargaining agreement. There may be circumstances in which the district court should direct such a parent union to take affirmative steps in aid of a valid Boys Markets injunction. But we do not think any such order should be entered absent findings by the district court: (1) that its own order directed to the local union and its members will not be fully effective; (2) that the steps already taken by the International are not likely to be effective; and (3) that specific additional steps, carefully specified in the order, will add significantly to the deterrent effect of the injunction against the local and its members. Even when the court has made these findings it should still consider whether, in view of the inevitable intrusion upon the internal affairs of the union, the marginal potential increase in the effectiveness of its Boys Markets injunction is justified. Here the trial court did not, and could not, on the record before it make such findings. 2 Therefore the injunction against the International and Welsh, its representative, must be reversed.