Boys Markets v. Clerks Union

5 Citing briefs

  1. Brady et al v. National Football League et al

    REPLY re Memorandum in Support of Motion

    Filed March 28, 2011

    See Camping Const. Co. v. Dist. Council of Iron Workers, 915 F.2d 1333, 1343 (9th Cir. 1990) (“federal courts do have jurisdiction to issue injunctions in some labor disputes, even in some of the circumstances covered by section 4’s outright ban.”); Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235, 250-54 (1970). In any event, as mentioned above, Section 4(a) is not applicable to a lockout and injunctions are permitted under Section 1 where Dataphase is satisfied.

  2. International Union, United Mine Workers of America et al v. Consol Energy, Inc. et al

    REPLY

    Filed November 21, 2017

    But it is well-established that the Boys Markets exception to the NLGA is an exception to these statutory requirements. CONSOL also overstates the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Dist. 17, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Apogee Coal 2 Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235 (1970). Case 1:16-cv-12506 Document 69 Filed 11/21/17 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 2030 6 Co., 13 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1993). In that case, the court did not determine whether the Boys Markets exception to the NLGA applied because, as the court noted in that case, “the Union does not argue that the Lever Brothers exception actually applies.

  3. Ungava Technologies Inc. v. Innerspec Technologies Inc.

    Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re Brief / Memorandum in Opposition to Innerspec's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

    Filed February 28, 2017

    To the contrary, the Supreme Court has held consistently, for decades, that the “question of arbitrability” – whether a contract requires the parties to arbitrate a particular grievance – is generally an issue for judicial determination. See AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 656 (1986); Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 491 (1972); Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238, 241 (1962), overruled in part on other grounds, Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U.S. 235 (1970); Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83 (1960). The limited exception to this rule cited by Innerspec – i.e., that an arbitrator may decide whether a procedural condition precedent to arbitration has been satisfied – is inapplicable here.

  4. Teamsters Local 639 v. Airgas, Inc.

    MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order

    Filed February 28, 2017

    Id. The parties have received a panel of arbitrators issued by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Id. ARGUMENT In Boys Markets Inc, v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970), the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s prohibition of injunctions in labor disputes in a class of cases where injunctions are sought to preserve the status quo in labor disputes in aid of their resolution through arbitration. The Fourth Circuit addressed this exception in Lever Brothers Co. v. Int’l Chemical Workers Union, Local 217, 554 F.2d 115 (1976), where it affirmed a district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction prohibiting an employer’s transfer of a facility from Maryland to Indiana, initially holding that: a plaintiff, without regard to whether he is the employer or the union, seeking to maintain the status quo pending arbitration pursuant to the principles of Boys Markets need only establish that the position he will espouse in arbitration is sufficiently sound to prevent the arbitration from being a futile endeavor.

  5. Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas, Inc. et al v. National Labor Relations Board

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed March 20, 2015

    Contrary to the Board’s Motion/Opposition, the new Rule utterly fails to harmonize the Board’s new pre-election requirements with the strong privacy interests evident in other federal laws. See Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 251 (1970) and other cases and comments cited in Plaintiffs’ Motion, at 18-19. The unnecessary and intrusive disclosure requirements of the new Rule should certainly be set aside.