Leo Greenstein and Harvey Good, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. National Skirt & Sportswear Association, Inc., International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Joint Board of Cloak, Suit, Skirt & Reefer Makers' Union and Skirt Makers' Union, Local 23, I.L.G.W.U., Defendants-Appellees., 274 F.2d 430 (2nd Cir. 1960)

Federal Circuits, 2nd Cir. (January 28, 1960)

Docket number: 26042


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/greenstein-skirt-cloak-36676927
Id. vLex: VLEX-36676927

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - the Armstrong-Norwalk Rubber Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Local Union No. 283, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, A.F.L.C.I.O., Defendant-Appellee., 269 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1959)

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Boston and Maine Corporation, Appellee, v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellant., 396 F.2d 425 (2nd Cir. 1968)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Greater Continental Corporation, Appellant, v. Marvin Schechter, Appellee, and Hugo Spatenga, Sea-Land Dredging Corp., Goldfeld, Charak, Brown, Tolins & Lowenfels, National Bank of North America, Fort Neck Landing Development Corp. and David Hawkins, Defendants., 422 F.2d 1100 (2nd Cir. 1970)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Jou-Jou Designs, Inc.; Coco Boutique Inc.; Topaz Boutique, Inc.; and Topaz Boutique of Lexington Avenue, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio; Sportswear Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio; Local 23-25, International Ladies Garment Workers Union; Local 155, International Ladies Garment Workers Union; and General Trades Employees Union, Local 5A, Afl-Cio, Defendants-Appellees., 643 F.2d 905 (2nd Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Diematic Manufacturing Corp., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Packaging Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 516 F.2d 975 (2nd Cir. 1975)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - James A. Buffler and Electronic Computer Institute of Knoxville, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Electronic Computer Programming Institute, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 466 F.2d 694 (6th Cir. 1972)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - American Safety Equipment Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. P. Maguire & Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. American Safety Equipment Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hickok Manufacturing Co., Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 391 F.2d 821 (2nd Cir. 1968)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - R.M. Perlman, Inc., Doing Business as Rebecca Moses Collection, and Rebecca Moses, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1, I.L.G.W.U., Afl-Cio; Samuel Byer, as General Manager of N.Y. Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1, I.L.G.W.U.; International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and Jay Mazur, as President of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Defendants-Appellees., 33 F.3d 145 (2nd Cir. 1994)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A. C. Allyn and Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc., Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., the Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke & Co., Defendants-Appellees. Helene Glenmore Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John I. Ahern Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 276 F.2d 525 (2nd Cir. 1960)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Stateside Machinery Company, Ltd., a Corporation Organized Under the Laws of Great Britain, Petitioner, v. Joel M. Alperin, Respondent, v. Michael H. Sheridan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Nominal Respondent. Stateside Machinery Company, Ltd., a Corporation Organized Under the Laws of Great Britain, Appellant, v. Joel M. Alperin., 526 F.2d 480 (3rd Cir. 1975) Ltd., a Corporation Organized Under the Laws of Great Britain, Petitioner, v. Joel M. Alperin, Respondent, v. Michael H. Sheridan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Nominal Respondent. Stateside Machinery Company, Ltd., a Corporation Organized Under the Laws of Great Britain, Appellant, v. Joel M. Alperin.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Joseph Carroll, Charles Peterson and Charles Turecamo, as Treasurer, Orchestra Leaders of Greater New York, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, Herman D. Kenin, as President of Said Federation, Stanley Ballard, as Secretary of Said Federation, and George v. Clancy, as Treasurer of Said Federation, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, and Al Manuti, as President of Local 802, Max L. Arons, as Secretary of Local 802 and Hi Jaffe, as Treasurer of Local 802, Defendants-Appellees., 372 F.2d 155 (2nd Cir. 1967) Charles Peterson and Charles Turecamo, as Treasurer, Orchestra Leaders of Greater New York, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, Herman D. Kenin, as President of Said Federation, Stanley Ballard, as Secretary of Said Federation, and George v. Clancy, as Treasurer of Said Federation, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, and Al Manuti, as President of Local 802, Max L. Arons, as Secretary of Local 802 and Hi Jaffe, as Treasurer of Local 802, Defendants-Appellees.

Text:

Ruben Schwartz and Albert Lyons, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Morris P. Glushien, New York City (Max Zimny and Peter J. Schlesinger, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.

Abraham Schlesinger, New York City, for defendant-appellee Skirt Makers' Union, Local 23, I.L.G.W.U.

Before CLARK, HINCKS, and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants' motion to dismiss this appeal raises the question whether Judge Weinfeld's refusal to stay arbitration was a mere calendar order, as held in Armstrong-Norwalk Rubber Corp. v. Local Union No. 283, 2 Cir., 269 F.2d 618, and cases there cited, or had some more extensive significance, as perhaps the refusal of the judge to enjoin himself from proceeding in an action "at law." Here the plaintiffs and the defendant local union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which, together with predecessor agreements, had been in successful operation in this ladies' garment industry for more than twenty-five years. The history and present status of the agreement are carefully delineated in Judge Weinfeld's very complete opinion in making the decision which is under appeal, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 178 F.Supp. 681; and see also Palmieri, J., in Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 176 F.Supp. 176. In September 1959 the Union made charges that plaintiffs had violated the agreement in certain specified ways; and in accordance with the recognized arbitration procedure, the Impartial Chairman or Arbitrator on October 2, 1959, duly notified the parties that he would hold a hearing on the complaint on October 26, 1959 ? a Monday. Shortly before the hearing the defendants were served with summons in the action below, together with an order, dated Saturday, October 24, and returnable October 27, 1959, to show cause why an interlocutory injunction should not issue. Judge Weinfeld's denial of this application after hearing, and again on motion for reargument, led to this appeal.

Both in form and in substance, the action below, as well as the instant application, vigorously seeks equitable action to stay the arbitration proceeding then directly impending and just about to be heard. The thrust of these last minute activities by plaintiffs is clearly equitable in character, not disguised by the formal and unusual claim in the complaint that this collective bargaining agreement violates the antitrust laws, or the Taft-Hartley (Labor-Management) Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq. Hence we think the Armstrong-Norwalk principle governs, and the order refusing to stop the arbitration is not appealable. The motion for a stay pending appeal therefore becomes moot.

Appeal dismissed; stay denied.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access






© Copyright 2009, vLex. All Rights Reserved. - Terms of Use - About us - Contact us - Tags - Sources - Topics

Login | Help Center | language:

  Home   / United States   /

Case Law