Publishers' Assn. of New York City v. Mailers

PETITIONER: Publishers' Assn. of New York City
RESPONDENT: Mailers
LOCATION: Alabama State Capitol

DOCKET NO.: 384
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 376 US 775 (1964)
ARGUED: Mar 23, 1964 / Mar 24, 1964
DECIDED: Apr 06, 1964

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Publishers' Assn. of New York City v. Mailers

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 24, 1964 in Publishers' Assn. of New York City v. Mailers

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 23, 1964 in Publishers' Assn. of New York City v. Mailers

Earl Warren:

Number 384, Publishers' Association of New York City, Petitioner, versus New York Mailers' Union Number Six.

Andrew L. Hughes:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

Earl Warren:

Mr. Hughes.

Andrew L. Hughes:

I'm sorry.

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

This is an appeal from part of an order of the District Court in New York which was reversed by the Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit.

It -- the Second Circuit vacated a stay that had been granted in an action brought under Section 301, to have part of law, to compel arbitration.

Now, that portion of the order compelling arbitration was left undisturbed but in addition to the order compelling arbitration, we had sought a further order from the District Court staying the Union here from taking action which we believed was inconsistent with the issue to be arbitrated and which we felt that if this action had been taken by the Union, we would have been deprived to -- before our hearing, before the arbitrator of the merits of our contention.

The Circuit Court of Appeals vacated that stay which we received because it felt that the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Section 7, applied to it and that the procedural provisions of Section 7 had not been followed and indeed, they noted and we agree, could not have been followed in the case.

Now, to go back to the -- the issue that we had, it involved the disciplining of foremen who are employed by the Publishers.

We have a -- a common contract here to which all the New York City Publishers are signatory with this particular Union, in New York Mailer's Union Number Six.

That Union is an affiliate of the International Typographical Union.

And historically, in the relationships with this Union and with other unions, the Publisher's foremen are required to be members of the Union.

And that isn't all bad.

It has some -- some bad aspects to it from our point of view but it also has some good aspects and we're not here complaining about that contractual requirement.

We accept it, indeed, we must.

We wish to get out from it the -- it's -- we should negotiate out of it.

That's not our issue here.

But we also negotiated another clause --

Arthur J. Goldberg:

(Inaudible) -- excuse me.

Andrew L. Hughes:

Yes, sir.

Arthur J. Goldberg:

(Inaudible)

Andrew L. Hughes:

Well, we -- we have at least been free to arbitrate since the date of the decision of the Court of Appeals and that is this May 28th.

Now --

Arthur J. Goldberg:

(Inaudible)

Andrew L. Hughes:

No, the case has not -- the case has not been arbitrated.

Yes, Mr. Justice Goldberg, the -- we are interested in this case not only in the issue that's going to be arbitrated namely whether or not the Union has the right in light of the contract provisions that we have to discipline a foreman and what constitutes discipline.

All those issues are -- are fully arbitrated.

We are also interested in -- in the remedy.

We're also interested in being able to have some means of protecting our position, assuming that we are right and that an arbitrator will agree with us.