Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
March 3, 1970
Nos. 250-69, 471-69, 472-69
[*138] BREITENSTEIN, C. J.:
Plaintiff-appellant, Johnson Builders, Inc., filed three separate actions in Kansas state court, one against United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No. 1095, AFL-CIO (Carpenters), the second against Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America, Local 14, AFL-CIO (Bricklayers), and the third against Construction & General Laborers, Local Union No. 685, AFL-CIO (Laborers). Each asserted violations of a collective bargaining agreement and sought injunctive relief, damages, and specific performance. Each was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on the ground that it had jurisdiction under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Motions to remand were denied. After trial to the court, judgments were entered in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff appeals.
A procedural matter should first be mentioned. In the district court there were three separate and distinct actions. They were heard as one without any [**2] order of consolidation. The appeals have been presented on a joint record and joint briefs. The practice has become all too common. See e.g. In re Cummings, 10 Cir., 413 F.2d 1281, and Lonnquist v. J.C. Penney Company, 10 Cir., 421 F.2d 597. We suggest that in the interest of orderly procedure consolidation should precede joint consideration of the cases on the merits. Otherwise, we may be confounded with issues which are superficially similar but are asserted to be basically distinguishable. In the cases before us, no significant differences appear and all parties have acquiesced in the procedure followed. We will accept the pattern but in so doing we note our disapproval. If a district court is to try and to decide separate and distinct actions as one, an appropriate order of consolidation should be made.
Johnson Builders (the Company) was the prime contractor on two construction projects in Salina, Kansas, one the City-County Building and the other the Pepsi-Cola warehouse. As a member of the Salina Builders Association the Company was a party to collective bargaining contracts between the Association and the three Unions involved here. The [**3] contracts provided that there would be neither work stoppages nor lockouts and that disputes would be handled [*139] through grievance procedures culminating in binding arbitration. 1
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
422 F.2d 137 *; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10498 **; 73 L.R.R.M. 2664; 62 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,712
Johnson Builders, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local Union No. 1095, AFL-CIO et al., Defendants-Appellees
Disposition: [**1] Affirmed
arbitration, work stoppage, state court, contracts, federal court, repudiation, bargaining, injunction, no-strike
Business & Corporate Compliance, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Arbitrability, Contracts Law, Remedies, Specific Performance, Civil Procedure, General Overview, Pretrial Matters, Mandatory ADR, Labor & Employment Law, Collective Bargaining & Labor Relations, Labor Arbitration, Arbitration Awards, Enforcement, International Trade Law, Dispute Resolution, International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration, Removal, Specific Cases Removed, Constitutional Law, The Judiciary, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Preliminary Considerations, Elements for Removal, Removability, Postremoval Remands, Jurisdictional Defects, Pleading & Practice, Joinder of Claims & Remedies, Strikes & Work Stoppages