Labor Law - Removal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts - Action to Enjoin Secondary Boycott

Authors

George B. Berridge S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiff, a Michigan trucking company subject to the LMRA, brought suit in a Michigan court against defendant, a local of the Teamsters Union, for an injunction and $50,000 damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's conduct in attempting to coerce plaintiff's employees to become members of the Teamsters Union was an illegal combination and conspiracy under Michigan law and a violation of the Michigan antitrust laws. Defendant removed the case to a federal district court on the theory that certain specific acts alleged by plaintiff would constitute an unlawful secondary boycott under the LMRA and that plaintiff had therefore stated a cause of action under section 303 of that act. After the court had denied a motion to remand, plaintiff struck out its request for damages and again moved to remand. This motion was also denied, whereupon plaintiff petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to remand the action. Held, mandamus denied. The district court had original jurisdiction of plaintiff's claim, even apart from the request for damages, since the LMRA was "directly involved." Direct Transit Lines, Inc. v. Local 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,. Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A F. L., (6th Cir. 1952) 199 F. (2d) 89.

Recommended Citation

George B. Berridge S.Ed., Labor Law - Removal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts - Action to Enjoin Secondary Boycott, 52 Mich. L. Rev. 157 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol52/iss1/16